CHAPTER 3. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CO NTENTS

3.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 EQUIPMENT CLASSES AN ALYZED

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

3.3 EFFICIENCY LEVELS

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

3.3.1 Baseline Units ............................................................................................................ 3-2

3.3.2 Identification of Efficiency Levels for Analysis ........................................................ 3-3

3.4 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW .................................................................................... 3-5

3.4.1 Physical Teardown Analysis .................................................................................... 3-7

3.4.2 Catalog Teardown Analysis ..................................................................................... 3-7

3.4.3 Selection of Units ..................................................................................................... 3-7

3.4.4 Generation of Bill of Materials and Cost Model ...................................................... 3-7

3.4.5 Manufacturer Markup ............................................................................................... 3-9

3.4.6 Shipping Costs for Small Three- Phase Commercial Air -Cooled Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps ................................................................................ 3-10

3.4.7 Shipping Costs for Wat er

- Source Heat Pumps ...................................................... 3-12

3.5 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS RESULTS ..................................................................... 3-12

3.5.1 Unit Operating Weight for Small Three

- Phase Commercial Air -Cooled Air Conditioners and Heat Pump Results ..................................................................... 3-12

3.5.2 Cost- Efficiency Results for Small Three

- Phase Commercial Air Conditioners and Heat Pump Results ........................................................................................... 3-13

3.5.3 Unit Operating Weight for Water -Source Heat Pumps .......................................... 3-15

3.5.4 Cost- Efficiency Results for Water -Source Heat Pumps ......................................... 3-15

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.2.1 Equipment Classes and ASHRAE 90.1-2013 Efficiency Levels for Small

Three

- Phase Commercial Air -Cooled Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h ...................................................................................................... 3-2
Table 3.3.1 Baseline Efficiency Levels for Small Three

- Phase Commercial Air

Cooled Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h ................................... 3-3
Table 3.3.2 Baseline EER Efficiency Levels for Water -Source Heat Pumps ......................... 3-3
Table 3.3.3 Efficiency Levels for Small Three

- Ph ase Commercial Air -Cooled Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h...................................................... 3-4
Table 3.3.4 Efficiency Levels for Engineering Analysis of Water -Source Heat Pumps ........ 3-5
Table 3.4.1 Major Manufacturing Processes

.......................................................................... 3-8
Table 3.4.2 Manufacturer Shipping Costs for Three-Ton Split- System Three

- Phase

Commercial Air -Cooled Air Conditioners......................................................... 3-11
Table 3.4.3 Manufacturer Shipping Costs for Three-Ton Single- Package Three

- Phase

Commercial Air -Cooled Air Conditioners......................................................... 3-11

3-iTable 3.4.4 Manufacturer Shipping Costs for Three-Ton Split- System Three

- Phase

Commercial Air -Cooled Heat Pumps ................................................................ 3-11
Table 3.4.5 Manufacturer Shipping Costs for Three- To n Single- Package Three

- Phase

Commercial Air -Cooled Heat Pumps ................................................................ 3-12
Table 3.4.6 Manufacturer Shipping Costs for Water-Source Heat Pumps ........................... 3-12
Table 3.5.1 Weight

- Efficiency Data for Three -Ton Three- Phase Commercial Air

Cooled Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps ......................................................... 3-13
Table 3.5.2 Manufacturer Production Costs for Three-Ton Split- System Three

- Phase

Commercial Air -Cooled Air Conditioners......................................................... 3-14
Table 3.5.3 Manufacturer Production Costs for Three-Ton Single-Package ThreePhase Commercial Air -Cooled Air Conditioners .............................................. 3-14
Table 3.5.4 Manufacturer Production Cos ts for Three -Ton Split- System Three

- Phase

Commercial Air -Cooled Heat Pumps ................................................................ 3-14
Table 3.5.5 Manufacturer Production Costs for Three-Ton Single- Package Three

Phase Commercial Air -Cooled Heat Pumps ...................................................... 3-15
Table 3.5.6 Weight

- Efficiency Data for Water -Source Heat Pumps .................................... 3-15
Table 3.5.7 Manufacturer Production Cost- Efficiency Data for Water

- Source Heat Pumps ................................................................................................................. 3-16

LIST OF FIGURE S

Figure 3.4.1 Manufacturing Cost Assessment Stages ................................................................. 3-8

3- iiCHAPTER 3. ENGINEERIN G ANALYSIS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The engineering analysis establishes the relationship between the cost and efficiency of a piece of equipment DOE is evaluating for potential amended energy conservation standards. This relationship serves as the basis for cost- bene fit calculations for individual consumers and the Nation. The engineering analysis identifies representative baseline equipment, which is the starting point for analyzing possible energy efficiency improvements. For covered ASHRAE equipment, DOE sets the b aseline at the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency level, because by statute, DOE cannot adopt any level below the revised ASHRAE level. The engineering analysis then identifies higher efficiency levels and the incremental increase in product cost associated

w ith achieving higher efficiency levels. After identifying the baseline models and cost of achieving increased efficiency, DOE estimates the additional costs to the customer through an analysis of contractor costs and markups, and uses that information in t he downstream analyses

to examine the costs and benefits associated with increased equipment efficiency. The downstream analys es include: th e building energy-use and end

- use load characterization ( chapter 4), life -cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) (c hapter 6), shipment analysis (chapter 7), national impact analysis (chapter 8), emissions analysis (chapter 9), and utility impact analysis (chapter 11).

3.2 E QUIPMENT CLASSES ANALYZED

ASHRAE 90.1

- 2013 separates three

- phase commercial air -cooled single- package and split -system air conditioners and heat pumps with a capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h into four equipment classes. Table 3.2.1 summarizes the four equipment classes and the efficiency levels required by ASHRAE 90.1-2013. All four equipment classes are currently at the DOE standard

level of 13.0 SEER.

3-1Table 3.2.1 Equipment Classes and ASHRAE 90.1 -2013 Efficiency Levels for Small

Three

- Phase Commercial Air -Cooled Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h

Equipment

Class Equipment Type Cooling Capacity Sub

Category Heating Type Minimum Efficiency

1 Single

- Package Three

- Phase

Commercial Air

- Cooled Air

Conditioning and Heating Equipment (Air

- Cooled) < 65,000 Btu/h AC All 13.0 SEER (before 1/1/2015)

14.0 SEER (as of 1/1/2015)

2 HP All 13.0 SEER and 7.7 HSPF (before 1/1/2015)

14.0 SEER and 8.0 HSPF (as of 1/1/2015)

3 Split

- System Three

- Phase

Commercial Air

- Cooled Air

Conditioning and Heating Equipment (Air

- Cooled) < 65,000 Btu/h AC All 13.0 SEER

4 HP All 13.0 SEER and 7.7 HSPF (before 1/1/2015)

14.0 SEER and 8.2 HSPF (as of 1/1/2015)

ASHRAE 90.1

- 2013 also separates water -source heat pumps into three equipment classes based on cooling capacity. These three equipment classes are unchanged from those defined in EPCA: (1) <17,000 Btu/h; (2) ≥17,000 and <65,000 Btu/h; and (3) ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h.

3.3 EFFICIENCY LEVELS

3.3.1 Baseline Units

DOE selected baseline efficiency levels as reference points for each equipment class, against which it measured changes resulting from potential amended energy conservation

standards. DOE defined the ba seline efficiency levels in the engineering analysis, as reference points to compare the technology, energy savings, and cost of equipment with higher energy efficiency levels. Typically, units at the baseline efficiency level just meet Federal energy conservation standards and provide basic consumer utility. However, EPCA requires that DOE must adopt either the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 levels or more-stringent levels. Therefore,

because the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 levels were the lowest levels that DOE could adopt, DOE used those levels as the reference points against which more

- stringent levels were

evaluated. The current baseline and ASHRAE efficiency levels for each equipment class of small

three

- phase commercial air -cooled air conditioners and heat pumps <65,000 Btu/h are presented

below in Table 3.3.1

.

3-2Table 3.3.1 Baseline Efficiency Levels for Small Three

- Phase Commercial Air

- Cooled Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h

DOE assigned the baseline units for water -source heat pumps as those just meeting the current federal standard. However, EPCA requires that DOE must adopt either the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 levels or more stringent levels. Therefore, because the ASHRAE S tandard 90.1-2013 levels were the lowest levels that DOE could adopt, DOE used those levels as the baseline efficiency level for the purpose of assessing economic impacts of raising the standards above these required levels. Table 3.3.2 shows the baseline efficiency level for each water

- source heat pump equipment class.

Table 3.3.2 Baseline EER Efficiency Levels for Water- Source Heat Pumps

Water- Source Heat Pumps <17,000 Btu/h Water

- Source Heat Pumps ≥17,000 and <65,000 Btu/h Water

- Source Heat Pumps ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h Efficiency Level (EER)

Baseline

- Current

Federal Standard 11.2 12.0 12.0

Baseline

-

ASHRAE Level 12.2 13.0 13.0

3.3.2 Identification of Efficiency Levels for Analysis

DOE established intermediate energy efficiency levels for each equipment class. The intermediate efficiency levels are representative of efficiency levels along the technology paths Split

System AC Single

Package AC Split

System HP Single

Package HP

SEER

Baseline

– Federal

Standard 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0

Baseline

–

ASHRAE
Standard 13.0 14.0 14.0 14.0

HSPF

Baseline

– Federal

Standard - - 7.7 7.7

Baseline

–

ASHRAE
Standard - - 8.2 8.0

3-3that manufacturers commonly use to maintain cost effective designs while increasing energy efficiency. DOE reviewed AHRI’s Directory of Certified Product Performance, manufacturer catalogs, and other publicly available literature to determine the most common efficiency levels for each representative equipment class. Then, DOE established intermediate energy efficiency levels for each of the equipment classes that are representative of efficiencies that are typically

available on the market.

For small three

- phase commercial air -cooled air conditioners and heat pumps, DOE analyzed several efficiency levels and obtained incremental cost data for the four equipment

classes. Table 3.3.3 presents the efficiency levels for each equipme nt class. As part of the engineering analysis, DOE considered up to six efficiency levels beyond the baseline for each equipment class. DOE derived the “max- tech” level from the market maximum in the AHRI Certified Directory, as of November 2013. The highe st available efficiency level for split

- system heat pumps was 16.2, compared to 18.05 for single- package heat pumps. DOE believes that split

system heat pumps are capable of reaching the same efficiency level as single

- package units because the technologies to increase efficiency can be employed in both equipment classes. As a result, the analyzed “max

- tech” level for single -package and split-system heat pumps was 18.05.

The “max

- tech” level for single -package air conditioners was 19.15. a DOE rounded the “m ax

tech” levels to integer values of 18 for split-system and single-package heat pumps, and 19 for split -system and single-package air conditioners, respectively. The impact of this rounding is minimal, and it ensures consideration of efficiency levels tha t are whole -number values of

SEER.

Table 3.3.3 Efficiency Levels for Small Three

- Phase Commercial Air

- Cooled Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h

Split

System AC Split

- System HP Single

Package AC Single -Package HP

Efficiency Level SEER SEER HSPF SEER SEER HSPF

Baseline

– Federal Standard 13 13 7.7 13 13 7.7

0

– ASHRAE

90.1 14 14 8.2 14 14 8

1 15 15 8.5 15 15 8.4

2 16 16 8.7 16 16 8.8

3 17 17 9 17 17 8.9

4 18 18 9.2 18 18 9.1

5

- Max Tech 19

- - 19

- - For water -source heat pumps, five efficiency levels were chosen for the <17,000 Btu/h and 17,000-65,0000 Btu/h classes, but only four efficiency levels were chosen for the 65,000- 135,000 Btu/h equipment class due to a small number of units on the market. The chosen levels range from the baseline to the max

- tech level, which repr esents the most efficient unit currently

a http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2014

- 04

- 11/pdf/2014

- 08214.pdf

3-4on the market for each equipment class. Only EER levels for water -loop applications were considered in the analysis. The efficiency levels selected for analysis for each capacity class are

shown below in Table 3.3.4

.

Table 3.3.4 Efficiency Levels for Engineering Analysis of Water

- Source Heat Pumps

Water- Source Heat Pumps <17,000 Btu/h Water

- Source Heat Pumps ≥17,000 and <65,000 Btu/h Water

- Source Heat Pumps ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h
Efficiency Level (EER)

Baseline

- Current

Federal Standard 11.2 12.0 12.0

Baseline

- ASHRAE Level (0) 12.2 13.0 13.0

Efficiency Level 1 13.0 14.6 14.0 Efficiency Level 2 14.0 16.6 15.0 Efficiency Level 3 15.7 18.0 16.0 Efficiency Level 4 16.5 19.2

- Efficiency Level 5

– “Max

- Tech”

– 18.1 21.6 17.2

3.4 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW

DOE typically structures its engineering analysis around one of three methodologies: (1) the design -option approach, which calculates the incremental costs of adding specific design options to a baseline model; (2) the efficiency-level approach, which calc ulates the relative costs of achieving increases in energy efficiency levels without regard to the particular design options used to achieve such increases; and/or (3) the reverse

- engineering or cost -assessment approach, which involves a “bottom-up” manufa cturing cost assessment based on a detailed bill of

materials (BOM) derived from tear -downs of the product being analyzed. DOE also uses a supplementary analysis called catalog teardowns for units that have not been physically torn down. Catalog teardowns combine published manufacturer product literature with physical teardown data to determine the manufacturer production cost (MPC). Section 3.4.2 provides

more detai l about catalog teardowns. For this analysis, DOE used a combination of the efficiency

- level and the cost

- assessment approach. DOE used the efficiency

- level approach to identify incremental improvements in efficiency for each equipment class and the cost

a ssessment approach to develop a cost for each efficiency level.

For small three

- phase commercial air conditioners and heat pumps, the efficiency levels that DOE considered in the engineering analysis were representative of units produced by

manufacturers at the time the engineering analysis was developed. DOE relied on data reported in the AHRI Directory of Certified Product Performance to select representative efficiency

3-5levels.

DOE generated a bill of materials for each representative product that i t disassembled. DOE did this for multiple manufacturers’ products that span a range of efficiency levels for the key equipment classes analyzed in this rulemaking. The BOMs describe the products in detail, providing the costs to manufacture and assemble the product. DOE also conducted catalog teardowns to supplement the information obtained directly from physical teardowns. Subsequently, DOE calculated manufacturer production cost (MPC) for each product, based on the detailed BOM data. DOE developed the cos t- efficiency curves which describe the relationship between calculated cost and efficiency level (based on rated efficiency) of the analyzed products.

DOE developed cost- efficiency curves for small three

- phase commercial air -conditioning and heat pump eq uipment with a representative capacity of three tons . DOE based the costefficiency relationship for small three

- phase commercial central air conditioners and heat pumps on reverse-engineering and catalog teardowns conducted for the 2011 Direct Final rule (DFR) b
for single -phase central air conditioners and heat pumps. Through a nalyzing manufacturing specification sheets, DOE did not find significant differences between single-phase and threephase products, aside from the use of three

- phase compressors in three -phase units. DOE alsofound that manufacturers use model numbers interchangeably between single-phase and threephase products. To supplement the 2011 DFR data (29 physical teardowns and 12 catalog teardowns), DOE completed one physical teardown and seven catalog teardowns.

For water

- source heat pumps, the efficiency levels that DOE considered in the engineering analysis were representative of units currently produced by manufacturers at the time the engineering analysis was developed. DOE relied on data reported in the AHRI Directory of Certified Product Performance to select representative efficiency levels. After identifying representative efficiency levels, a catalog teardown or “virtual teardown” approach was used to estimate product costs at each level, in which published manufacturer catalog data and supplementary component data were used to estimate the major physical differences between

water

- source heat pumps and commercial heating and cooling products with similar components that were pr eviously disassembled. This approach was used instead of physical teardowns due to time constraints on the analysis imposed by EPCA.

DOE generated a cost model for water -source heat pumps based on other previously

disassembled heating and cooling equipm ent

, manufacturer , and component data. This cost model generated manufacturer production costs (MPCs) and product weights for water-source heat pumps at each capacity and efficiency level. These MPCs were used to generate cost

efficiency curves for each equipment class. DOE calculated the manufacturer selling price (MSP) by applying a manufacturer markup to the MSP and adding the estimated shipping costs.

b http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/cacfurn_dfr.pdf

3-63.4.1 Physical Teardown Analysis

As part of the reverse engineering analyses for central air conditioners and heat pumps,

DOE conducted physical teardowns to develop a BOM to evaluate key design features ( e.g. , heat exchangers, compressors, fan and fan motors, control strategies, etc.) an d determine the corresponding MPC of each unit. DOE selected units for physical teardowns based on the methodology described in Section 3.4.3 . Units selected for physical teardowns were disassembled, and each part was characterized according to weight, manufacturing process, dimensions, material, and quantity.

3.4.2 Catalog Teardown Anal ysis

DOE use d the catalog teardown method when physical teardowns could not be completed. Catalog teardowns use published manufacturer literature combined with physical teardown data to estimate the MPC of the catalog unit. DOE gathered the information fro m the catalog teardown analysis to adapt a BOM from a similar unit that was developed using the reverse engineering methodology.

For water

- source heat pumps , DOE used the catalog teardown analysis to identify the design pathways manufacturers typically us e to increase the EER of units within each capacity class. DOE calculated the MPC for products spanning the full range of efficiencies from thebaseline to the maximum technology available at various levels. DOE determined the costeffectiveness of each te chnology by comparing the increase in MPC to the increase in energy efficiency. DOE selected units for catalog teardowns based on the methodology described in

Section 3.4.3

.

3.4.3 Selection of Units

DOE consider ed the following criteria when selecting units for physical and catalog

teardowns:

• T he selected products should span the full range of efficiency levels for each equipment class

under consideration.

• T he selected pro ducts should come from manufacturers with large market shares.

• T he selected products should have non- efficiency

- related features that are the same as, or similar to, features of other equipment in the same class and at the same efficiency level

.

3.4.4 Generation of Bill of Materials and Cost Model

The BOM developed from physical and catalog teardown analysis incorporates all materials, components, and value- added steps a manufacturer takes to make a product. The cost

model uses the BOM to determine the MPC of a product by calculating the costs of raw materials, purchased parts, and labor required to fabricate and assemble the product. Every part that makes up a product is cataloged and every value- added step to make and assemble it in the

3-7manufacturing facility i s captured. Table 3.4.1 describes some of these manufacturing processes. The cost model also calculates the required equipment, space needs, and other overhead costs such as insurance to run and maintain a factory. Thus, the cost model recreates the factory electronically.

Table 3.4.1 Major Manufacturing Processes

Fabrication Finishing Assembly/Joining Quality Control Fixturing Washing Adhesive Bonding Inspecting & Testing Stamping/Pressing Powder Coating Spot Welding Turret Punching De

- burring Seam Welding Brake Forming Polishing Brazing

Cut ting and Shearing Tube Forming

To help inform the cost model inputs, DOE collected information on labor rates, tooling costs, raw material prices, and other factors. For purchased parts, the cost model estimates the purchase price based on volume-variable price quotations and detailed discussions with

manufacturers and component suppliers. For fabricated parts, the prices of raw metal materials (e.g., tube, sheet metal) are based on 5- year averages. The cost of transforming the intermediate materials into finished parts is estimated based on current industry pricing. The cost model outputs the MPCs and operating weights, which were used for generating cost- efficiency curves and downstream economic analysis. Figure 3.4.1 shows the three major steps in generating manufacturing cost.

Figure 3.4.1 Ma nufacturing Cost Assessment Stages

For water

- source heat pumps, commercial heating and cooling equipment which operate

similar to water

- source heat pumps were previously physically torn down, and a bill of materials (BOM) was derived from multiple sources. This BOM was adapted for water -source heat pumps by combining features from indoor air handlers used in heat pump applications and condenser systems that use a water coil as a heat exchanger. Features such as multiple compressors, multiple sealed systems, etc. were also accounted for in the BOM by configuring a flexible piping, sensor, and control sub- system.

Besides scaling indo or heat exchangers as a function of published manufacturer data, the model for water-source heat pumps also allows for the substitution of various capacity and

3-8efficiency -related components (compressors, motors, thermal expansion valves, etc.), scaling of pipe sizes as a function of sealed system capacity, as well as scaling the sheet metal to match published specifications from manufacturers. The flexibility of the model in turn allows a wide range of capacities to be examined as relevant inputs can be mod ified easily. DOE subsequently conducted a ‘‘virtual” or catalog teardown analysis, using published manufacturer catalogs and supplementary component data to estimate the MPCs of water -source heat pumps.

For supplementary virtual teardowns, DOE gathered product data such as dimensions, weight, and design features from publicly- available information, such as manufacturer catalogs. DOE obtained information and data not typically found in catalogs and brochures, such as fan motor details, heat exchanger specifications, or assembly details, from the physical teardowns of a similar product and/or through estimates based on industry knowledge. The teardown analysis for this engineering analysis included over 60 different water- source heat pumps from multiple

ma nufacturers. The cost model used the BOM and the inputs to calculate multiple cost- efficiency curves that detailed the cost of increasing energy efficiency across multiple equipment capacities.

3.4.5 Manufacturer Markup

DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the full MPC to account for corporate non-production costs and profit. The resulting manufacturer selling price (MSP) is the price at which the manufacturer can recover all production and nonproduction costs and earn a profit. To meet new or amended energy conservation standards, manufacturers often introduce design changes to their product lines that result in increased manufacturer production costs. Depending on the competitive environment for these particular products, som e or all of the increased production costs may be passed from manufacturers to retailers and eventually to customers in the form of higher purchase prices. As production costs increase, manufacturers typically incur additional overhead. The MSP should be high enough to recover the full cost of the product ( i.e. , full production and non-production costs), and yield a profit. The manufacturer markup has an important bearing on profitability. A high markup under a standards scenario suggests manufacturers can pass through the increased variable costs and some of the capital and product conversion costs (the one-time expenditures). A low markup suggests that manufacturers will not be able to recover as much of the necessary investment in plant and equipment.

The manufacturer markup is based on the 2011 Direct Final Rule (DFR) c for sing le

- phase central air conditioners and heat pumps. In the 2011 DFR analysis, DOE used U.S. Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports from publicly owned residential cooling and heating product companies to estimate manufacturer markups. The SEC form 10-K, filed by companies annually, provides a comprehensive overview of the company’s business and financial

conditions. The 10- K report includes the company’s revenues along w ith the direct and indirect

costs. The income statement section of the 10- K often lists the figures necessary for calculating the manufacturer markup

– net sales, cost of sales, and gross profit. DOE first calculated a five

c http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/cacfurn_dfr.pdf

3-9year average markup for each com pany. After calculating the markup for each manufacturer with

the 10- K data, DOE then calculated a single market -share weighted manufacturer markup to represent the industry. The markup was further calibrated based on feedback received during

manufacturer interviews. DOE used a manufacturer markup of 1.30 c for small three

- phase

commercial air conditioners and heat pumps <65,000 Btu/h.

For water

- source heat pumps, DOE used the same manufacturer markup of 1.30 that was developed in the 2011 Direct Final Rule (DFR) d and used for small three

- phase commercial air

conditioners and heat pumps.

3.4.6 Shipping Costs for Small Three

- Phase Commercial Air

- Cooled Air Condition ers and Heat Pumps

Manufacturers of HVAC products typically pay for freight to the first step in the distribution chain. Freight is not a manufacturing cost, but because it is a substantial cost incurred by the manufacturer, DOE accountedfor shipping costs separately from the nonproduction costs that comprise the manufacturer markup. DOE calculated the MSP by multiplying the MPC (from the cost model) by the manufacturer markup and adding shipping costs. More specifically, DOE calculated shipping costs bas ed on a typical 53- foot straight frame trailer with a storage volume of 4,240 cubic feet. DOE examined the sizes of representative units

and determined the number of units that would fit in a trailer

.

For small three

- phase commercial air -cooled air conditioners and heat pumps, DOE

assumed that units would be double- stacked. During the 2011 and 2014 physical teardowns,

DOE observed that the stacking capabilities of certain units were specified on the equipment packaging. DOE assumed all units can be double- stacked since there was no information provided on the equipment packaging to suggest otherwise. The shipping costs for small three

phase commercial air

- cooled air conditioners and heat pumps <65,000 Btu/h are shown in Table

3.4.2 through Table 3.4.5

.

d http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/cacfurn_dfr.pdf

3-10Table 3.4.2 Manufacturer Shipping Costs for Three

- Ton Split

- System Three

- Phase

Commercial Air -Cooled Air Conditioners

SEER Split

- System AC Shipping Cost (2013$)

13 $22

14 $23

15 $24

16 $34

17 $34

18 $3 6

19 $37

Table 3.4.3 Manufacturer Shipping Costs for Three

- Ton Single

- Package Three

- Phase

Commercial Air

- Cooled Air Conditioners

SEER Single

- Package AC Shipping Cost (2013$)

13 $29

14 $3 1

15 $3 3

16 $39

17 $39

18 $39

19 $8 4

Table 3.4.4 Manufacturer Shipping Costs for Three

- Ton Split

- System Three

- Phase

Commercial Air -Cooled Heat Pumps

SEER Split

- System HP Shipping Cost (2013$)

13 $22

14 $23

15 $24

16 $34

17 $34

18 $3 6

3-11Table 3.4.5 Manufacturer Shipping Costs for Three

- Ton Single

- Package Three

- Phase

Commercia l Air -Cooled Heat Pumps

SEER Single

- Package HP Shipping Cost (2013$)

13 $29

14 $3 1

15 $39

16 $39

17 $39

18 $7 7

3.4.7 Shipping Costs for Water- Source Heat Pumps

For water -source heat pumps, DOE assumed all units in the <17,000 Btu/h and 17,000- 65,000 Btu/h equipment classes could be double-stacked in shipping, but not the units in the 65,000-135,000 Btu/h class because of their higher weights. The shipping costs calculated for

water -source heat pumps are shown below in Table 3.4.6

.

Table 3.4.6 Manufacturer Shipping Costs for Water- Source Heat Pumps

<17,000 Btu/h ≥17,000 and <65,000

Btu/h ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h

EER Shipping

Cost ( 2013 $) EER Shipping

Cost ( 2013 $) EER Shipping

Cost ( 2013 $)

ASHRAE

– Level 0 12.2 $10 13 $1 7 13 $7 7 Efficiency Level 1 13.0 $1 1 14.6 $1 7 14 $8 4 Efficiency Level 2 14.0 $1 5 16.6 $18 15 $9 3 Efficiency Level 3 15.7 $1 5 18 $18 16 $69 Efficiency Level 4 16.5 $15 19.2 $18 17.2 $7 7 Efficiency Level 5 18.1 $1 7 21.6 $21

- -

3.5 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS RESULTS

3.5.1 Unit Operating Weight for Small Three

- Phase Commercial Air

- Cooled Air
Conditioners and Heat Pump Results

Representative system weights for units at all SEER levels were used in the downstream analyses to estimate installation costs. DOE used the weight -efficiency relationships developed for the 2011 DFR, which were based on operating weights reported in manuf acturer specification

3-12sheets. For each of the four equipment classes, data were collected across a number of manufacturers and a range of SEER levels. The system weights as listed by the manufacturers were plotted against rated SEER, and a best fit curve was applied to the data. From the curve fit, typical unit weights were estimated for applicable SEER levels. Applying this methodology allowed for a single unit weight corresponding to a given SEER value to be used in each equipment class. For SEER levels not covered in the 2011 DFR, DOE extrapolated the operating unit weights based on the curve fits. DOE ’s calculated weight

- efficiency relationships for small

three

- phase commercial air conditioners and heat pumps <65,000 Btu/h are shown in Table

3.5.1

.

Table 3.5.1 Weight- Efficiency Data for Three

- Ton Three

- Phase Commercial Air -Cooled

Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

Operating Weight (lbs)

SEER Split

- System

AC Single

- Package

AC Split

- System

HP Single

- Package

HP

13 323 341 358 379

14 346 361 393 411

15 367 382 426 444

16 387 402 456 476

17 405 422 485 508

18 422 443 512 541

19 439 463

- -

3.5.2 Cost

- Efficiency Results for Small Three

- Phase Commercial Air Conditioners and

Heat Pump Results

DOE’s calculated MPCs for small three

- phase commercial air conditioners and heat pumps <65,000 Btu/h are shown in Table 3.5.2 through Table 3.5.5 . DOE used the costefficiency curves from the engineering analysis as an input for the LCC and other downst ream analyses.

3-13Table 3.5.2 Manufacturer Production Costs for Three

- Ton Split

- System Three

- Phase

Commercial Air -Cooled Air Conditioners

SEER Split

- System

AC MPC

(2013 $ )

13 $8 47

14 $9 28

15 $1,0 14

16 $1,1 05

17 $1,2 02

18 $1,3 04

19 $1,4 14

Table 3.5.3 Manufacturer Production Costs for Three

- Ton Single -Package Three

- Phase

Commercial Air -Cooled Air Conditioners

SEER Single

- Package AC

MPC (2013 $ )

13 $ 994

14 $1,1 1 2

15 $1,2 30

16 $1,3 49

17 $1,4 67

18 $1,5 85

19 $1,7 03

Table 3.5.4 Manufacturer Production Costs for Three

- Ton Split

- System Three

- Phase

Commercial Air -Cooled Heat Pumps

SEER HSPF Split

- System

HP MPC

(2013 $ )

13 7.7 $1,0 58

14 8.2 $1,1 44

15 8.5 $1,2 33

16 8.7 $1,3 64

17 9 $1,4 72

18 9.2 $1, 587

3-14Table 3.5.5 Manufacturer Production Costs for Three

- Ton Single -Package Three

- Phase

Commercial Air -Cooled Heat Pumps

SEER HSPF Single

- Package

HP MPC (2013 $ )

13 7.7 $1,2 28

14 8 $1,3 59

15 8.4 $1, 491

16 8.8 $1,6 22

17 8.9 $1,7 53

18 9.1 $1, 885

3.5.3 Unit Operating Weight for Water- Source Heat Pumps

The unit operating weights were calculated from the cost model spreadsheet. The inputs

for t hese calculations were the same as those for the cost calculations described above in Section

3.4 . Representative u nit weights for units at all EER levels were required as an input for the downstream analyses to estimate instillation costs. For each equipment class, unit weights for models examined in the catalog teardown analysis were plotted against rated cooling EER, and a best fit curve was applied to the data. From this curve fit, average unit weights were estimated for each examined EER level. DOE’s calculated weight

- efficiency relationships for water -source heat pumps are shown in Table 3.5.6

.

Table 3.5.6 Weight-Efficiency Data for Water- Source Heat Pumps

<17,000 Btu/h ≥17,000 and <65,000

Btu/h ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h

EER Weight (lbs) EER Weight (lbs) EER Weight (lbs)

ASHRAE

– Level 0 12.2 13 1 13 27 2 13 737 Efficiency Level 1 13.0 14 1 14.6 290 14 811 Efficiency Level 2 14.0 154 16.6 313 15 885 Efficiency Level 3 15.7 17 7 18 329 16 959 Efficiency Level 4 16.5 187 19.2 343 17.2 1048 Efficiency Level 5 18.1 208 21.6 371

- -

3.5.4 Cost

- Efficiency Results for Water

- Source Heat Pumps

DOE calculated the manufacturer production costs (MPC s ) for water -source heat pumps

in the same manner described above for unit operating weights, using outputs from the cost model from catalog teardown analysis and a trend line analysis. DOE used the cost- efficiency curves from the engineering analysis as an input for downstream economic analyses. Representative MPCs for each EER level of each of the three capacity classes are shown below

in Table 3.5.7 . DOE did not estimate c osts of units at the current federal standard

— these were

3-15not required for the analysis, as EPCA requires DOE to compare the costs and benefits of higherefficiency levels to the level in ASHRAE 90.1.

Table 3.5.7 Manufacturer Production Cost

- Efficiency Data for Water

- Source Heat Pumps

<17,000 Btu/h ≥17,000 and <65,000

Btu/h ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h

EER MPC ( 2013 $) EER MPC ( 2013 $) EER MPC ( 2013 $)

ASHRAE

– Level 0 12.2 $8 53 13 $1,3 34 13 $3,2 45 Efficiency Level 1 13.0 $ 896 14.6 $1,4 50 14 $3,6 27 Efficiency Level 2 14.0 $ 951 16.6 $1, 594 15 $4,0 09 Efficiency Level 3 15.7 $1,0 44 18 $1, 696 16 $4, 391 Efficiency Level 4 16.5 $1,0 87 19.2 $1,7 82 17.2 $4,8 50 Efficiency Level 5 18.1 $1,1 75 21.6 $1,9 56

- -

3-16