LBL-30477
UC-350
THE POTENTIAL FOR ELECTRICITY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS
IN THE ILS. RESIDENTIAL SECTOR
Jonathan G. Koomey, Celina Atkinson, Alan Meier, James E. McMahon, Stan Boghosian,
Barbara Atkinson, Isaac Turiel, Mark D. Levine, Bruce Nondman, and Peter Chan
Energy Analysis Program
Applied Science Division
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
July 1991
The work described in this paper was supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, fiflergy
Policy Branch, Office of Policy Analysis. Prepared for the U.S. Department Of Energy under Contract
Number DE-AC03-76SF00098.
-------
THE POTENTIAL FOR ELECTRICITY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS
IN THE U.S. RESIDENTIAL SECTOR
Jonathan G. Koomey, Celina Atkinson, Alan Meier, James E. McMahon, Stan Boghosian,
Barbara Atkinson, Isaac Turiel, Mark D. Levine, Bruce Nordman, and Peter Chan
Energy Analysis Program, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report describes and documents an ongoing analysis of the technical potential
for electricity efficiency improvements in the U.S. residential sector. Previous analyses
have estimated the conservation potential for other countries, states, or individual utility
service territories. As concern over greenhouse gas emissions has increased, interest has
grown in estimates of conservation potential for the U.S. residential sector as a whole.
Earlier estimates of U.S. conservation potential are either out of date or are less detailed
than is desirable for engineering-economic estimates of the costs of reducing carbon
emissions.
This study represents the most elaborate assessment to date of U.S. residential
sector electricity efficiency improvements. It relies on regional disaggregation of input
data, a state-of-the-art database of appliance efficiency and costs developed for the U.S.
Department of Energy, and detailed analysis of theimal integrity measures in single-family
dwellings. Fuel switching from electricity to direct use of natural gas has been included for
water heaters, ranges, and clothes dryers. Advanced technologies (including
"superwindows", spectrally-selective glazings, evacuated panels for refrigerators, and heat-
pump water heaters) have been included based on engineering estimates of their costs and
dates of availability.
Some promising efficiency technologies have been omitted because we lacked data,
including thermal integrity improvements for new and existing multifamily buildings and
mobile homes, integrated appliances, and advanced insulation technologies for new single-
family homes. This study also does not include load management technologies (which may
improve the overall efficiency of the electric utility system) or electrotechnologies that may
increase the use of electricity but reduce primary energy consumption.
Efficiency improvements have been characterized in terms of their cost of conserved
energy ($/kWh), for convenient comparison with the cost of competing electricity
generating technologies. Figure ES-1 summarizes the results of this cost analysis. The
total technical potential (without considering cost) is about 486 TWh, or about 48% of the
frozen efficiency baseline. Total technical potential savings costing less than 7.60/kWh are
404 TWh/year by 2010, at an average cost of 3.4 tf/kWh. If fully captured, savings
costing less than 7.60/kWh would correspond to the output of 70-75 baseload (1000 MW)
coal or nuclear plants.
i
-------
Figure ES—1: Maximum Technical Potential in 2010
15 H
Discount rate: 7.0 %
Forecast year. 2010
Start yean 1990
Baseline energy consumption (TWh)
for year 2010= 1007.627
191.
12 "
165
159
143,
O)
1989 Residential Price of
LLI
T3
Boctridty - 7.60 canu/KWh
93,
,76
70
53. 56
52
CO
,25 2i'
40% of
Baseline
Use
100
200
Energy Savings (TWh)
300
400
500
A supply curve of conserved electricity for the United States residential sector. Each step
represents a conservation measure (or a package of measures). The width of the step
indicates the nationwide electricity savings from the measure and the height of the measure
indicates the cost of conserved electricity. The end uses include space conditioning, water
heating, refrigeration, lighting, and miscellaneous.
ii
-------
Figure ES-2 shows that electric water heating measures offer the largest potential
savings (in absolute terms) for costs less than 7.60/kWh of any single end use (slightly
more than 110 TWh, of which about 17 TWh, or roughly 15%, is attributable to fuel
switching to natural gas). Savings from space conditioning are next most important in
absolute terms, totalling about 100 TWh. Lighdng measures save about 60 TWh, as do
refrigerator and freezer measures together. In percentage terms (reladve to each end-use
category's baseline usage), water heating savings potential is the greatest (60%), followed
by lighting (47%), refrigerators (39%), and space conditioning (31%).
Some of the technologies identified in this study will be adopted as the result of
market forces, hence some of the efficiency improvements embodied in these technologies
are reflected (either explicitly or implicitly) in government agencies' and utilities' business-
as-usual projections of electricity demand. Nonetheless, our analysis shows that a
significant potential exists to reduce residential electricity demand compared to projected
demand in 2010.
iii
-------
Figure ES-2: Energy Savings and Costs by End-Use in 2010
6-,
6
5
1 Space Conditioning
2 Lighting
3 Electric Water Heaters
4 Refrigerators
5 Freezers
6 Other
40% Of
baseline use
200 300
TWh Saved
400
500
Each segment of this curve shows the total electricity savings and the average cost of conserved energy
for all measures in Figure ES-1 that cost less than 7.60/kWh (grouped by end use).
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
I. INTRODUCTION 1
IL METHODOLOGY 1
A. Supply curves of conserved energy 1
B. Definitions and general assumptions 4
C. Frozen efficiency baseline forecast 6
D. Conservation Measures 21
IH. RESULTS 30
IV. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ANALYSIS: FUTURE WORK 33
A. Multifamily and mobile home building-shell-related energy savings 33
B. Shell measures for existing and new homes 37
C. Capital cost savings for advanced shell measures 38
D. Window orientation/passive solar features/landscaping 38
E. Internal loads 38
F. Infiltration 38
G. Duct leakage 39
H. Long-term fuel switching to homes near gas supply 39
I. Integrated appliances and advanced appliances 39
J. Treatment of appliance standards 39
K. Lighting end-use 40
L. Miscellaneous end-uses 40
M. Load shape characteristics 40
N. Additional data needs 40
V. CONCLUSIONS 40
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 41
REFERENCES 41
APPENDIX 1: END-USE CODES 49
APPENDIX 2a: CONSERVATION MEASURE DATABASE 2000 55
APPENDIX 2b: CONSERVATION MEASURE DATABASE 2010 63
APPENDIX 3: COMMENTS ON CONSERVATION MEASURES 73
APPENDIX 4: END-USE ENERGY IN FROZEN EFFICIENCY CASE 189
APPENDIX 5: CONSERVATION SUPPLY CURVES BY END-USE
CATEGORY 193
APPENDIX 6: DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF LIGHTING ANALYSIS 209
APPENDIX 7: PEAR BATCH INPUT FILES 217
APPENDIX 8: CCE PATHS FOR SPACE CONDITIONING 225
APPENDIX 9: UTILITY RASSs USED IN FUEL SWITCHING ANALYSIS 231
APPENDIX 10: ACCESS LOGIC 234
v
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
This study represents the most elaborate assessment to date of U.S. residential
sector electricity efficiency improvements. Previous analyses (Bodlund tt al. 1989, Geller
et al. 1986, Hunn et al. 1986, Krause et al. 1987, Lovins 1987, Meier et al. 1983, Miller et
al. 1989, NEEPC 1987, NPPC 1986, NPPC 1989, Usibelli et al. 1983, XENERGY
1990) have estimated the conservation potential for other countries, states, or individual
utility service territories. As concern over greenhouse gas emissions has increased, interest
has grown in estimates of conservation potential for the U.S. residential sector as a whole.
The earliest detailed estimate of U.S. conservation potential is now out of date (SERI
1981), while more recent estimates (Carlsmith et al. 1990, EPRI 1990) are less detailed
than is desirable for engineering-economic estimates of the costs of reducing carbon
emissions.
In this paper, we first describe the methodology for creating supply curves of
conserved energy, and then illustrate the subtleties of assessing the technical conservation
potential. Next, we present the data and forecasts used in this assessment, including costs,
baseline thermal characteristics, energy use, and energy savings. Finally, we present the
main results and conclusions from the analysis, and discuss future work.
II. METHODOLOGY
The two essential elements of an analysis of future conservation potential are: 1) a
database of measures for improving energy efficiency, including costs and energy savings
for each measure, and 2) a detailed baseline forecast of typical future technologies that will
be installed in the absence of policy action, including the number of devices, their cost, and
their expected energy consumption. A supply curve analysis involves "implementing" the
conservation options and calculating how that implementation would change the energy use
in the baseline forecast
Section n.A describes in general terms the concept of conservation supply curves.
Section ILB presents the definitions and general assumptions used in this analysis. Section
II.C describes the baseline frozen efficiency forecast, and Section II.D discusses the
database of conservation measures.
A. Supply curves of conserved energy
Previous analyses have developed and used the concept of supply curves of
conserved energy for assessing conservation potentials (Bodlund et al. 1989, Geller et al.
1986, Hunn et al. 1986, Krause et al. 1987, Lovins 1987, Meier et al. 1983, Miller et al.
1989, NEEPC 1987, NPPC 1986, NPPC 1989, Usibelli et al. 1983, XENERGY 1990) A
supply curve of conserved energy is a graph that shows the amount of energy saved (TWh)
on the x-axis and the cost of conserved energy or CCE (0/kWh) on the y-axis.1
CCE is calculated using Equation (1):
Capital Cost x ——
CCE W/kWh) - Annual Energy'savings ' <»
'For more details see Meier el al. (1983).
1
-------
where d is the discount rate (7%) and n is the lifetime of the conservation measure. The
numerator in the right hand side of Equation 1 is the annualized cost of the conservation
investment Dividing annualized cost by annual energy savings yields the CCE, which can
be compared to the busbar cost of a power plant.
Method of ranking conservation measures
To create the supply curve, conservation measures are ranked in order of increasing CCE.
Determining this order is simple for efficiency measures that are independent However,
the ranking becomes complex when the energy saved by one conservation measure
depends on the efficiency measures that have been implemented previously. For example,
a typical supply curve might include conservation measures applied to a residential water
heating system. The energy savings attributed to an improvement in the water heater's
efficiency will depend on the amount of hot water demanded, which, in turn, will depend
on the measures that have already been implemented (such as low-flow showerheads).
Put another way, the sum of savings of each measure implemented alone will be greater
than the two implemented together. If the interdependence of the measures is not taken into
account, it is possible to "double-count" the energy savings.
A properly-constructed supply curve of conserved energy will avoid double-counting
errors by using the following procedure:
(1) The CCE is calculated for all of the measures.
2) The cheapest (i.e., lowest CCE) measure is selected and "implemented", that is,
the energy savings from the first measure are subtracted from the initial energy use.
3) The new energy use is used to recalculate the CCEs of the remaining measures.
(In general, their CCEs will rise.)
4) The measure with the next lowest CCE is selected, and implemented.
5) The energy savings of the remaining measures are recalculated, and the measures
are re-ranked.
This procedure is repeated until all the measures have been ranked (Meier 1982). For this
project, the determination of the optimal sequence is performed exogenously, before the
measures are entered in the supply curve program.2
Cost effectiveness
The CCE is, in most cases, independent of electricity price3, and hence cannot by itself
indicate whether a conservation measure is cost effective. By cost effective, we mean that
the cost of investing in conservation is lower than the costs avoided by this investment.
2 We call this program ACCESS (this name is not an acronym).
3our characterization of fuel switching from electricity to direct use of natural gas includes the present
valued cost of gas in the CCE (see below). This convenuon makes the CCE for fuel switching consistent
with the CCEs for efficiency improvements, but it makes the CCE for fuel switching resources dependent
on the price forecast for natural gas.
2
-------
The assessment of cost effectiveness cannot be undertaken without specifying the
perspective of the actors from whom it should be measured, such as the electric utility, a
utility customer, or society as a whole (Krause and Eto 1988). We adopt the societal
perspective here.4
The CCE is typically compared with the national average price of electric power to
residential customers (7.60/kWh in 1989) as a rough gauge of cost effectiveness. This
simple comparison can be misleading. In principle, the cost of a conservation measure
should be compared to the utility costs avoided by that efficiency measure, which may or
may not correspond to the average price of electricity.
We show the cost of electricity on the supply curves for rough comparisons, but emphasize
that a consistent comparison between supply and demand-side resources requires using
appropriate risk-based discount rates to calculate the busbar cost of new electric supply
resources (Kahn 1988), the avoided capital costs of transmission and distribution (Ovens
1989), the societal value of avoided pollutant emissions and other externalities (Chemick
and Caverhill 1989, Hohmeyer 1988, Koomey 1990a, Ottinger et al. 1990), and the
administrative, monitoring, and overhead costs of demand-side options (Berry 1989,
Krause et al. 1989). Such a comparison should be undertaken as an extension of this
paper. For further discussion of such comparisons, see Krause et al. (1991).
Our analysis uses a real discount rate, without inflation, which results in capital costs per
kWh that are lower than those calculated using nominal discount rates including inflation
and taxes. The omission of taxes does not affect the cost-effectiveness comparison as long
as the conservation is assumed to be purchased entirely by the residential customer or
expensed by the utility (the most common method for utility programs).
Frozen efficiency baseline
Our analysis begins with a frozen efficiency baseline. Such a forecast assumes that
equipment and buildings existing in 1990 are not retrofit during the analysis period, and
remain at constant efficiency until 2010 (or until they retire). New and replacement
equipment and buildings are assumed to be installed at the efficiency level of new devices
in 1990, but saturations are allowed to vary over the analysis period.5 Average energy
efficiency improves in the frozen efficiency case, because of replacement of existing
structures and equipment with more efficient new devices. Appliance efficiency standards
due to be implemented in 1992,1993, and 1994 are represented as measures on the supply
curve.
The LBL Residential Energy Model (LBL REM) is an end-use forecasting model
that we use to estimate frozen efficiency case saturations and projected unit energy
consumptions (UECs) for all non-space conditioning end-uses (see LBL REM (1991) and
McMahon (1986)). Saturations for space conditioning end-uses are taken from US DOE
4The discount rate we use (7% real) is probably high for a societal analysis, since the real rate of interest on
long-term treasury notes averages 3-4% real. The real return on investment for electric utilities has averaged
5-7% real in the last decade (Koomey 1990b), and since utility resources would be avoided by our efficiency
investments, we chose 7%. Reducing the discount rate to 3% would decrease the cost of conserved energy
by 29%.
5Non-space conditioning saturations have been taken from LBL REM (1991) and vary over time. Space
condiuoning saturations do not vary in our analysis.
3
-------
(1989a) and UECs for these end-uses are calculated directly from our building prototypes.
LBL REM does not currently contain sufficient detail on space conditioning end-uses to use
the saturations and UECs from its frozen efficiency case.
Technical conservation potential
This study estimates the technical potential, which is defined by Krause et al.
(1987) as the amount of energy savings that could be achieved if all households install the
most efficient devices, without considering lag times and other practical constraints
associated with real-world programs. Level of service is kept constant in this analysis.
Achievable conservation potential
In practice, the technical potential is an upper limit to the amount of efficiency that
can be captured by utilities. Markets will eventually capture part of this technical potential,
though information barriers, capital constraints, risk aversion, bounded rationality,
satisficing behavior, regulatory distortions, and other market failures prevent the market
from capturing it all. Some of these market failures can be partially or totally overcome,
which would allow some fraction of the technical potential to be captured by utility or
government programs (Koomey 1990b).
To reflect utility program costs, the societal cost of conserved energy should be
increased by 10 to 20% (Berry 1989, Krause et al. 1987, Nadel 1990, NPPC 1989).6 We
do not include this cost here, because we are estimating the technical potential. However,
analysts who use our technical potential estimates to derive achievable potential must
include this cost.
Summary
Figure 1, adopted from Krause et al. (1987), shows schematically how the frozen
efficiency baseline compares to the technical potential case as well as to a hypothetical
achievable potential case. Only the frozen efficiency baseline and technical potential cases
are included in this analysis. The business as usual case with no additional policies
represents what will happen given existing regulations and market forces (it includes
appliance efficiency standards scheduled to take effect in 1992, 1993, and 1994, and the
effect of exogenous changes in electricity prices).
B. Definitions and general assumptions
This section describes the major assumptions adopted for this analysis. For more
details on terminology, assumptions, or calculational methods, see Appendix 10.
Discount rate and inflation
The discount rate is 7% real. All costs are expressed in constant 1989 dollars, net
of inflation.
620% is a conservative number based on experience with current programs, while 10% implies some
economies of scale and learning curve effects that would be captured by aggressive programs. Program
costs for particular end-uses may be lower or higher than these crude averages (individual programs for
specific end-uses may differ from these overall averages).
4
-------
Figure 1: Relationship Between Frozen Efficiency and Maximum Technical Potential
1200-
1000-
Frozen Efficiency
Business-As-Usual Case—
No Additional Policies
Achievable Potential
Maximum Technical Potential
1990
2010
Figure adopted from Krause et al. (1987)
-------
Analysis period
We consider the potential for energy efficiency improvements over the period 1990
to 2010. As longer time horizons are considered, potential savings increase but uncertainty
about input parameters also increases.
Conservation costs
All costs are installed costs to the consumer. Space conditioning equipment and
building shell improvement costs represent the cost of contractor installation. No utility or
government administrative costs are included.
Retrofits and replacements
Shell retrofits are assumed to occur at a rate sufficient to retrofit all such shells by
2010. Replacement of existing equipment and appliances varies depending on the device
lifetime. For an appliance with a ten year lifetime, 10% (1/10) of the equipment existing in
1990 is replaced each year. This replacement rate is linear, not exponential, and is only a
crude approximation to actual retirement rates.
Technical potential
When calculating the technical potential for efficiency improvements, installation of
conservation measures is affected solely by physical constraints. This convention becomes
problematic when advanced technology options are considered that do not currently have
substantial market shares and that would require major increases in production volume.
For example, the logistic constraints involved in increasing production of heat pump water
heaters are both physical and economic, and estimating how many could be produced is not
solely a technical problem (see below). We attempt to account for these constraints by
giving a date of introduction to advanced technologies.
Savings
Energy savings are calculated relative to the frozen efficiency baseline, assuming
that level of service remains constant Savings are measured at the customer's meter, and
do not include the roughly 5-8% in avoided transmission and distribution losses from
delivering the electricity. These losses must be included when comparing power plants to
energy efficiency resources.
C. Frozen efficiency baseline forecast
Defining the frozen efficiency baseline estimate of energy consumption is a difficult
but crucial exercise, because energy savings depend directly upon this baseline. If the
baseline estimate is biased in one direction or another, the energy savings will be
correspondingly affected The following section briefly describes the characteristics of our
baseline forecast.
Regional disaggregation
We treat the U.S. as two distinct regions (north and south), but present the results
for the U.S. as a whole. The south region is composed of the states in Federal (US DOE)
regions 4, 6, and 9, while the north region is composed of the states in Federal regions 1,
2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 10. Figure 2 shows these regions.
6
-------
Figure 2: Federal Regions
10
Region 1
Region 4
Region 6
Region 8
New Fn gland
South Atlantic
Sooth west
North Central
Connecticut (CT)
Alabama (AL)
Arkansas (AR)
Colorado (CO)
Maine (ME)
Florida (FL)
Louisiana (LA)
Montana (MT)
Massachusetts (MA)
Georgia (GA)
New Mexico (NM)
North Dakota (ND)
New Hampshire (NH)
Kentucky (KY)
Oklahoma (OK)
South Dakota (SD)
Rhode Island (RI)
Mississippi (MS)
Texas (TX)
Utah (UT)
Vermont (VT)
North Carolina (NC)
Wyoming (WY)
South Carolina (SC)
Region 7
Region 2
Tennessee (TN)
Central
Region 9
New York/
Iowa (IA)
West
New Jersey
Region 5
Kansas (ICS)
Arizona (AZ)
New Jersey (NJ)
Midwest
Missouri (MO)
California (CA)
New York (NY)
Illinois (IL)
Nebraska (NE)
Hawau (HI)
Indiana (IN)
Nevada (NV)
Region 3
Michigan (Ml)
Mid Atlantic
Minnesota (MN)
Region 10
Delaware (DE)
Ohio (OH)
Northwest
District of Columbia (DC)
Wtsconsin (Wl)
Alaska (AK)
Maryland (MD)
Idaho (ID)
Pennsylvania (PA)
Oregon (OR)
Virginia (VA)
Washington (WA)
West Virginia (WV)
South Region is defined as Federal Regions 4, 6, and 9.
North Region is defined as Federal Regions 1, 2, 3, 5,7, 8, and 10
7
-------
Housing starts and retirements
Table 1 shows housing starts and stocks for the U.S. as a whole, and Tables 2
and 3 show housing units for the north and south regions, respectively. Single-family
homes dominate the total, comprising about 67% of homes in the U.S. About two thirds
of single/multi-family homes existing in 1990 will remain in 2010, while only one third of
mobile homes existing in 1990 will remain in 2010 (due to their relatively short lifetimes).
Annual percentage growth in single-family and multi-family homes is slightly higher in the
south than in the north. Mobile homes are projected to grow more quickly in percentage
terms than are single-family or multi-family homes, but this growth is exclusively in the
southern region. Stocks and forecasts are from LBL REM (1991) and MHI (1989, 1990,
1991b)
Building and equipment lifetimes
Table 4 shows lifetimes for space conditioning equipment, appliances, and
building shells. These lifetimes are used to estimate the rate of stock turnover of these
devices, and to calculate the cost of conserved energy. Major appliances range in lifetime
from 12 years for central air conditioners to 23 years for furnaces.
Weather
Estimates of space conditioning energy use rely on building energy simulation
programs that use weather files for representative U.S. cities. We estimated the
population-weighted average weather for the north and south regions of the U.S. using a
climate averaging program (GLOM) developed at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
(Andersson et al. 1986). GLOM revealed that Chicago, Illinois approximates average
weather for the north, and Charleston, SC approximates the weather for the south.7 In
cases where weather files for these two cities were not available (e.g., when using data
from Ritschard and Huang for multifamily prototypes), we used the next closest cities and
adjusted space conditioning energy consumption by ratios of heating degree days and
cooling degree days.
Thermal characteristics of buildings
Table 5 shows average shell characteristics of new and existing residential
buildings, based on a variety of sources (Boghosian 1991, Koomey et al. 1991, Lee 1991,
MHI 1991a, MHI 1991b, Mills 1984). When possible, characteristics have been compared
to and made consistent with those found in the U.S. Department of Energy's Residential
Energy Consumption Surveys (RECS) (US DOE 1984, US DOE 1989a). These
characteristics are then input to our building energy simulation program (see Appendix 7
for the detailed input files to this program).
Floor area: Table 5 shows that average floor areas are uniformly larger for new
buildings than for existing buildings.
Ceiling insulation: Average ceiling insulation levels range from R-17 to R-24 for
existing single-family (SF) dwellings, and from R-25 to R-29 for new SF buildings.
Ceiling insulation levels for existing mobile homes (MHs) are significantly lower than for
7Heating degree days for Chicago and Charleston (65 degrees F base) are 6125 and 2146, respectively.
Cooling degree days (65 degrees F base) are 923 and 2077, respectively.
8
-------
Table 1: Existing and forecasted housing units in the United States
in millions of units
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Annual %
growth
1990-2010
Total %
growth
1990-2010
Average
annual A
units (xl0*6)
1990-2010
Total A
units (xl0*6)
1990-2010
Single-family total
633
67.9
723
76 6
785
1 1%
24.1%
0 76
15_23
Existing (1990)
63J
610
58.6
56.0
53.3
-0 9%
-15.8%
-050
-10.01
New (post 1990)
00
6.9
13.7
20.6
25.2
N/A
N/A
1.26
25.24
Multi-family total
265
284
303
32.1
329
1.1%
24.1%
0.32
638
Existing (1990)
265
25.5
243
23.1
21.8
-1.0%
-17.6%
-0.23
-4 67
New (post 1990)
0.0
3.0
6.0
9.0
11.1
N/A
N/A
0.55
11.05
Mobile homes total
42
46
5 J
5J8
65
22.%
55.3%
0.12
23
Existing (1990)
4.2
3.5
3.0
2.6
2.2
-3.2%
-47.8%
-0.10
-1.99
New (post 1990)
0.0
1.0
2.1
3J
43
N/A
N/A
0.21
4.29
Total
94.0
1009
107.7
114.5
117.9
1.1%
25.4%
1.20
23.91
As % of house type totals
Single-family total
100%
100%
100%
10O%
100%
00%
0.0%
Existing (1990)
100%
90%
81%
73%
68%
-1.9%
-32.1%
New (post 1990)
0%
10%
19%
27%
32%
N/A
N/A
Multi-family total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
00%
0.0%
Existing (1990)
100%
90%
80%
72%
66%
-2J>%
-33.6%
New (post 1990)
0%
10%
20%
28%
34%
N/A
N/A
Mobile homes total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
Existing (1990)
100%
77%
59%
44%
34%
-53%
-66.4%
New (post 1990)
0%
23%
41%
56%
66%
N/A
N/A
As % of total units
Single-family total
67%
67%
67%
67%
67%
-0.1%
-1.1%
Existing (1990)
67%
60%
54%
49%
45%
-2.0%
-32.9%
New (post 1990)
0%
7%
13%
18%
21%
N/A
N/A
Multi-family total
28%
28%
28%
28%
28%
-01%
-1.1%
Existing (1990)
28%
25%
23%
20%
19%
-2.1%
-34.3%
New (post 1990)
0%
3%
6%
8%
9%
N/A
N/A
Mobile homes total
4%
5%
5%
5%
5%
1.1%
23.8%
Existing (1990)
4%
4%
3%
2%
2%
-43%
-58.4%
New (post 1990)
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
N/A
N/A
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
(1) Single family and mula family cocks are from LBL Readcnual Energy Model federal region projections of existing stock and addmoos.
(2) Mobile home 1990 dock is from MHI dau for year-round occupied MHs with no permanent room wiirfirii (Census data treats MHs with
permanent rooms aa SF homes), updated to 1990 from 1989 using REM. We assume an exponential rcmunuil rate of 3% per year, from MHTs
avenge lifetime of 33.8 years. Of U-S. mobile homes existing in 1990.42% are m the north and 58% m the south (MHI 1989)
(3) Mobile home additions are from REM national projections. We assume the fraction of additions tn the north and south in 1989 (derived
from MHI dau) remain constant. 82% of new motale homes are projected to be built tn the south and 18% are protected to be built m the north.
9
-------
Table 2: Existing and forecasted housing units In tb* aorth
in millions of units
1990
199S
2000
2005
2010
Annual %
growth
1990-2010
Total %
growth
1990-2010
Average
annual d
units (xl0*6)
1990-2010
Total A
units (xl0*6)
1990-2010
Single-family total
3SO
373
39J
416
42 J
1.0%
21.1%
037
736
Existing (1990)
35.0
33.7
32.4
31.0
29.5
•0.8%
•15.6%
-0.27
-5.47
New (post 1990)
0.0
3.6
71
10.6
Hi
N/A
N/A
0.64
12.83
Multi-famity total
166
17.6
187
19 7
200
1.0%
21.0%
017
3.47
Existing (1990)
16.6
15.9
15 J
14.4
13.7
-10%
-17.4%
-014
-2.88
New (post 1990)
0.0
1.8
3.5
5.2
64
N/A
N/A
032
6.35
Mobile hornet loud
1J&
1.7
1£
1.7
17
-05%
-4.6%
000
-0.08
Exisxmg (1990)
1.8
IS
13
1.1
0.9
-35%
-484%
-0 CM
-0.84
New (post 1990)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
08
N/A
N/A
0.04
0.76
Total
533
56.6
59.8
62.9
64.0
0.9%
204%
034
1075
As % of house type totals
Single-family total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
Existing (1990)
100%
90%
82%
74%
70%
-1.8%
-303%
New (post 1990)
0%
10%
18%
26%
30%
N/A
N/A
Multi-family total
700%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
Existing (1990)
100%
90%
81%
73%
68%
-1.9%
-31.7%
New (post 1990)
0%
10%
19%
27%
32%
N/A
N/A
Mobile hornet total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
Existing (1990)
100%
89%
77%
65%
54%
-3.0%
-45.5%
New (post 1990)
0%
11%
23%
35%
46%
N/A
N/A
As % of total units
Single-family total
66%
66%
66%
66%
66%
0.0%
0.7%
Existoig (1990)
66%
60%
54%
49%
46%
-1.8%
-29.8%
New (post 1990)
0%
6%
12%
17%
20%
N/A
N/A
Multi-family total
31%
31%
31%
31%
31%
0.0%
0.7%
Existing (1990]
31%
28%
25%
23%
21%
-1.9%
•313%
New (post 1990)
0%
3%
6%
8%
10%
N/A
N/A
Mobile homes total
3%
3%
J%
3%
S%
-1.1%
-20.6%
Existing (1990]
3%
3%
2%
2%
1%
-4.1%
-56l7%
New (post 1990]
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%
N/A
N/A
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
(1) North is defined u Federal regions 1,2,3,5,7,8. and 10.
(2) Single family and multi family stocks are from LBL Residential Energy Model federal region projections of existing stock and additions.
(3) Mobile home 1990 stock is from MHI data for year-round occupied MHs vmh no permanent nan attached (Census dau treats MHs with
permanent rooms as SF homes), updated to 1990 from 1989 using REM. We assume an exponential retirement rate of 3% per year, from MHTs
avenge lifetime of 33.8 years. Of U.S. mobile homes existing in 1990,42% are tn the north and 38% m the south (MHI 1989).
(4) Mobile home additions are from REM national projection*. We assume the fraction of additions tn the north and soulh ui 1989 (derived
from MHI dau) remain constant. 82% of new mobile homes are projected to be built in the south and 18% arc projected to be built in the north.
10
-------
Table 3: Existing ami forecasted housing units In ibe south
t miiliom af umu
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Annual %
growth
1990-2010
Total %
growth
1990-2010
Average
annual A
units (ilO^i)
1990-2010
Total A
units (xlOT*)
1990-2010
Single-family total
283
30j6
J2J8
35 0
362
12%
Tl.%%
0.39
7.87
Existing (1990)
28 J
273
7A2
25.0
23.8
-0.9%
-16-0%
-0.23
-434
New (post 1990)
0.0
3.3
6.6
10.0
12.4
N/A
N/A
062
12.41
Multi-fanuly total
10O
10.8
116
124
129
1J%
29.2%
0.15
Z91
Existing (1990)
10.0
9.6
91
87
8.2
-1.0%
-18.0%
-0.09
-1.79
New (post 1990)
00
1.2
2.5
38
4.7
N/A
N/A
0.24
4.7
Mobde hornet loud
2.4
29
35
42
4 8
33%
98.8%
0.12
238
Existing (1990)
2.4
2.1
1.8
1.5
1.3
-3.2%
-47.7%
-0.06
-1.15
New (post 1990)
0.0
a 9
1.8
2.7
33
N/A
N/A
0.18
3.53
Total
40.7
443
47.9
51.6
53.9
1.4%
323%
066
13.16
As % of house type totals
Single-family total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
Existag (1990)
100%
89%
80%
71%
66%
-Zl%
-343%
New (post 1990)
0%
11%
20%
29%
34%
N/A
N/A
Multi-family total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
Existing (1990)
100%
89%
79%
70%
63%
-23%
-363%
New (post 1990)
0%
11%
21%
30%
37%
N/A
N/A
Mobile homes tout
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0.0%
0.0%
Existing (1990)
100%
70%
30%
36%
26%
-6.5%
-73.7%
New (post 1990)
0%
30%
50%
64%
74%
N/A
N/A
As % of total units
Single-family total
70%
69%
68%
68%
67%
-0.2%
-3.4%
Existing (1990)
70%
62%
55%
49%
44%
-2.2%
-363%
New (post 1990)
0%
7%
14%
19%
23%
N/A
N/A
Multi-family total
24%
24%
24%
24%
24%
-0.1%
-2.4%
Existing (1990)
24%
22%
19%
17%
15%
-2.4%
-38.0%
New (post 1990)
0%
3%
5%
7%
9%
N/A
N/A
Mobile homes total
6%
7%
7%
8%
9%
Zl%
50.2%
Existing (1990)
6%
S%
4%
3%
2%
-4 5%
-603%
New (post 1990)
0%
2%
4%
5%
1%
N/A
N/A
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
(1) South u defmed u Federal regions 4,6, and 9
(2) Single family and muld family stocks aic front LBL Residential Energy Model federel region projections of existing node md additions.
(3) Mobile home 1990 nock is from MHI data for year-round occupied MHs with no permanent room attached (Census data treats MHi with
peimaneni rooms as SF homes), irprUirri to 1990 from 1989 using REM. We assume an exponential retirement rate of 3% per year, from MHTt
avenge lifetime of 33.8 yean. Of UJS. mobile homes em tang m 1990, 42% arc in ibe nonh and 58% m the south (MHI 1989).
(4) Mobile home additions air from REM national projections. We assume the fraction of additions tn the north and south in 1989 (derived
from MHI data) remain constanL 82% of new mobde homes are projected to be built m the south and 18% are projected Io be built in the north
11
-------
Table 4: Lifetimes of buildings, equipment, and shell measures
End use
Average lifetime
years
Central space heating (electric)
23
Room air conditioners (RAC)
15
Central air conditioners (CAC)
12
Heat pump
14
Water heater (electric, gas)
13
Refrigerator
19
Freezer
21
Range/oven (electric, gas)
18
Dryer (electric, gas)
17
Lighting (2)
15
Dishwasher
12.6
Clothes washer
14 1
Miscellaneous
15
All building shell conservation measures
30
Single-famdy buildings
98
Multi-family buildings
89
Mobile homes
33.8
(1) source: LBL REM (1991), except for mobile homes, which are from MHI (1990)
(2) This is an artificial lifetime chosen for use in the ACCESS program. Actual
equipment lifetimes are normalized to IS years (see Appendix 6).
12
-------
Table 5: Characteristics of baseline residential building prototypes
Floor area
Insulation levels
Infiltration
Hig Type
Region
per ujui
Ceding
Wall
Floor
ACH
window
square feet
layers
Existing single-
dec res
North
1582
R-20.8
R-4 7
R-l I
0 54
176
family homes
elec res
South
1470
R-18
R-3 9
R-l 48.2ft
071
153
heat pump
North
1853
R-24
R-6 8
R-l 1
0 45
172
heal pump
South
1784
R-21.5
R-6 2
R-l 68.2ft
07
165
non-dec
North
1550
R-21.1
R-2.1
R-l 1
062
1 79
non-elec
South
1467
R-17 4
R-2.1
R-0 78. 2ft
0 72
1 44
New single-
elec res
North
1856
R-29
R-I5
R-15
04
2
family homes
elec res
South
1894
R-28
R-10
R-3 8, 2ft
0 62
1 51
heat pump
North
2222
R-28
R-14
R-13
04
1 87
heal pump
South
1823
R-25
R-l 1
R-l 8. 2ft
063
169
non-elec
North
2177
R-28
R-14
R-12
0 56
1 74
non-elec
South
2071
R-25
R-12
R-l 9.2ft
0 63
1 68
Mulufamily
Era sang
North
1051
R-7
R-5
2
South
945
R-4
R-2
1
New
North
1050
R-30
R-13
2
South
96S
R-21
R-12
2
Mobile homes
Existing
elec res
North
102S
R-14.2
R-10 8
R-10.8
0.45
2
elec res
South
940
R-10 8
R-10.8
R-6.8
0.56
1
heat pump
North
800
R-14.2
R-10 8
R-10 8
0 45
2
heat pump
South
1040
R-108
R-10 8
R-6 8
0 56
1
non-elec
Nonh
804
R-142
R-10 8
R-10 8
0 45
2
non-elec
South
847
R-108
R-10 8
R-6.8
0 56
1
New
North
1195
R-26
R-18
R-14
0 36
2
South
1195
R-20
R-12
R-10
0 45
1 26
(1) Building shell and infiltration characteristics for cxisung SF homes arc from 1984 RECS (Boghosian 1991), updated to 1990 using the
1987 NAHB new home database (as summarized in Koomey et al. 1991) New SF home characteristics are
from Koomey et al 1991
(2) Floor insulation for the SF in the south is slab edge insulation to the R-value specified, to a depth of 2 feet
Floor insulation for SF existing in north ts assumed to be R-l I, as a conservatism Floor conservation measures air
only applied to unhealed crawl spaces and basements for existing homes in the north
(3) MF characteristics are averaged from Riuchard and Huang (1989), using 5 prototype buildings in Fon Worth
for the south, and 4 prototypes tn Chicago for the north Riuchard and Huang do not consider prototypes for 1940s and 1950s buildings.
We assume that 1940s buildings are the same as pre 1940s buildings, and thai 1950s buildings are the same as 1960s buildings
Riuchard and Huang do no* indicate the infiltration rates (in air changes per hour or ach) for their prototypes.
(4) Mobile home floor area is the national average for those sold in 1989, from Manufactured Housing Institute (MH1 1991b)
MH infiltration rates are estimates from Allen Lee of Bauelle PNL (personal communication. April 1991) of existing mobile homes
in the Pacific Northwest Lee's ACH of 0 4 was adjusted by ihe specific infiltration rate for our northern legion
in order to account for the difference in weather between Seattle and Chicago We assumed that homes in the
north and homes in Seattle would have the same specific leakage area All other MH shell characteristics were obtained from
Manufactured Housing Institute estimates of the most popular shell packages sold in 1990 by region (Mill 1991a)
13
-------
Insulation levels for northern homes are uniformly higher than for southern homes.
Wall insulation: Just as for ceiling insulation, wall insulation in new buildings
substantially exceeds that typically found in existing buildings. The wall insulation levels
of structures in the north always equal or exceed those in the south.
Foundation characteristics: Other thermal integrity characteristics are amenable to
averaging, while foundations are difficult to characterize because of the many different
foundation types and methods of insulating them. Boghosian (1991) has attempted to
overcome this problem using a "U" value per linear foot approach, but for simplicity, we
have assumed that single family dwellings in the north have an unheated basement (with
floor insulation of R-ll, to be conservative), while SF dwellings in the south are slab
homes. This assumption corresponds to the most commonly used foundations in homes in
these regions.
Infiltration: Existing data on infiltration arc poor. The infiltration rates used in this
analysis were derived from Boghosian (1991), Koomey et al. (1991), and Lee (1991).
Duct leakage, which can be substantial in centrally-conditioned homes (Brook 1991,
Cummings et al. 1990), has not been included in the analysis due to lack of data. See the
discussion below of Improvements to the Analysis (Part IV) for more explicit analysis of
the potential effects of duct leakage.
Windows: Table 5 gives the average number of window panes for the building
prototypes. Averaging the number of window panes in this manner will become a less and
less reliable measure of window U-value as special coatings and noble-gas filled spaces
between panes become commonplace. The estimates for SF buildings in Boghosian (1991)
and Koomey et al. (1991) rely on data sources that do not distinguish windows by these
special characteristics. No effort has been made to correct for this effect.
We have used the costs and thermal characteristics of triple pane windows and
double pane low-emissivity windows interchangeably in this report. This assumption is
probably conservative, since the cost of coatings is likely to decrease much faster than the
costs of making a triple glazed window.
Space conditioning energy use
Tables 6 through 11 show space conditioning saturations, efficiencies, and unit
energy consumptions (UECs) for existing and new single-family, multi-family, and mobile
homes, respectively. Saturations for space conditioning equipment in existing homes are
taken from US DOE (1989a). Saturations for new homes are from the same source, and
represent a weighted average over all homes built 1980 to 1988, weighted using 1988
housing starts from Census (1990). Space conditioning UECs have been calculated using
the batch version of PEAR (Program for the Energy Analysis of Residences), which is a
residential building simulation model developed at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (EAP
1987). We have estimated the UECs and conservation potential separately for each
combination of heating and cooling equipment, using the shell characteristics shown in
Table 5 and equipment efficiencies from our national database (LBL 1990). Room air
conditioner (RAC) UECs have been estimated from PEAR's central air conditioner (CAC)
UECs by using regional ratios (adjusted to our north/south regions) of RAC UEC to CAC
UEC from RCG/Hagler Bailly (1990).
14
-------
Tible 6: Heating and cooling of existing single-family buildings: saturations, efficiency, and electricity consumption
North
Existing
Existing
Existing
Replacement
Replacement
Replacement
Enduse
HiglClg
%c/all
HtglClg
Hig UEC
Clg UEC
HtglClg
Hig UEC
Clg UEC
Code
Type
SF homes
Efficiency
kWhtyr
kWhlyr
Efficiency
kWhlyr
kWhyr
ESNE
ER /-
2%
100%/-
183II
0
100%/-
18311
0
ESNEC
ER/CAC
2%
100%/8 62 SEER
18311
1138
100%/9 96 SEER
18311
985
ESNER
ER/RAC
2%
100% n 47 EER
18311
368
100%/90 EER
18311
305
ESNHP
HP
3%
679 HSPF/8 59 SEER
9300
1176
7 24 HSPF/9 86 SEER
8722
1025
ESNG*
Cas-Oihcr / •
38%
-/-
0
0
-/-
0
0
ESNGC*
Gaj-OOier/CAC
23%
-/8 62 SEER
0
1162
¦19 96 SEER
0
1006
ESNGR*
Gas-Oiher / RAC
29%
-/7 47 EER
0
376
-/90EER
0
312
Total
100%
South
Existing
Existing
Existing
Replacement
Replacement
Replacement
Enduse
HtglClg
% of all
HiglClg
HtS UEC
Clg UEC
HtglClg
Hig UEC
Clg UEC
Code
Type
SF homes
Efficiency
kWh/y,
kWhtyr
Efficiency
kWhlyr
kWhlyr
ESSE
ER/-
3%
100%/-
8201
0
100%/-
8201
0
ESSEC
ER/CAC
6%
100% /8 62 SEER
B201
3739
100%/9 96 SEER
8201
3236
ESSER
ER/RAC
3%
100%/7 47 EER
8201
1325
100% / 9 0 EER
8201
1100
ESSHP
HP
8%
6 79 HSPF/8 59 SEER
4394
4077
7 24 HSPF/9 86SEER
4121
3552
ESSG*
Gas- Other /-
33%
0
0
0
-/-
0
0
ESSGC*
Gas-Other / CAC
23%
- / 8 62 SEER
0
3842
-/9 96 SEER
0
3325
ESSGR*
Gas Oihcr / RAC
24%
- /7 47 EER
0
1362
-/90EER
0
1131
Total
100%
* for baseline energy consumption only (no shell measures included) HI' = heal pump, ER«=eleclnc resistance, CAC/RAC= central or room air conditioners
(1) All shell characteristics are from Boghosian, 1991 and arc derived from RECS84 data updated to 1990
levels using the NAHB new home database created in Koomcy cl al, 1991 (see Table 3 for more details)
Due to time constraints, no foundation insulation measures for existing homes were included.
(2) Window area is assumed to be 10% of floor area
(3) The saturations of heating/cooling types are from RECSS7 Census region data converted to federal regions
using 1980Census state-by-sute data
(4) Equipment efficiencies are from LBL REM (1990 new unit and 1990 existing unit average efficiencies), based on extrapolation from 1987 ARI data
(5) All UECs are from PEAR except for the room air conditioner UEC, which is assumed to be 34% of the PEAR-derived central air conditioner UEC
Room AC UEC was derived as a fraction of CAC UEC from utility data provided in RCG/Hagler Baiily Inc (1990)
All UECs for the north are based on a single story prototype home in Chicago, IL with unhealed basement.
All UECi for the south are based on a single story prototype home in Charleston, SC with slab foundation
(6) Existing homes have two UECs The "existing1 UEC is calculated using the existing shell charactensucs and the 1990
existing equipment efficiency from the LBL Residential Energy Model (LBL REM). The "replacement" UEC is calculated
using the existing shell and the 1990 new unit efficiency from LBL RHM
(7) Furnace fan electricity use for non-electric furnaces is counted under the "Other" end-use category, and docs not appear in this table
(8) HP = heat pump, ER=electric resistance, CAC/RAC= central or room air conditioners
-------
Table 7. Healing and cooling of new single-family buildings: saturations, efficiency, and electricity consumption
North
EntSust
H'g'Clg
% of all new
Hig'Clg
Hig UEC
Clg UEC
Code
Type
SF homes
Efficiency
kWh/yr
kWhfyr
NSNE
ERJ ¦
7%
100%/-
11809
0
NSNEC
ER/CAC
6 %
I00%/996SEER
11809
964
NSNER
ER/RAC
2%
100%/9 0 EER
11809
299
NSNHP
HP/HP
17%
7 24 HSPF/9 86SEER
6825
1048
NSNG*
Gas-Other / -
28%
-/-
0
0
NSNGC*
Gas-Other /CAC
31%
- f) 96 SEER
0
1042
NSNGR*
Gas-Other /RAC
9%
- f) 0 EER
0
323
Tola!
100%
South
Enduie
IhgiClg
% of all nevt
IligiCtg
Ihg UEC
Clg UEC
Code
Type
SF homes
Efficiency
kWhtyr
kWhlyr
NSSE
mj-
5%
100%/-
9114
0
NSSEC
ER/CAC
12%
IOO%/9 96 SEER
9114
3583
NSSER
ER/RAC
3%
100%/9 0 EER
9114
1218
NSSHP
HP/HP
26%
7 24 HSPF/9 86SEER
3225
3408
NSSG*
Gas-Other/-
28%
-/-
0
0
NSSGC*
Gas-Other /CAC
20%
-/9 96SEER
0
3576
NSSGR*
Gas-Other /RAC
7%
-/90EER
0
1216
Total
100%
* for baseline energy consumption only (no shell measures included) HP = heal pump, ER=electnc resistance, CAC/RAC=» central or room air conditioners
(1) All shell characteristics are from Kocmey, ct al 1991 The characteristics were weighted by 1987 housing stans in the relevant federal regions
(2) Window area it assumed to be 10% of floor arts.
(3) The saturations of healing/cooling types are from RECS87 Census region data for homes built 1980-88, converted to federal
regions using 1989 state-by-state housing start data from the 1990 Staustical Abstract of the United Stales.
(4) Equipment efficiencies are from LBL REM (1991) for 1990 new units (based on an extrapolation from 1987 ARI data)
(5) All new homes in the north arc assumed to be two-story. basement foundation types, and in the south
one-story, stab foundation types These are the predominant configurations
m these regions (from the NAHB new home database created in Koomey el al, 1991)
(6) All UECs are from PEAR except for the room air conditioner UEC, which n assumed to be 34% of the PEAR-denved central air conditioner UEC
Room AC UEC was derived as a fraction of CAC UEC from utility data provided in RCC/Hagler Bailly Inc 1990
Chicago weather was used for the northern prototype, and Charleston, SC weather for the southern prototype
(7) Furnace fan electricity use for non-electric furnaces is counted as "miscellaneous energy" and docs not appear in this table
(8) HP = heal pump, ER=electnc resistance, CAC/RAG> central or room air conditioners
-------
Table 8 Heating and cooling of exlsUng multi-family buildings: saturations, efficiency, and electricity consumption
North
Existing
Existing
Existing
Replacement
Replacement
Replacement
Enduse
HtglClg
% of all
HtglClg
Htg UEC
Clg UEC
HtglClg
Htg UEC
Clg UEC
Code
Type
SF homes
Efficiency
kWhlyr
kWhtyr
Efficiency
kWhlyr
kWhlyr
EANE
ER/-
5%
100%/-
11701
0
100%/-
11701
0
EANEC
LR/CAC
5%
100%/8 62 SEER
11701
515
100%/9 96 SEER
11701
446
EANER
ER/RAC
3%
100%/7 47 EER
11701
160
100%/9 0EER
11701
138
EANIIP
HP
2%
6 79 HSPF/8 59 SEER
5882
517
7 24 HSPF/9 86 SEER
5516
451
eang
Gas-Other /•
42%
-/-
0
0
-/-
0
0
EANGC
Gas-Other /CAC
10%
• / 8 62 SEER
0
515
- / 9 96 SEER
0
446
EANGR
Gas Other / RAC
32%
- / 7 47 EER
0
160
•/90EER
0
138
Total
100%
South
Existing
Existing
Existing
Replace/runt
Replacement
Replacement
Enduse
HtglClg
% of all
HtglClg
Htg UEC
Clg UEC
Htg/Clg
Htg UEC
Clg UEC
Code
Type
SF homes
Efficiency
kWhlyr
kWhlyr
Efficiency
kWhlyr
kWhlyr
EASE
ER/-
13%
100%/-
3026
0
100%/-
3026
0
EASEC
ER/CAC
16%
100%/8 62 SEER
3026
1366
100%/9 96 SEER
3026
1182
EASER
ER/RAC
8%
100%/7 47 EER
3026
424
100%/9 0 EER
3026
367
EASIIP
HP
7%
6 79 HSPF/8 59 SEER
1521
1371
7 24 HSPF/9 86SEER
1427
1194
EASG
Gns Other /
29%
-/-
0
0
-/-
0
0
EASGC
Gas Olher / CAC
14%
/ 8 62 SKER
0
1366
¦19 96 SEER
0
1182
EASGR
Gas-Other / RAC
14%
- / 7 47 EER
0
424
- /9 0 EER
0
367
Total
100%
(1) UECs were obtained from healing and cooling loads (Ritschard
-------
Tabic 9: Heating and cooling of new multi-family buildings: saturations, efficiency, and electrldly consumption
North
Enduse
Hlg/Clg
% of all new
HlglCtg
Hlg UEC
Clg UEC
Code
Type
MF homes
Efficiency
kWhtyr
kWhfyr
NANE
BRI-
12%
100%/-
6768
0
nanec
ER/C AC
20%
100%/9 96 SEER
6768
412
NANER
ER/RAC
2%
100%/9 0EER
6768
128
NANHP
HP
3%
7 24 HSPF/9 86 SEER
3191
416
NANG
Gas-Other / -
23%
-/-
0
0
nangc
Gas-Olher / CAC
14%
¦1996 SEER
0
412
NANGR
Gai-Oiher / RAC
26%
- / 9 0 EER
0
128
Total
100%
Soulh
Enduse
Htg'Clg
% of all new
HtgiCtg
Htg UEC
Clg UEC
Code
Type
MF homes
Efficiency
kWhfyr
kWh/yr
NASE
ER/-
13%
100%/-
862
0
NASEC
ER/CAC
30%
100%/9 96 SEER
862
945
NASER
ER/RAC
7%
100%/9 0 EER
862
293
NASIIP
HP
12%
7 24 HSPF/9 86 SEER
406
955
NASG
Gas-Ohcr / -
14%
-/-
0
0
NASGC
Gas-Olher / CAC
22%
- / 9 96 SEER
0
945
NASGR
Gas-Other / RAC
2%
- / 9 0 EER
0
293
Total
100%
(1) Space conditioning equipment saturations are from RECS87 data for mulufamily homes built 1980-88 and
are weighted using 1988 new housing starts data from the Statistical Abstract of the United States 1990
(2) UECs were obtained from heating and cooling loads (Ritschard St Huang, 1989) for 1980s
vintage buildings located in Chicago for the north and Fort Worth for the south
(Fort Worth weather adjusted to Charleston, SC weather using ratios of degree days)
(3) Equipment efficiencies are from LBL REM (1991) for 1990 new units, based on extrapolation from 1987 ARI data
(4) No shell efficiency measures are applied to mullifamily buildings, only equipment efficiency measures
(5) HP s heat pump, ER=tlecllic resistance, CAC/RAC= central or room air conditioners
(6) Furnace fan electricity use for non-electric furnaces is counted as "miscellaneous energy" and does not appear in this table
-------
Table 10. Healing and cooling of existing mobile homes: saturations, efficiency and electricity consumption
North
Existing
Existing
Existing
Replacement
Replacement
Replacement
Endiue
HtglClg
•befall
HtglClg
Htg
Clg
HtglClg
Htg
Clg
Code
Type
MHs
Efficiency
UEC
UEC
Efficiency
UEC
UEC
EMNE
ER/-
3%
100%/-
11188
0
100%/-
11188
0
EMNEC
ER/CAC
3*
100%/ 8 62 SEER
11188
1542
100%/9 96 SEER
11188
1334
EMNER
ER/RAC
4%
100% /7 47 EER
11188
478
100%/9 0 EER
11188
414
EMNHP
HP
IK.
6.79 HSPF/8S9SEER
5626
1544
7 24 HSPF/ 9 86 SEER
5276
134S
EMNO
Gas-Oiher / -
41%
-/-
0
0
-/-
0
0
EMNGC
Gu-Olher/CAC
21%
-/8 62 SEER
0
1429
-/996 SEER
0
1236
EMNGR
Gas-Olhcr / RAC
28%
-/7 47 EER
0
443
-/90EER
0
383
Total
100%
South
Existing
Existing
Existing
Replacement
Replacement
Replacement
Endiut
HtglClg
% of all
HtglClg
Htg
Clg
HtglClg
Htg
Clg
Code
Type
MHs
Efficiency
UEC
UEC
Efficiency
UEC
UEC
EMSE
ER/-
7%
100%/-
5800
0
100%/-
5800
0
EMSEC
ER/CAC
8%
100% /8 62 SEER
5800
3065
100%/9 96 SEER
5800
26S3
EMSER
ER/RAC
12%
100%/7 47 EER
5800
1042
10O%/9 0EER
5800
902
EMS HP
HP
1%
6.79 HSPF/8.59 SEER
2964
3175
7 24 HSPF/9 86 SEER
2780
2766
EMSG
Gas-Other /-
27%
-/-
0
0
-/-
0
0
EM5GC
Gas-Other /CAC
10%
- / 8.62 SEER
0
2926
- / 9 96 SEER
0
532
EMSGR
Gas-Other /RAC
34%
- / 7 47 EER
0
995
-/90EER
0
861
Total
100%
(1) Room air conditioner UEC it assumed to be 31% and 34% of corresponding CAC UEC
in the north and south, respectively (from NERC regional utility dai*—RCG/Hagler-Bailly 1990)
(2) UEC* were obtained from PEAR using a prototype one-story single family home with aluminum
window sashes. The PEAR results for the north were adjusted from Cincinnati weather (the
nearest city to Qucago with crawl space m the PEAR database) to Chicago weather using
rauos of healing and cooling degree days. PEAR results m the south are based on Charleston, SC weather
(3) Floor areas are from RECS 1987
(4) All shell characteristics exefp* for infiltration correspond to HUD Zone II minimum
requirements (Mills 1994) far the north, and Zone 1 minimum requirements for the south
HUD Zones J and II are virtually identical geographically to our South and North regions, respectively
(5) Infiltration rates are estimates from Allen Lee of Bundle PNL (personal communication, April 1991)
of existing mobile homes in the Pacific Northwcsu Lcc s ACH of 0.5 wis adjusted by the specific
infiltration rale for our northern and southern regions m order to account for the difference in
weather between Seattle and Chicago (or Charleston) We assumed that our prototype homes and
homes m Seattle have the same specific leakage area.
(6) The saturations of homes m each space conditioning category are from RECS 87
(7) No shell measures are applied to mobile homes, only equipment efficiency measures
(8) HP = heat pump; ER=ckectric resistance; CAC/RAC= central or room air conditioners
(9) Furnace fan electricity use for non-decxric furnaces u counted as "miscellaneous energy" and does not appear in this table.
(10) Equipment efficiencies are from LBL REM (1991) for 1990 new and existing units, based on extrapolation from 1987 ARJ data.
19
-------
Tabic 11: Heating and cooling of new mobile homes: saturations, efficiency, and electricity consumption
North
Enduie
HtglClg
% of all
HtglClg
Htg UEC
Clg UEC
Code
Type
Mobile hornet
Efficiency
kWh/yr
kWhlyr
NMNE
ER / -
3%
100%/-
9603
0
NMNEC
ER/CAC
5%
100%/9 96 SEER
9603
1307
NMNER
ER/RAC
6%
100% / 9.0 EER
9603
405
NMNHP
HP
0%
7 24 HSPF/9.86 SEER
4635
1244
NMNO
Gas-Other / -
36%
-/-
0
0
NMNGC
Gas-Other / CAC
24%
-/9.96 SEER
0
1307
NMNGR
Gas-Other / RAC
27%
- / 9.0 EER
0
405
Total existing
101%
South
Enduse
HtglClg
% of oil
HtglClg
Htg UEC
Clg UEC
Code
Type
Mobile homes
Efficiency
kWHyr
kWhlyr
NMSE
ER/-
11%
100%/-
5161
0
NMSEC
ER/CAC
24%
100%/9 96 SEER
5161
2716
NMSER
ER/RAC
19%
100%/9.0 EER
5161
923
NMSHP
HP
2%
7 24 HSPF/9 86 SEER
2434
2740
NMSG
Gas-Other / -
14%
-/-
0
0
NMSGC
Gas-Other / CAC
15%
- / 9.96 SEER
0
2716
NMSGR
Gas-Other / RAC
15%
- / 9.0 EER
0
923
Total new
100%
(1) Room air conditioner UEC is assumed to be 31% and 34% of corresponding CAC UEC
in the north and south, respectively (from NERC regional utility data—RCG/Hagler-Bailly 1990)
(2) UECs were obtained from PEAR using a prototype one-story single family home with aluminum
window sashes. The PEAR results for the north were adjusted from Cincinnati weather (the
nearest cily to Chicago with crawl space in the PEAR database) to Chicago weather using
ratios of heating and cooling degree days. PEAR results in the south are based on Charleston, SC weather.
(3) Floor area is the national average for mobile homes told in 1989, from MH11991b
(4) Infiltration rates are estimates from Allen Lee of Bartelle PNL (personal communication, April 1991)
of existing mobile homes in the Pacific Northwest. Lee's ACH of 0.4 was adjusted by the specific
infiltration rate far our northern and southern regions in order to account for the difference in
weather between Seattle and Chicago (or Charleston). We assumed that our prototype homes and
homes in Seattle have the same specific leakage area.
(5) AU other shell characteristics were obtained from Manufactured Housing Institute estimates of the
most popular shell packages sold in 1990 by region (Mill 1991a).
(6) The saturations of homes in each space conditioning category were for homes built 1980-88. from RECS 87.
(7) No shell measures are applied to mobile homes, only equipment efficiency measures
(8) HP = heat pump; ER=electnc resistance; CAC/RAC= central or room air conditioners
(9) Furnace fan electricity use for non-electric furnaces is counted as "miscellaneous energy" and docs not appear in this table.
(10) Equipment efficiencies are from LBL REM (1991) for 1990 new units, based on extrapolation from 1987 ARI daia.
20
-------
Non-space conditioning end uses
Table 12 shows baseline saturations in 1990 and 2010, and the UECs for average
appliances existing in 1990, and for the typical new appliance being installed in 1990.
Water heating: The UEC for electric water heaters reflects the 1990 standards, and
includes the hot water used in dishwashers and clotheswashers. Energy savings from hot
water reductions from the 1994 efficiency standards on laundry products are included as
measures in the supply curve.
Refrigerators and Freezers: The top-mount auto-defrost refrigerator comprises
about 2/3 of all refrigerators sold in the U.S. (LBL REM 1991), and this model is the one
chosen to represent the conservation potential for all refrigerators. Freezers are assumed to
be half upright manual defrost and half chest manual defrost. The frozen efficiency
baseline includes the 1990 standards, but not the updated 1993 standards for these products
(which are included as measures on the supply curve).
Lighting: The lighting end use includes both interior and exterior lighting. The
baseline assumes all incandescent lighting with no controls. Saturations are an average
from from the Residential Appliance Saturation Surveys (RASSs) from eight utilities.
Energy consumption is estimated for a weighted-average of 4 house types from RECS (US
DOE 1989a) housing stock: large single family, medium single family, small single
family/mobile homes, and apartments. See Appendices 3 and 6 for more details.
Other: The Other end-use is comprised of various categories, such as TVs, electnc
ranges, clothes dryers, and Miscellaneous. The Miscellaneous category includes all
electricity use that has not been disaggregated into an end-use. Only furnace fans,
clotheswasher and dishwasher motors, and various other motors were distinguished within
Miscellaneous. The rest of miscellaneous is not well specified, and more work is needed in
this area (Rainer et al. 1990).
Baseline electricity use
Figures 3 and 4 show the breakdown of 1990 and 2010 U.S. residential
electricity use, by end-use, based on the results of the supply curve model. Appendix 4
contains more detail on frozen efficiency end-use energy from ACCESS, and Table 13
compares the LBL REM frozen efficiency forecast to that from ACCESS. Agreement is
within 7.1% for total residential electricity consumption. This difference is caused
principally by the base-year difference in space conditioning energy. The representation of
space conditioning in LBL REM is not currently as detailed as that in the supply curve
program, so the 13% difference between the forecasted baselines in 2010 is not a grave
concern. As ACCESS'S inputs become more closely integrated with those of LBL REM,
we expect these differences to be reduced.
D. Conservation Measures
Once the baseline forecast has been established, the next step is to estimate the costs
and energy savings for measures that reduce the baseline energy consumption.
Costs of measures
Space conditioning shell measures: Costs of space conditioning energy
conservation measures are taken from Koomey et al (1991) for new single-family buildings
and Boghosian (1991) for existing single-family buildings. In both cases, the costs were
21
-------
Table 12. Baseline saturations and unit energy consumption of non-space-conditioning appliances
Average
Average
saturation of
saturation of
Average UEC of
Average UEC of
appliances
appliances
appliances
new appliances
Appliance
existing in 1990
in 2010
ousting in 1990
in 1990
Black and white television sets, 13 inch (1)
37 0%
37.0%
50
50
Clothes Dryer elccuic
53.8%
-59 4%
904
880
Color television sets 19-20 inch (1)
93.0%
92.0%
205
205
Bee. Water Heater
40.2%
44 5%
3850
3539
Electric Range
653%
75.2%
1010
944
Lighting (Indoor and Outdoor)
1000%
100.0%
1060
1060
Freezer
35.1%
30.6%
1104
56S
Miscellaneous electricity
1000%
1000%
559
559
Refrigerator
114 0%
115 6%
1226
893
(1) TV saturations are ¦ weighted average of 31 national uubues' daia and represent customer saturation, not appliance saturation.
Customer saturation u the fraction of households having at least one appliance, appliance saturation reflects the number
of appliances in eacli house and can therefore be greater than 100%. However, usage patterns of second and third TV
sets are not well documented and we have ignored these additional units.
(2) All other appliance saturations are national averages from LBLREM (1991)
(3) UECs (ran LBLREM (1991), except for TVs (from US DOE 1958) and lighting (see Appendix 3 and Appendix 6 for details).
UECs for new appliances reflect the 1990 standards (where applicable) Refrigerators and freezer UECs may not
exactly match the LBL-REM weighted average over all units sold, as we have for these two end-uses
represented all possible units sold with one or a two prototypes (see Appendix 3 for details).
In these two cases, the prototype UECs are directly taken from LBL-REM (1991)
22
-------
Figure 3: U.S. Residential Electricity Use 1990
Heating
Cooling
Lighting
Water heating
Refrigerators
Frozen efficiency baseline in 1990 = 828 TWh
Source: ACCESS (see Table 13 and Appendix 4)
-------
Figure 4: U.S. Residential Electricity Use 2010
(Frozen Efficiency Baseline)
Heating
p Cooling
Lighting
Water heating
Refrigerators
Freezers
Frozen efficiency baseline in 2010 = 1008 TWh
Source: ACCESS (see Table 13 and Appendix 4)
-------
Table 13: Comparison of ACCESS and LBL Residential Energy Model frozen efficiency forecasts
1990
1990
1990
2010
2010
2010
ACCESS
LBL REM
ACCESS/
ACCESS
LBL REM
ACCESS/
TWh
TWh
LBL REM
TWh
TWh
LBL REM
Space conditioning
232
253
91 8%
322
371
86.9%
Heating
137
149
201
231
Cooling
95
104
121
140
Water heating
146
146
99 9%
185
185
100 2%
Freezers
37
37
1005%
21
21
98 6%
Refrigerators
132
132
100 0%
121
126
95 8%
Lighting
100
104
965%
124
132
93 9%
Other
181
181
1001%
234
249
93 9%
Total
828
852
972%
1008
1085
92.9%
(1) The supply curve program (ACCESS) calculates space conditioning energy but docs not separate it into heating and cooling.
In this table, the relative amounts of heating and cooling from LBL REM (1991) are used to separate the supply curve's
space conditioning energy into heating and cooling energy.
-------
or by 1987 housing starts for existing and new buildings, respectively. See Appendices 2
and 3 for costs by measure.
Boghosian's documentation presents total costs (in million dollars) and total
savings (in TWh) for efficiency measures in all existing homes, and does not present the
cost or savings per measure per applicable home (Boghosian 1991). The costs and savings
shown in Appendix 3 are averaged over all homes, since we could not easily derive the cost
per measure per applicable home. For this reason, the per unit measure costs and savings
in Appendix 3 appear to be too low. These parameters are, however, correctly used to
calculate the CCEs.
The costs of window measures for existing buildings are based on the full cost of
replacement, which assumes that the windows would not have been replaced anyway
(Boghosian 1991). The long lifetime of windows makes this assumption roughly
reasonable, though there is some window replacement that occurs as they break or as
buildings are renovated. This assumption vastly overstates the CCE if windows are being
replaced anyway, and this omission will be corrected in future work.
The costs of window improvements in new buildings are the incremental costs of
improving efficiency beyond the prototype's base case assumption. Superwindows, which
have an overall R-value (including frame effects) of R-5.5, are included for new buildings
in the north. Spectrally selective glazings, which block the heating effects of ultraviolet and
infrared radiation but do not affect visible transmissivity, are included for new homes in the
south. Neither of these more advanced glazing technologies are included for existing
buildings. This omission will be corrected in future updates to the supply curves.
Space conditioning equipment in multifamily buildings and mobile homes: The
capital costs of space conditioning equipment in multifamily buildings and mobile homes
have been adjusted using information from EPRI (1987) relating equipment capital costs to
heating and cooling loads. We assume that each multifamily unit has its own space
conditioning equipment. The 1987 RECS or Residential Energy Consumption Survey (US
DOE 1989a) indicates that slightly more than 80% of all central air conditioners (CACs) in
existing multifamily (MF) dwellings are individual units, and 94% of CACs in new MF
units are individually owned (data for heat pumps are inconclusive due to small sample
size). The assumption of all individual units makes the analysis conservative, since there
are economies of scale in improving the efficiency of a single large unit instead of
improving the efficiency of many small units. These homes usually have smaller loads per
housing unit than the single-family homes upon which the absolute costs of equipment are
based, and the costs of the equipment are adjusted accordingly.
Water heating: Water heating measures include savings from options affecting
standby losses, conduction, and water flow rates, as well as hot water8 savings from the
1994 standard on laundry products (clotheswashers and dishwashers). The baseline new
water heater meets the 1990 standard. See Appendix 3 for more details.
The heat pump water heater (HPWH) is included in our technical potential analysis
as an advanced option that is not available in large numbers until after 1995. The
technology itself is currently available, and reliable, but early reliability problems and high
initial costs have limited its use (Beckerman et al. 1990, EPRI 1984, Lerman 1988, Petrie
8Motor savings from the Laundry product standards have been included as supply curve measures affecting
the Other end use category.
26
-------
and Peach 1988). We assume that the Electric Power Research Institute's "third
generation" HPWHs, which are now being tested, become commercially available by
1993.
HPWHs can have a large effect on space conditioning loads if they are located in
the conditioned space (they will increase space heating loads and decrease space cooling
loads). They also do not perform well in cold climates, except if placed in unheated
basements that do not become too cold in winter. We have assumed that all homes in our
southern region would be eligible for HPWHs (taking advantage of the reduction in cooling
load), and only 10% of the homes in the north (i.e., those homes with unheated basements)
would be so eligible.
It is when discussing logistic considerations for advanced technologies like the
HPWH that the limitations of the frozen efficiency/technical potential methodology become
most apparent There will be constraints in scaling up production of HPWHs that are both
physical and economic. Economic constraints should in principle not be considered in a
technical potential estimate, but in this case they are inextricably intertwined with the
physical constraints. Current production of HPWHs is around 2000 units per year, but
discussions with one of the larger manufacturers of these devices indicates that production
could be increased to hundreds of thousands of units per year in a year or two, given
sufficient demand (Shuford 1991).
We attempt to approximate the physical constraints in scaling up HPWH production
by assuming that only half of eligible electric water heaters (EWHs) sold in the 1995-2000
period (that are not switched to natural gas) are converted to heat pumps. During the period
1995-2000, 50% of electric water heaters sold in the South (after fuel switching is
accounted for) are converted to HPWHs, and 5% of EWHs sold in the North are converted
to HPWHs. After 2000, we assume that all eligible EWHs sold during this period are
converted to HPWHs.
The purchase cost of HPWHs would decrease if production were increased by a
substantial amount, due to economies of scale (Chan 1991). For refrigerators, the rule of
thumb is that consumer cost will decrease by about 10% if production of a particular model
is doubled. For fluorescent ballasts, consumer cost will decrease 20-30% if manufacturing
output is increased by a factor of ten.9 Since the number of HPWHs sold in our technical
potential case increases by a factor of 500 to 1000 over current levels, it is plausible to
argue that consumer costs will decrease by at least 20% compared to current prices. We
chose to reduce consumer cost by 20% as a conservative estimate.
Energy savings from HPWHs vary from 30% to 70%, with more recent higher
efficiency models tending towards the higher savings number. EPRI (1984) reviewed 45
utility field tests of savings from HPWHs in all regions of the U.S., and found that savings
averaged roughly 50%. The EPRI third generation HPWHs are expected to save 60-65%,
but we assumed 50% savings to be conservative. See Appendix 3 for details on costs and
energy savings.
^Refrigerators are much more similar to HPWHs than are ballasts, but the large increase in production that
we forecast (by factors of 500 to 1000) make our 20% cost reducuon conservative. Shuford (1991)
estimates that such a large production increase would reduce the capital cost of the third generation HPWHs
to 50% of their cost at the ume when the devices are first introduced in 1992 or 1993.
27
-------
Refrigerators and Freezers: Costs for efficiency improvements in refrigeration
equipment have been calculated assuming that chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) refrigerants and
blowing agents are unavailable throughout the analysis period, using costs from US DOE
(1988, 1989b).
Lighting: Costs of lighting equipment are shown in Appendix 6, and are taken
from Grainger (1990), Real Goods (1990) and EFI (1990).
Laundry products: Costs for efficiency improvements of clothes washers, clothes
dryers, and dishwashers are taken from US DOE (1990b). The CCEs for shifting to
horizontal axis clothes washers depend on whether heat pump water heaters are assumed to
be implemented first (there are separate measures for each of the possible cases).
Heat pump (HP) dryers are assumed to saturate the electric dryer market after the
year 2000. Prototypes of both HP dryers and microwave dryers have been tested
successfully, but most development work is currently being devoted to microwave dryers.
HP dryers save more energy and have a lower CCE than microwave dryers, so we chose
them for our technical potential case. Changes in current research and development
funding would have to occur for HP dryers to become commercial, which is why the
measure is delayed until the year 2000.
Other Non space-conditioning end-uses: Costs of other non space-conditioning
energy conservation measures are taken from LBL (1990), LBL REM (1991), McMahon
(1986), US DOE (1988,1989b, 1990b), Perlman (1987), and Goldstein et al. (1990), and
from other references listed in Appendix 3. For costs by measure see Appendix 2.
Fuel switching measures: The CCEs for gas fuel-switching measures include the
present-valued cost of the natural gas used to run the appliance, using the gas price
projections in the Reference case from the U.S. Department of Energy's Annual Energy
Outlook (US DOE 1990a). This approach was adopted because the cost of delivering
service equivalent to an electric appliance includes both the capital cost of switching and the
cost for non-electric fueL
Fuel switching from electricity to direct use of natural gas results in an increase in
gas use. Table 14 shows this increased use, along with the measure codes, CCEs,the
number of units switched, and the electricity savings for each appliance. The total increase
in gas use if all three of these fuel switching measures are fully implemented is about 5% of
the US DOE's estimate of residential natural gas use in 2010 (4.7 Quadrillion Btus, from
US DOE (1991)).
Appliances are only switched in homes that have gas hookups in the home already,
but have an electric water heater, clothes dryer, or range (based on the saturations contained
in the Residential Appliance Saturation Surveys for the utilities shown in Appendix 9). No
switching of electric space heating to gas was included, because almost all houses with gas
service already have gas space heat Further fuel switching (including switching electric
furnaces to gas) may be possible in areas to which gas lines could be inexpensively
extended. Assessing this potential would require significant additional analysis, but the
large electricity savings possible in each house (see Tables 6 to 11) make this option
worthy of further study.
28
-------
Table 14: Electricity savings, increased gas use, and cost of fuel switching to natural gas
Units
Electric range
to gas range
Electric water
heater to gas WH
Electric dryer
to gas dryer
Measure code
ERNG02
EWH08
CD-E03
Cost of conserved energy
(S/kWh
62
4.7
6.1
Applicable fraction
%
227c
8.5%
36%
Per unit natural gas use
thcrms/uni t/yr
47.7
159.5
34.9
Units switched by 2010
millions
19.4
4.7
25.0
Total additional gas use (in 2010)
TBtus/yr
93
75
87
Electricity savings
kWhAmit/yr
944
3539
807
Total electricity savings (in 2010)
TWh/yr
18
17
20
(1) Cost of conserved energy includes the present-valued cost of the natural gas use
assuming the residential gas price forecast in US DOE 1990a, levellzed using
a 1% real discount rate.
(2) Applicable Erection calculated using data from residential appliance
saturation surveys from utilities listed in Appendix 9. It represents the fraction of all
electric appliances purchased in a given year that can be switched to natural gas.
(3) Per unit gas use from LBL REM (1991).
29
-------
Energy savings
For space conditioning in new and existing single-family buildings, energy savings
for specific measures are calculated using the batch version of PEAR and Chicago or
Charleston weather sites (see Appendix 8 for details on the space conditioning analysis).
The exceptions to this rule are the estimates of energy saved from "superwindows" and
from spectrally-selective glazings, which are calculated using a beta-test version of an LBL
model (RESHiN 1.0) for estimating heating and cooling energy use associated with
various window technologies (Sullivan 1991). Interactions between space conditioning
equipment efficiency and shell measures are correcdy accounted for. See Appendix 3 for
details.
Energy savings for appliances and space conditioning equipment in multifamily
buildings and mobile homes have been included in our analysis. Unfortunately, there was
insufficient data to model space conditioning energy savings from shell measures in these
buildings. Some measured data on energy savings from retrofits of fuel-heated multifamily
buildings were available (Cohen et al. 1991, Goldman et al. 1988), but data on electrically
heated buildings are largely confined to the Northwestern U.S. (in a climate quite different
than that of the U.S. average). NPPC (NPPC 1986, NPPC 1989) has estimated the
conservation potential for multi-family buildings in the Northwest, but no comparable
analysis exists for the U.S. Judkoff (1991, 1990) and Baylon et al. (1990) have analyzed
savings for mobile homes for particular regions of the country, but not for the U.S. as a
whole.
Multifamily space conditioning electricity comprises about 7% of the frozen
efficiency baseline in 2010, and mobile home space conditioning electricity comprises
about 2% of this baseline. To the extent that additional energy savings could be achieved
using MF and mobile home space conditioning shell measures, the savings from our
analysis are conservative. Savings from shell measures comparable to those found in
single-family homes (roughly 10-15% of the SF frozen efficiency baseline at a cost of less
than 7.60/kWh) would yield an additional 10 to 15 TWh of energy savings from MF and
MH space conditioning shell measures.
Energy savings for appliances were taken from our national database (see LBL
(1990) and Appendix 3 for more details). No attempt was made to correct for changes in
space conditioning loads due to changes in the energy use of non-space conditioning
appliances located in the conditioned space.
III. RESULTS
Figure 5 shows a supply curve of conserved energy for the U.S. residential sector
in 2000, and Figure 6 shows the supply curve for 2010. Appendices 2a and 2b contain
details on the measures that make up the supply curve in these two years. The total
technical potential in 2010 (without considering cost) is about 486 TWh, or about 48% of
the frozen efficiency baseline. The technical potential in 2000 and 2010 for energy savings
costing less than 7.6^/kWh is about 24% and 41% of each year's baseline use,
respectively. The potential corresponds to 250 TWh in 2000 and 404 TWh in 2010,
30
-------
1*41 Jul 3 1091
Figure 5: Maximum Technical Potential in 2000
151
Discount rate: 7.0 %
Forecast year. 2000
Start year 1990
Baseline energy consumption (TWh)
lor year 2000 = 926.710
168
12 -
144
1261
O)
1989 Residential Price of
LU
"O
Electricity — 7.60 canta/kWh
6 "
60,
25
24% or
Baseline
Use
100
Energy Savings (TWh)
200
250
300
50
150
A supply curve of conserved electricity for the United States residential sector. Each step
represents a conservation measure (or a package of measures). The width of the step
indicates the nationwide electricity savings from the measure and the height of the measure
indicates the cost of conserved electricity. The end uses include space conditioning, water
heating, refrigeration, lighting, and miscellaneous.
31
-------
1fcS7 Jul 3 1991
Rgure 6: Maximum Technical Potential in 2010
15
Discount rate: 7.0 %
Forecast year 2010
Start year 1990
Baseline energy consumption (TWh)
for year 2010= 1007.627
19
12
165
159
1 43i
CO
14C
1989 Residential Price at
LD
Electricity - 7.60 cents/kWh
93
76
70
52
,25 2
40% of
Baseline
Use
100
200 300
Energy Savings (TWh)
400
500
A supply curve of conserved electricity for the United States residential sector. Each step
represents a conservation measure (or a package of measures). The width of the step
indicates the nationwide electricity savings from the measure and the height of the measure
indicates the cost of conserved electricity. The end uses include space conditioning, water
heating, refrigeration, lighting, and miscellaneous.
32
-------
implying a technical potential for energy savings of 70-75 baseload 1000 MW power plants
by 2010.10
Figure 7 indicates that electric water heating measures offer the largest potential
savings (in absolute terms) for costs less than 7.60/kWh of any single end use (slighdy
more than 110 TWh, of which about 17 TWh, or roughly 15%, is attributable to fuel
switching to natural gas). Space conditioning measures are next most important in absolute
terms, saving about 100 TWh. Lighting measures save about 60 TWh, as do refrigerator
and freezer measures together. In percentage terms (relative to each end-use category's
baseline usage), water heating savings potential is the greatest (60%), followed by lighting
(47%), refrigerators (39%), and space conditioning (31%).
Table 15 presents a summary of residential electricity use and savings by
geographic region. The number of households in the Southern region is projected to grow
more quickly than in the Northern region, but the total number of households in 2010 is
still larger in the North than in the South. Total electricity use is slighdy larger in the North
in both 1990 and 2010, but space conditioning electricity use is split almost exactly equally
between the two regions in 1990 and is slighdy larger in the South by 2010. Total
electricity savings costing less than 7.60/kWh are slightly larger in the South, while space
conditioning savings are larger by a factor of 1.7 to 1. This substantial difference is caused
by the larger number of new homes in the South (because efficiency improvements are
cheaper in new homes), the cost effectiveness of spectrally selective glazings, and the
prevalence of air conditioning in the South.
Table 16 displays a breakdown of the energy savings and costs of appliance
standards implemented 1992-1994. Annual expected savings from these standards in 2010
are roughly 47 TWh/year, or about 5% of the frozen efficiency baseline. Of the 410 TWh
of technical potential savings costing less than 7.60/kWh, about 12% (or five percent
relative to the frozen efficiency baseline) are accounted for by the post-1990 standards.
IV. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ANALYSIS: FUTURE WORK
In creating the database of conservation measures, we frequently were forced to
make compromises because of data limitations, weaknesses in computer tools, or resource
constraints. On balance, we believe that correcting for data omissions and methodological
limitations would increase the energy savings and decrease the cost of conserved energy,
so in that sense our analysis is conservative. This section describes some of the limitations
of this analysis, and presents our "wish list" for improving the conservation supply curves.
As we continue to update the supply curves on a regular basis, many of these limitations
will be corrected.
A. Multifamily and mobile home building-shell-related energy savings
The frozen efficiency baseline includes space conditioning energy use in
multifamily buildings and mobile homes. We do not include building shell measures for
these end-uses, because of an inability to easily simulate mobile home and multifamily
building space conditioning energy use, and uncertainty about the costs of improving
10This crude comparison is presented here only to establish the order of magnitude. More accurate
calculations would account for the ume at which conservauon measures save energy relauve to the utility
system peak demand, and relate these "load shape characteristics" to baseload, intermediate and peaking
supply resources. See Koomey et al 1990 for more details
33
-------
Figure 7: Energy Savings and Costs by End-Use in 2010
l/J
200 300
TWh Saved
1 Space Conditioning
2 Lighting
3 Electric Water Heaters
A Refrigerators
5 Freezers
6 Other
40% of
baseline use
400
500
Each segment of this curve shows the total electricity savings and the average cost of conserved energy
for all measures in Figure 5 that cost less than 7.6^/kWh (grouped by end use).
-------
Table 15: Residential electricity use and savings potential by geographic region
North
South
Total
Number of Households 1990 (millions)
Percentage of Total
53.3
56.7%
40.7
433%
94.0
100%
Number of Households 2010 (millions)
Percentage of Total
64.0
543%
53.9
45.7%
117.9
100%
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION
Total 1990 (TWh)»
Percentage of Total
455
55.0%
373
45.0%
828
100%
Total Frozen Efficiency Baseline Electricity Use 2010 (TWO*
Percentage of Total
529
525%
479
475%
1008
100%
Total Savings Potential in 2010
for CCE <7.6 «/kWh (TWh) »•
Percentage of Total Savings Potential
190
47.1%
214
52.9%
404
100%
Energy Savings Potential as a Percentage of
Total Frozen Efficiency Energy Use in 2010
25.9%
44.6%
40.1%
SPACE CONDITIONING ELECTRICTTY CONSUMPTION
Total Space Conditioning (SC) 1990 (TWh)
Percentage of Total SC Use
117
50.6%
115
49.4%
232
100%
Total Space CondiUonmg Electricity Use
Frozen Efficiency Baseline 2010 (TWh)
Percentage of Total SC Use
157
48.6%
166
51.4%
322
100%
Space Conditioning Savings Potential in 2010
for CCE
-------
Table 16: Savings in 2010 from post-1990 appliance efficiency
standards affecting electric end-uses
Cost of
Savings m 2010
Year of
Conserved Energy
Savings in 2010
% of 2010
Appliance
House Type
Standard
C/kWh
TWh/yr
baseline
Central Air Conditioner
SF
1992
5.6
1.96
0.2%
(CAC)
MF
1992
8.7
037
0.0%
MH
1992
5.0
025
0.0%
All
1992
6.0
258
0.3%
Heat Pump (HP)
SF
1992
2.6
2.64
0.3%
MF
1992
4.0
034
0.0%
MH
1992
2.8
0.02
0.0%
All
1992
2&
3.01
0.3%
Refrigerator
AU
1993
2.4
2752
2.7%
Freezer
All
1993
3.4
3.42
0.3%
Clothes dryer
AU
1994
3.1
5.08
0.5%
Clothes washer
All
1994
2.1
339
0.3%
Dishwasher
AU
1994
02
2.14
0.2%
Total from Standards
47.14
4.7%
Total less than 7.6£/kWh
4639
4.6%
(1) CAC and HP savings calculated using prototypes defined in Table 5.
(2) Electricity savings costing less than 7.6g/kWh in the supply curves in Figures 5 and 6 include
the roughly 47 TWh savings from appliance standards.
(3) Standards for CACs/HPs are assumed to be the first measure in all shell
packages for houseiypes with this equipment (for purposes of calculating energy
consumption). They are ranked in the supply curve by CCE, and do not always
come in below 7.6g/kWh. However, 98% of the savings cost less than 7.60/kWh.
(3) In single-family homes, we switch all CACs w/electnc furnaces to HPs. Savings from
the standards for the CACs in single-family homes that are switched to HPs are not
included in the savings in this Table. Similarly, savings from the HP standards for the switched CAC units
were not included (the CACs are switched directly to the most cost-effective HP).
These 'lost' savings are on the order of 0.5 TWh in 2010.
36
-------
existing mobile home thermal integrity. Savings from improvements in space conditioning
equipment are included for these end-uses.
Some research has been done on this topic, which should be extended to the
national level. Space conditioning energy savings in existing mobile homes have been
estimated for Colorado weather from Judkoff (1991,1990). Savings in new mobile homes
have been estimated for the Northwest by Baylon et al. (1990). Multifamily costs and
energy savings have been estimated by the Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC
1986, NPPC 1989), while space conditioning loads for prototypes all over the U.S. have
been estimated by Ritschard and Huang (1989).
B. Shell measures for existing and new homes
Existing single-family buildings: Advanced window options (such as
superwindows and spectrally-selective glazing) have not been included for these buildings,
and they should be. Costs of window replacement should be calculated for two cases: (1)
assuming that the window would be replaced anyway, and estimating the incremental cost
of upgrading the window, and (2) assuming that the window would not be replaced
anyway. Estimates of the natural retrofit rate (i.e. because of breakage or window age) arc
currently being obtained from window and renovation trade associations.
New single-family buildings: all wall insulation levels higher than R-19 are
assumed in our analysis to be reached using exterior sheathing, which is relatively
expensive. Mass—producible advanced wall technologies for new buildings, including I-
beam construction (used in Sweden—(Andrews 1990b, Schipper et al. 1985)), steel frame
construction (Johnson and Liebeler 1991), foam blocks (Gilmore 1987), or solid-core
foam walls may reduce the costs of achieving higher insulation values in walls.
Advances in windows are proceeding at a pace more characteristic of the computer
industry than the generally more sedate building industry. Cheaper coatings and noble gas
fillings are becoming the norm, and the goal of producing a window that would yield a net
heat gain facing any direction on any northern U.S. house (R-8, including frame effects) is
now within reach (Bakke 1990, Feder 1990, Gilmore 1986, Jones 1990, Warner 1990).
New technologies on the horizon include chromogenic glazings that allow electronic control
of window transmissivity (Moore 1987, Selkowitz and Lampert 1989) and innovative heat
recovery schemes using controlled window infiltration (Pop Sci 1989).
Ventilation with heat recovery (which replaces uncontrolled infiltration as a means
of preserving indoor air quality) is a technology that has matured in the past decade and is
used widely in the Northwest (Lubliner and Young 1990). It has not been included in our
conservation potential estimates. Both whole-house and room units are available (Cons.
Rpts. 198S). Use of a tightly sealed shell with mechanical ventilation can achieve
substantial further reductions in heating load due to infiltration, at a small cost in additional
energy to operate the ventilation (Feustel et al. 1987).11 Early results with these devices
were mixed (Fisk and Turiel 1983, Tunel et al. 1983), but further experience has proved
their reliability.
11 Ventilation with heat recovery may also help to achieve capital cost savings in the heating system-see
secuon IV. C
37
-------
C. Capital cost savings for advanced shell measures
Substantia] improvements in shell efficiency can result in capital cost savings for
space conditioning equipment. In the limiting case for space heating, the furnace can be
eliminated altogether, and replaced with a larger water heater, as has been done by Bigelow
Homes near Chicago (Andrews 1990a, Donovan 1988). Assessing these potential capital
cost savings requires a whole-system analysis approach much more complicated than the
one used in this study. EPRI (1987) has taken the first steps towards systematizing such
an analysis.
D. Window orientation/passive solar features/landscaping
Few data exist about window orientation in new homes, but simple calculations
suggest that using shading (awnings, trellises, shade screens, thermal curtains, or
overhangs) and allocating more windows to the south and west side of northern houses
(and more to the northern side of houses in the south) can reap substantial energy savings
benefits. In the absence of data, our analysis assumed that window area is spread equally
on all four walls, and that there are overhangs on all windows.
No other passive solar options are considered here, in spite of the potential energy
savings available from these options (Kahn 1991), because costs for these improvements
are more difficult to estimate than for simple changes in insulation levels. Both energy
savings and costs of passive solar buildings are dependent on the complete building design
and not just on the characteristics of the components.
Many analyses suggest that landscaping can have major effects on energy use
(Huang et aL 1990, Meier 1991), but little information is available on the applicability of
such measures to new and existing homes. Data are needed on the number of trees now
planted around houses, the kind of trees typically planted, and the window orientation.
More research is needed on these issues to assess the potential for reducing energy use
using landscaping.
E. Internal loads
Changes in space conditioning loads due to improvements in appliance efficiency
are not included in the supply curve analysis. In general, improvements in appliance
efficiency will increase heating loads and decrease cooling loads. The LBL residential
energy model (LBL REM) does keep track of these interactions, and as LBL REM and the
supply curve model become more closely integrated, we expect to include these effects.
The importance of heat pump water heaters and dryers in the technical potential case make a
detailed assessment of the effects of internal loads imperative.
F. Infiltration
The data on baseline infiltration in both new and existing buildings of all types are
based on small sample sizes that are heavily weighted towards buildings in California and
the Northwest (CEC 1990, Kolb and Baylon 1989, Modera 1986, Sherman et al. 1984).
Many local government agencies and non-profit organizations perform pressurization tests
using blower doors to measure infiltration rates and perform retrofits of houses in their
region. These data have never been compiled in a systematic format for the U.S. as a
whole, but such a compilation is urgently needed for national-level policy analyses.
Measuring savings from specific infiltration reduction measures are also needed, because
the available measured data are scanty and inconclusive (Butterfield 1989, Schlegel 1990).
38
-------
G. Duct leakage
Duct leakage, which can be substantial in centrally-conditioned homes (Brook
1991), has not been included in the analysis. Modera's (1991) latest unpublished results
on the effect of duct leakage on furnace and central air conditioning efficiency indicate that
the nominal efficiency of furnaces should be multiplied by a factor of 0.65 to calculate
actual efficiency of heat delivery, while the comparable number for cooling is 0.66. This
huge correction factor indicates that the importance of duct leakage has traditionally been
underestimated in conservation potential analyses. We will include this correction factor in
future updates of the supply curves whenever Modera's detailed work is published. RECS
(US DOE 1989a) indicates that 70-80% of all existing U.S. houses have ducts, so this
issue is potentially an important one. Omitting this factor represents a conservatism, in the
face of uncertainty about current data and about the effects of recent changes in duct sealing
practice.
H. Long-term fuel switching to homes near gas supply
We consider fuel switching in homes that already have gas service, but do not
assess the potential for extending gas mains into areas that are close to the existing
distribution system, or for ensuring that as many new developments as possible have gas
service. In the long-term, such fuel switching could in many cases be cost effective,
especially where electric space heating and water heating are switched to gas
simultaneously. A more comprehensive study is needed to assess the size and cost-
effectiveness of this additional fuel-switching potential.
I. Integrated appliances and advanced appliances
No attempt has been made to include the potential energy savings from integrated
appliances that combine the functions of space conditioning and water heating, or those of
televisions and video cassette recorders.
Ground-source heat pumps, which are extremely efficient compared to air-source
models, have not been included in our technical potential estimates. Solar water heaters
and solar pool heaters are not included, though these are cost effective in some
applications. Gas-fired air conditioners are currently in use for commercial applications,
and may yield additional cost-effective fuel switching potential in residential space
conditioning by the mid-1990s.
J. Treatment of appliance standards
Appliance standards implemented after 1990 (e.g. the 1993 refrigerator/freezer
standards) have been treated in this study as having a positive cost to society (relative to the
1990 standard). This cost is used to rank the standard in the supply curve.12 A utility
considering programs to increase the efficiency of refrigerators would "receive" these
energy savings at zero cost, even though the customer would have to pay something for
them. Care must therefore be used in extrapolating these national results to specific utility
service territories.
12These standards are always the first measures "implemented'' regardless of CCE, even though the
measures are shown on the grand supply curve ranked by CCE. This convention ensures that all energy
savings for improving efficiency beyond the appliance standards are calculated correcdy.
39
-------
K. Lighting end-use
Lighting has been characterized in a relatively detailed fashion, considering that the
available data are somewhat scanty. We expect some of these data to change as we
accumulate more information in conjunction with LBL's analysis of possible lighting
efficiency standards. Technical improvements and cost reductions for compact fluorescent
lamps, partly influenced by utility incentive programs, will be assessed in more detail.
L. Miscellaneous end-uses
More investigation is needed into the components of and the savings from the
Miscellaneous end-use category. In particular, pool heaters, furnace fans for non-electric
furnaces, computers, VCRs, and other high saturation electronic devices need more careful
study.
M. Load shape characteristics
Once measured or calculated, load shape characteristics for each measure (as
represented in simplest form by conservation load factors (Koomey et al. 1990) or in more
comprehensive fashion by average monthly or weekly load shapes) could be included as
fields in each record of ACCESS'S database. This addition would improve the program's
usefulness in least-cost utility planning analyses, because it would allow more accurate
characterization of the coincident load savings attributable to the efficiency resources.
N. Additional data needs
Improved data are needed on the costs of switching to heat pumps (HPs) in existing
homes with electric resistance (ER) heating and central air conditioner (CAC) cooling. We
assumed that $600 would suffice to pay for retrofitting and reoptimizing the ventilation
system, and that a standard HP would cost an additional $100 over the cost of a standard
CAC. Since the lifetime of the CAC is 12 years and the lifetime of baseboaid heaters is
roughly twice that, we assumed that HPs would be installed at the rate of retirement of
baseboard heaters, thus avoiding the costs associated with early retirement of equipment.
Further research is needed to test the accuracy of these assumptions, although the measure
is so cost effective that even a several-fold increase in capital cost would keep the CCE
below 7.60/kWh in all cases.
Information on the costs of fuel switching for water heaters, ranges, and dryers is
often anecdotal. These costs are site-specific, and we know little about the extent of
constraints on fuel switching and on the cost penalties imposed by such constraints.
V. CONCLUSIONS
This analysis has demonstrated that there are significant, cost-effective energy
efficiency resources available in the U.S. residential sector. The technical potential for
energy savings in the U.S. residential sector by 2010 is roughly equivalent to 70-75 1000-
MW power plants, at an average cost of conserved energy of 3.40/kWh (using only those
efficiency resources costing less than 7.60/kWh). These savings represent about 40% of
the frozen efficiency baseline. If conservation resources up to 140/kWh are considered, the
total technical potential is about 48% of the frozen efficiency baseline. Potentially large
efficiency resources have not been included in the analysis due to lack of data or lack of
40
-------
resources, including building shell improvements for mobile homes and multifamily
buildings, expansion of the gas supply network, landscaping and passive solar techniques,
and advanced space conditioning shell technologies for new homes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to Bruce Schillo of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for
funding this work and for contributing comments. This paper benefitted from the insights
of colleagues from the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, including Art Rosenfeld, Florentin
Krause, Marc Ross, and Mary Orland. Useful comments were also received from Glenn
Reed of Xenergy, Frank Stem of RCG/Hagler Bailly, Peter Miller of NRDC, and Michael
Shepard of RMI. Thanks also to Ted Gartner, who assisted in report production.
Hie work described in this paper was supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Energy
Policy Branch, Office of Policy Analysis. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract
Number DE-AC03-76SF00098.
REFERENCES
Andersson, Brandt, William Carroll and Mario R. Martin. 1986. "Aggregation of U.S.
Population Centers Using Climate Parameters Related to Building Energy Use."
Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, vol. 25, no. 5. p. 596.
Andrews, Steve. 1990a. "Building on Innovation". JLC Midwest Edition. January 1990.
p. 32.
Andrews, Steve. 1990b. "Sweden's Super Houses". Solar Age. November 1985. p. 52.
Bakke, Timothy O. 1990. "Windows of Opportunity". Popular Science. May 1990. p.
108.
Baylon, David, Bob Davis, Mike Kennedy and Mike Lubliner. 1990. Manufactured
Homes Simulated Thermal Analysis and Cost Effectiveness Study. Ecotope, Inc.
and the Washington State Energy Office, for the Bonneville Power Administration.
May 1990.
Beckerman, Richard, Lois Gordon and Vince Schueler. 1990. Heat Pump Water Heaters:
An Assessment of Current Technical and Economic Feasibility as a Demand-Side
Resource in the Pacific Northwest. The Washington State Energy Office, for the
Bonneville Power Administration. November 1990.
Berry, Linda. 1989. The Administrative Costs of Energy Conservation Programs. Oak
Ridge National Laboratory. ORNL/CON-294. November 1989.
Bodlund, Birgit, Evan Mills, Tomas Karlsson and Thomas B. Johansson. 1989. "The
Challenge of Choices: Technology Options for the Swedish Electricity Sector." In
Electricity: Efficient End-Use and New Generation Technologies, and Their
Planning Implications. Edited by T. B. Johansson, B. Bodlund and R. H.
Williams. Lund, Sweden: Lund University Press.
41
-------
Boghosian, Stan. 1991. Description of the Shell Thermal Characteristics of U.S.
Residences and Calculation of Shell Retrofit Option Costs. Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory. DRAFT LBL-29417. April 1991.
Brook, Dave. 1991. "Ductwork seen as major culprit in poor furnace performance". Home
Energy. May/June 1991. p. 43.
Butterfield, Karen. 1989. "How Effective are Blower Doors?". Home Energy.
January/February 1989. p. 25.
Carlsmith, Roger S, William U. Chandler, James E. McMahon and Danilo J. Santini.
1990. Energy Efficiency: How Far Can We Gol Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
ORNL/TM-11441. January 1990.
CEC, California Energy Commission. 1990. Occupancy Patterns & Energy Consumption
in New California Houses (I984-1988). CEC. P400-90-009. September 1990.
Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1990. The Statistical Abstract of the United States
1990. 110th Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Chan, Terry. 1991. Personal Communication: "Discussion of economies of scale in
appliance manufacturing, based on lessons from Appliance Standards Manufacturer
impact analysis". LBL's Appliance Standards Group. June 1991.
Chemick, Paul and Emily Caverhill. 1989. The Valuation of Externalities From Energy
Production, Delivery, and Use: Fall 1989 Update. A Report by PLC, Inc. to the
Boston Gas Co. December 22,1989.
Cohen, S. D., C. A. Goldman and J. P. Harris. 1991. Measured Energy Savings and
Economics of Retrofitting Existing Single-Family Homes: An Update of the
BECA-B Database. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. LBL-28147, volumes I and H.
February 1991.
Cons. Rpts. 1985. "Heat-Recovery Ventilators". Consumer Reports. October 1985. p.
596.
Cummings, James B., John J. Tooley Jr, Neil Moyer and Rico Dunsmore. 1990.
"Impacts of Duct Leakage on Infiltration Rates, Space Conditioning Energy Use,
and Peak Electrical Demand in Florida Homes." In Proceedings of the 1990
ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Asilomar, CA:
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.
Donovan, Deborah. 1988. "Energy Efficiency Getting Simpler for Bigelow Co.". Daily
Herald, Saturday, May 28, 1988.
EAP, Energy Analysis Program. 1987. Program for Energy Analysis of Residences
(PEAR 2.1): User's Manual. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. PUB-610. March
1987.
EFI. 1990. Energy Efficient Lighting: Prices/Order Form. Energy Federation Inc.,
Framingham, MA. March 1990.
42
-------
EPRI, Electric Power Research Institute. 1984. Heat Pump Water Heaters. EPRI. EM-
3582, Project 2033-5. May 1984.
EPRI, Electric Power Research Institute. 1987. TAG-Technical Assessment Guide: Vol.
2: Electricity End Use. Part 1: Residential Electricity Use—1987. EPRI. EPRIP-
4463-SR, vol.2, Part 1. September 1987.
EPRI, Electric Power Research Institute. 1990. Efficient Electricity Use: Estimates of
Maximum Energy Savings. EPRI. CU-6746, Project 2788. March 1990.
Feder, Barnaby. 1990. "'Smart' Windows, Intriguing Potential". New York Times,
Sunday, 8 April 1990, p. 11.
Feustel, Helmut E., Mark P. Modera and Arthur H. Rosenfeld. 1987. Ventilation
Strategies for Different Climates. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. LBL-20364.
March 1987.
Fisk, William J. and Isaac Turiel. 1983. "Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers:
Performance, Energy Savings, and Economics." Energy and Buildings, vol. 5, p.
197.
Geller, Howard, Anibal de Almeida, Barbara Barkovitch, Carl Blumstein, David
Goldstein, Alan Meier, Peter Miller, Olivier de la Moriniere, Art Rosenfeld and
Linda Schuck. 1986. Residential Conservation Power Plant Study: Phase 1 -
Technical Potential. Pacific Gas and Electric Company. February 1986.
Gilmore, V. Elaine. 1986. "Superwindows". Popular Science. March 1986. p. 76.
Gilmore, V. Elaine. 1987. "Foam-Block House". Popular Science. December 1987. p.
52.
Goldman, Charles, Kathleen Greely and Jeffrey P. Harris. 1988. "Retrofit Experience in
U.S. Multi-Family Buildings: Energy Savings, Costs, and Economics." Energy.
vol. 13, no. 11. p. 797.
Goldstein, David, Robert Mowris, Ban Davis and Kari Dolan. 1990. Initiating Least-Cost
Energy Planning in California: Preliminary Methodology and Analysis. Testimony
Before the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development
Commission (CEC). February 21, 1990.
Grainger. 1990. General Catalog No. 377. W. W. Grainger, Inc.
Hohmeyer, 0.1988. Social Costs of Energy Consumption: External Effects of Electricity
Generation in the Federal Republic of Germany. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Huang, Y. Joe, Hashem Akbari and HeiderTaha. 1990. The Wind-Shielding and Shading
Effects of Trees on Residential Heating and Cooling Requirements. Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory. LBL-24131. January 1990.
Hunn, Bruce D., Martin L. Baughman, Scott C. Silver, Arthur H. Rosenfeld and Hashem
Akbari. 1986. Technical Potential for Electrical Energy Conservation and Peak
Demand Reduction in Texas Buildings. Public Utility Commission of Texas.
February 1986.
43
-------
Johnson, Dean and Joanne Liebeler. 1991. "Steel Framing Replacing the 2x4 Stud". San
Francisco Chronicle, April 24,1991, Briefing section, p. 10.
Jones, David A. 1990. "Windows of Opportunity". Builder. May 1990. p. 216.
Judkoff, Ron. 1991. "Mobile Home Retrofits Revisited: CMFERT Phase II". Home
Energy, p. 21.
Judkoff, Ron, Rob DeSoto and Ed Hancock. 1990. "CMFERT: Training and Testing of
Mobile Home Retrofits". Home Energy, p. 23.
Kahn, Cub. 1991. "Passive Solar Design: Housewarming with Many Efficient Returns".
Home Energy. May/June 1991. p. 15.
Kahn, Edward. 1988. Electric Utility Planning and Regulation. Washington, DC:
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
Kolb, J. O. and D. Baylon. 1989. Evaluation of Infiltration in Residential Units
Constructed to Model Conservation Standards. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
ORNL/CON-257. March 1989.
Koomey, Jonathan. 1990a. Comparative Analysis of Monetary Estimates of External
Environmental Costs Associated with Combustion of Fossil Fuels. Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory. LBL-28313. April 1990.
Koomey, Jonathan. 1990b. Energy Efficiency Choices in New Office Buildings: An
Investigation of Market Failures and Corrective Policies. PhD Thesis, Energy and
Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley.
Koomey, Jonathan, James McMahon and Cheryl Wodley. 1991. Improving the Thermal
Integrity of New Single-Family Detached Residential Buildings: A Regional
Assessment of Capital Costs and Energy Savings. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.
LBL-29416. Julyl991.
Koomey, Jonathan, Arthur H. Rosenfeld and Ashok K. Gadgil. 1990. "Conservation
Screening Curves to Compare Efficiency Investments to Power Plants." Energy
Policy, vol. 18, no. 8. p. 774.
Krause, Florentin, John F. Busch and Jonathan G. Koomey. 1991. Incorporating Global
Warming Risks in Power Sector Planning: A Case Study of the New England
Region. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. LBL-31019. August 1991.
Krause, Florentin and Joseph Eto. 1988. Least-Cost Utility Planning: A Handbook for
Public Utility Commissioners (v.2): The Demand Side: Conceptual and
Methodological Issues. National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners,
Washington, DC. December 1988.
Krause, Florentin, Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Mark D. Levine and et al. 1987. Analysis of
Michigan's Demand-Side Electric Resources in the Residential Sector (Prepared for
the Michigan Electricity Options Study). Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. LBL-
23025. May 1987.
44
-------
Krause, Florentin, Ed Vine and Sunita Gandhi. 1989. Program Experience and its
Regulatory Implications: A Case Study of Utility Lighting Efficiency Programs.
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. LBL-28268. October 1989.
LBL. 1990. Appliance Energy Conservation Database. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.
September 1990.
LBL REM. 1991. LBL's Residential Energy Model, which includes a database of
elasticities, saturations, unit energy consumptions, conservation measures, capital
costs, and other parameters. Some of this information is contained in US DOE
1989b and McMahon 1986.
Lee, Allen. 1991. Personal Communication: "Estimates of infiltration rates of pacific
northwest houses". Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratory. April 1991.
Lerman, David I. 1988. Regional Study of Residential Water Heating Equipment: Phase II,
Final Report. ERC International, Portland, OR. ERC/PO-29—Prepared for
Bonneville Power Administration and Pacific Power and Light May 1988.
Lovins, A. B. 1987. Advanced Electricity Saving Technologies and the South Texas
Project. Report to the City of Austin's Electric Utility Department Pursuant to
Contract #86-S300-FW. May 26,1987.
Lubliner, Michael and Marvin Young. 1990. "Is it All a Lot of Hot Air?—Mechanical
Ventilator Performance". Home Energy, p. 25.
McMahon, James E. 1986. The LBL Residential Energy Model. Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory. LBL-18622. January 1986.
Meier, Alan. 1982. Supply Curves of Conserved Energy. PhD Thesis, Energy and
Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley.
Meier, Alan. 1991. "Strategic Landscaping and Air Conditioning Savings: A Literature
Review." Energy and Buildings, vol. 15, p. 479.
Meier, Alan, Jan Wright and Arthur H. Rosenfeld. 1983. Supplying Energy Through
Greater Efficiency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
MHI. 1989. Summary of Manufactured Housing by States. Manufactured Housing
Institute.
MHI. 1990. Life of Manufactured Homes: An Update. Manufactured Housing Institute.
August 1990.
MHI. 1991a. HUD-Code Manufactured Homes: Popular ECO Packages, from the MHI
Survey of Retailers. Manufactured Housing Institute. January 1991.
MHI. 1991b. Quick Facts About the Manufactured Housing Industry 1990/91.
Manufactured Housing Institute.
Miller, Peter M., Joseph H. Eto and Howard S. Geller. 1989. The Potential for Electricity
Conservation in New York State. New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority. September 1989.
45
-------
Mills, Evan. 1984. "Raising the Energy Efficiency of Manufactured Housing." In
Proceedings of the 1984 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in
Buildings. Asilomar, CA: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.
Modern, Mark. 1991. Personal Communication: "Latest duct leakage information".
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. February-April 1991.
Modera, Mark P. 1986. Final Report: Residential Air Leakage Database Compilation.
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. LBL-23740. October 1986.
Moore, Bill. 1987. "Smart Windows". Popular Science. December 1987. p. 68.
Nadel, Steven. 1990. Lessons Learned: A Review of Utility Experience with Conservation
and Load Management Programs for Commercial and Industrial Customers. New
York State Energy Research and Development Authority. March 1990.
NEEPC, New England Energy Policy Council. 1987. Power to Spare: A Plan for
Increasing New England's Competitiveness Through Energy Efficiency. Boston,
MA. July 1987.
NPPC. 1986. Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan. Northwest Power
Planning Council. Volumes 1 and 2.
NPPC. 1989. Technical Appendix to Conservation Supply for the 1990 Power Plan.
Northwest Power Planning Council. 89-47A. November 21, 1989.
Orens, Ren. 1989. Area-Specific Marginal Costing for Electric Utilities: A Case Study of
Transmission and Distribution Costs. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
Stanford University.
Ottinger, Richard L., David R. Wooley, Nicholas A. Robinson, David R. Hodas, Susan
E. Babb, Shepard C. Buchanan, Paul L. Chernick, Emily Caverhill, Alan
Krupnick, Winston Harrington, Seri Radin and Uwe Fritsche. 1990.
Environmental Costs of Electricity. New York, NY: Oceana Publications, Inc., for
the Pace University Center for Environmental and Legal Studies.
Perlman, Maier. 1987. "Residential Water Heating: Low-Tech and High-Tech
Alternatives". Energy Auditor and Retrofitter. January/February 1987. p. 25.
Petrie, Beth and H. Gil Peach. 1988. Residential Electric Water Heaters Dollar/Energy
Savings, and Initial Price: Efficient vs. 1990 Standard Models Based on Data in the
May 1988 Bonneville/Pacific Survey. Pacific Power & Light. Prepared for Pacific
Power & Light and the Regional Research Advisory Group for Appliance
Efficiency,. August 8, 1988.
Pop Sci. 1989. "Windows Intended to Leak". Popular Science. December 1989. p. 38.
Rainer, Leo, Steve Greenberg and Alan Meier. 1990. "The Miscellaneous Electrical Energy
Use in Homes." In Proceedings of the 1990 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy
Efficiency in Buildings. Asilomar, CA: American Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy.
46
-------
RCG/Hagler Baiily Inc. 1990. Electric and Gas Utility Modelling Systems: Technical
Documentation. Prepared for Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, EPA.
DRAFT. December 21, 1990.
Real Goods. 1990. Alternative Energy Sourcebook 1990. Real Goods Trading Company,
Ukiah, CA.
Ritschard, R. L. and Y. J. Huang. 1989. Multifamily Heating and Cooling Requirements:
Assumptions, Methods, and Summary Results. Gas Research Institute. GRI-
88/0239. November.
Schipper, Lee, Stephen Meyers and Henry Kelly. 1985. Coming in from the Cold:
Energy-Wise Housing in Sweden. Washington, DC: Seven Locks Press.
Schlegel, Jeff. 1990. "Blower Door Guidelines for Cost-Effective Air Sealing". Home
Energy. March/April 1990. p. 34.
Selkowitz, S. E. and C. M. Lampert. 1989. Application of Large-Area Chromogenics to
Architectural Glazings. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. LBL-28012. June 1989.
SERI, Solar Energy Research Institute. 1981. A New Prosperity: The SERI
SolariConservation Study. Andover, MA: Brick House Press.
Sherman, M. H., D. J. Wilson and D. E. Kiel. 1984. Variability in Residential Air
Leakage. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. LBL-17587. April 1984.
Shuford, David. 1991. Personal Communication: "Discussion with Celina Atkinson of
costs, energy savings, and production possibilities for heat pump water heaters".
Crispaire in Atlanta, Georgia. 13 June 1991.
Sullivan, Robert. 1991. Draft: RESFEN 1.0: A Prototype PC Program for Calculating
Residential Fenestration Heating and Cooling Energy Use arid Cost. Windows and
Daylighting Group, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. January 1991.
Turiel, Isaac, William J. Fisk and Mark Seedall. 1983. "Energy Savings and Cost-
Effectiveness of Heat Exchanger Use as an Indoor Air Quality Mitigation Measure
in the BPA Weatherization Program." Energy, vol. 8, no. 5. p. 323.
US DOE, U.S. Department of Energy. 1984. Residential Energy Consumption Survey:
Housing Characteristics 1984. EIA, Energy Information Administration.
DOE/EIA-0314<84).
US DOE, U.S. Department of Energy. 1988. Technical Support Document: Energy
Conservation Standards for Consumer Products: Refrigerators, Furnaces, and
Television Sets. U.S. Department of Energy, Assistant Secretary, Conservation
and Renewable Energy, Building Equipment Division. DOE/CE-0239. November
1988.
US DOE, U.S. Department of Energy. 1989a. Residential Energy Consumption Survey:
Housing Characteristics 1987. EIA, Energy Information Administration.
DOE/EIA-0314(87). May 1989 (also referenced as RECS 87).
47
-------
US DOE, U.S. Department of Energy. 1989b. Technical Support Document: Energy
Conservation Standards for Consumer Products: Refrigerators and Furnaces. U.S.
Department of Energy, Assistant Secretary, Conservation and Renewable Energy,
Building Equipment Division. DOE/CE-0277. November 1989.
US DOE, U.S. Department of Energy. 1990a. Annual Energy Outlook: Long-Term
Projections 1990. Energy Information Administration. DOE/EIA-0383(90).
January 1990.
US DOE, U.S. Department of Energy. 1990b. Technical Support Document: Energy
Conservation Standards for Consumer Products: Dishwashers, Clothes Washers,
and Clothes Dryers. U.S. Department of Energy, Assistant Secretary, Conservation
and Renewable Energy, Building Equipment Division. DOE/CE-0299P.
December 1990.
US DOE, U.S. Department of Energy. 1991. Annual Energy Outlook, with Projections to
2010. Energy Information Administration. DOE/EIA-O383(9l). March 1991.
Usibelli, Anthony, Betsy Gardiner, W. Luhrsen and Alan Meier. 1983. A Residential
Conservation Database for the Pacific Northwest. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.
LBL-17055. November 1983.
Warner, Jeffrey L. 1990. "Consumer Guide to Energy-Saving Windows". Home Energy.
July/August 1990. p. 17.
XENERGY. 1990. An Assessment of the Potential for Electrical Energy-Efficiency
Improvements in the SMUD Service Territory. Prepared for the Sacramento
Municipal Utility District. Vol I: Results and Methods; Vol H: Technical
Appendix. July 9, 1990.
48
-------
APPENDIX I: END-USE CODES
This appendix contains the codes for each conservation measure, for easy reference
when analyzing the options shown in Appendices 2-3. The first two pages contain all the
end-use codes, and the third page contains a graphical representation of the space
conditioning codes that will aid comprehension.
49
-------
USA-ELEC
END USES AND CODES
CODE NAME
BWTV Black and white television sets. 13 inch
CD-E Clothes Dryer electric
CTV Color television sets 19-20 inch
EANE Existing multi family w/o cooling, North
EANEC Existing MF w/ CAC, North
EANER Existing MF w/ RAC, North
EANGC Existing MF w/ non-elec htg & CAC, North
EANGR Existing MF w/ non-elec htg & RAC, North
EANHP Existing MF w/ heat pump, North
EASE Existing multi family w/o cooling. South
EASEC Existing MF w/ CAC, South
EASER Existing MF w/ RAC, South
EASGC Existing MF w/ non-elec htg & CAC, South
EASGR Existing MF w/ non-elec htg & RAC, South
EASHP Existing MF w/ heat pump. South
EMNE Existing mobile homes w/o cooling, North
EMNEC Existing MH w/ CAC, North
EMNER Existing MH w/ RAC, North
EMNGC Existing MH w/ non-elec htg 8 CAC, North
EMNGR Existing MH w/ non-elec htg & RAC, North
EMNHP Existing MH w/ heat pump. North
EMSE Existing mobile homes w/o cooling, South
EMSEC Existing MH w/ CAC, South
EMSER Existing MH w/ RAC, South
EMSGC Existing MH w/ non-elec htg & CAC, South
EMSGR Existing MH w/ non-elec htg & RAC, South
EMSHP Existing MH w/ heat pump, South
ERNG Electric Range
ESNE Existing SF homes w/o cooling, North
ESNEC Existing SF w/ CAC. North
ESNER Existing SF w/ RAC. North
ESNGC Existing SF w/ non-elec htg & CAC, North
ESNGR Existing SF w/ non-elec htg & RAC, North
ESNHP Existing SF w/ heat pump. North
ESSE Existing SF homes w/o cooling, South
ESSEC Existing SF w/ CAC. South
ESSER Existing SF w/ RAC, South
ESSGC Existing SF w/ non-elec htg & CAC, South
ESSGR Existing SF w/ non-elec htg & RAC, South
ESSHP Existing SF w/ heat pump. South
EWH Elec. Water Heater
FRZR Manual defrost freezer
LTG Lighting (Indoor and Outdoor)
MISE Miscellaneous electricity
NANE New multi family w/o cooling, North
NAN EC New multi family w/ CAC, North
51
-------
NANER New multi family w/ RAC, North
NANGC New MF w/ non-elec htg & CAC, North
NANGR New MF w/ non-elec htg & RAC, North
NAN HP New multi family w/ heat pump, North
NASE New multi family w/o cooling, South
NASEC New multi family w/ CAC, South
NASER New multi family w/ RAC, South
NASGC New MF w/ non-elec htg & CAC, South
NASGR New MF w/ non-elec htg & RAC, South
NASHP New multi family w/ heat pump, South
NMNE New mobile homes w/o cooling, North
NMNEC New mobile homes w/ CAC, North
NMNER New mobile homes w/ RAC, North
NMNGC New MH w/ non-elec htg & CAC, North
NMNGR New MH w/ non-elec htg & RAC, North
NMNHP New mobile homes w/ heat pump, North
NMSE New mobile homes w/o cooling. South
NMSEC New mobile homes w/ CAC, South
NMSER New mobile homes w/ RAC, South
NMSGC New MH w/ non-elec htg & CAC, South
NMSGR New MH w/ non-elec htg & RAC, South
NMSHP New mobile homes w/ heat pump, South
NSNE New single family homes w/o cooling, North
NSNEC New SF electric furnace, CAC homes in North
NSNER New SF electric furnace homes with room AC, North
NSNGC New SF non-electrically heated homes w/ CAC, North
NSNGR New SF non-electrically heated homes w/ RAC, North
NSNHP New single family homes w heat pumps, North
NSSE New single family homes w/o cooling, South
NSSEC New SF electric furnace, CAC homes in South
NSSER New SF electric furnace homes with room AC, South
NSSGC New SF non-electrically heated homes w/ CAC, South
NSSGR New SF non-electrically heated homes w/ RAC, South
NSSHP New single family homes w heat pumps. South
REF Refrigerator
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AC Air conditioning
CAC Central air conditioning
RAC Room air conditioning
SF Single family home
MF Multi family
MH Mobile home
52
-------
Figure A-1: End Use Codes for Space Conditioning
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5
Heating Type
Vintage
Cooling Type
House Type
Region
/O
(1) New Homes are defined as those built after 1990
53
-------
APPENDIX 2a: CONSERVATION MEASURE DATABASE 2000
This appendix contains the conservation measures that are plotted in Figure 5,
ranked in order of Cost of Conserved Energy (CCE). The CCE represents technology
cost—no program costs are included. Applicable stock represents the number of
appliances or building shells to which the measure can be applied from 1990 to 2000. All
costs from sources in Appendix 3 have been converted to 1989$.
55
-------
Grand Supply Curve - Year 2000Maximum Technical Potential
Label
Measure
Code
Measure
Name
Incr.
Cost
1989$/unit
Energy
Savings
kWh/unit
CCE
cents/kWh
Energy Savings
Measure Cumulative
TWh TWh
Applicable
Stock
1(P
1
EWH01
Improve clotheswasher to 1994 standard
1
45
02
1 52
1 52
33993
2
NSNEC01
Switch elec furnace to HP in new SF homes, North
222
7298
03
3 16
4.67
432
3
NSSEC01
Switch elec furnace to HP in new SF homes, South
322
6456
06
5 09
9 76
789
4
ESNEC01
Switch elec furn to HP in existing North SF
822
11853
0.8
344
13.20
290
5
ESNHP02
Improve ceiling insulation in ESF HP homes, North
7
72
0.8
0 03
13 23
460
6
EWH02
Reduce hot water consumption
50
873
08
29.68
42 91
33993
7
ESNER01
Improve shell in ESF ER/RAC homes, North
274
2374
09
0.79
43 70
332
8
ESNHP03
Improve HP in ESF HP homes, North
151
1598
1 1
1 47
45 17
919
9
ESNHP01
Improve HP to 92 std in ESF HP homes, North
71
719
1 1
0 66
45.83
919
10
EANHP02
Improve HP beyond 92 std in EMF HP homes, North
104
1028
1 2
1 33
47 15
1291
11
ESSHP02
Improve ceiling insulation in ESF HP homes, South
5
31
1 3
0 03
47.19
1027
12
NSSGC02
Spectrally selective windows, NSF non-elec, South
311
1813
1 4
243
49 61
1339
13
NSSER01
Shell improvement in new SF homes w/ ER/RAC, South
1061
5624
1.5
0 95
50 56
169
14
EMNHP02
Improve HP beyond 1992 standard in North EMH
159
1150
1 6
0.01
50 58
13
15
NSNER01
Shell improvement in new SF homes w/ ER/RAC, North
631
3231
1 6
0 25
50.83
78
16
NSSE01
Shell improvement in new SF homes w/ ER/-, South
1061
5424
1.6
1 77
52.60
327
17
ESNE01
Improve shell in ESF ER/- homes, North
754
3583
1 7
1.22
53 82
340
18
ESSEC01
Switch elec furn to HP in existing South SF
869
5805
1 7
3 83
57 65
659
19
NSSHP02
Improve HP beyond 1992 standard in South SF homes
183
1122
1 9
1 93
59 57
1716
20
NSSEC02
Improved shell in new SF homes w/ ER/CAC, South
682
2910
1.9
2 29
61.87
789
21
NANHP02
Improve HP beyond 92 std in NMF HP homes, North
104
623
1.9
0 06
61 93
94
22
MISE03
Improve dishwasher motor to 1994 standard
4
23
1.9
0 80
62.73
34347
23
NSNER02
Shell improvement in new SF homes w/ ER/RAC, North
1095
4639
1.9
0 36
63.09
77
24
ESSHP03
Improve HP in ESF HP homes, South
292
1693
20
348
66 57
2055
25
NSNHP03
Improve HP beyond 1992 standard in North SF homes
241
1379
2.0
1 63
68.20
1184
26
LTG01
Timer & Photocell (outdoor)
27
151
2.0
11 53
79.73
76328
27
ESSER01
Improve shell in ESF ER/RAC homes, South
.444
1757
20
0 78
80.51
446
28
EWH03
Improve dishwasher to 1994 standard
8
45
2.1
1 53
82.04
33993
29
ESSE01
Improve shell in ESF ER/- homes, South
451
1712
2.1
0 61
82.64
354
30
EMSHP02
Improve HP beyond 1992 standard in South EMH
192
981
22
0 02
82 66
17
-------
1707 Jul 2 fi'
U1
Grand Supply Curve - Year 2000Maximum Technical Potential
Incr.
Energy
Energy Savings
Applicable
Label
Measure
Measure
Cost
Savings
CCE
Measure
Cumulative
Stock
1(P
Code
Name
1989$/unit
kWh/unit
cents/kWh
TWh
TWh
31
NSNHP01
Improve HP to 1992 standard in North SF homes
71
243
24
0.29
82 95
1184
32
NMSHP02
Improve HP beyond 1992 standard in South NMH
192
917
2.4
0 03
82 98
35
33
NSSHP03
Improved shell in new SF homes w/ HP, South
711
2398
2.4
4.12
8710
1716
34
NSSGR01
Increase condenser rows In RAC, NSF non-elec, Sth
12
54
2.4
0.02
87.12
435
35
EMSHP01
Improve HP to 92 std in EMH HP homes, South
55
251
2.5
0.00
87 12
17
36
REF01
Improve refrigerator to 1993 standard
53
203
25
14.83
101 95
72978
37
NSNEC02
Triple glazed windows in new SF homes, North
223
707
2.6
031
102 26
432
38
EASHP02
Improve HP beyond 92 std in EMF HP homes, South
104
462
26
0 28
102 54
612
39
ESNEC02
Improve shell in ESF ER/CAC homes, North
274
842
26
0 31
102 85
363
40
NMSHP01
Improve HP to 92 std In NMH HP homes. South
57
239
27
0.01
102 86
35
41
ESNHP04
Improve shell in ESF HP homes, North
121
353
28
0.16
103 02
460
42
NSSER02
Increase condenser rows of RAC in elec NSF, South
12
45
29
0 01
103 03
169
43
NMSGR01
Improve RAC in NMH non-elec homes, Sth
10
41
29
0 01
103 04
262
44
NMSER01
Improve RAC in NMH elec htd homes, Sth
10
41
2.9
0 01
103.05
332
45
EANHP01
Improve HP to 92 std in EMF HP homes, North
49
190
29
0.25
103 30
1291
46
NSNHP02
Triple glazed windows in new SF homes w/HP, North
311
1188
3.0
1 41
104.70
1184
47
EMSER01
Improve RAC in EMH elec htd homes, Sth
10
40
30
0.01
104 71
210
48
CTV01
Efficient color TV set
8
34
3.0
314
107 85
92278
49
ESSHP01
Improve HP to 92 std in ESF HP homes. South
86
321
3.1
0 66
108.51
2055
50
CD-E01
Improve clothes dryer to 1994 NAECA standard
22
73
3.1
2 99
111.50
40959
51
EMSGR01
Improve RAC In EMH non-elec homes, Sth
10
38
3 1
0.02
111 52
594
52
LTG02
Compact Fluorescent Lamps
102
342
3.3
26.10
137 62
76328
53
ESNHP05
Improve HP in ESF HP homes, North
90
305
34
0.28
137.90
919
54
FRZR01
Improve freezer to 1993 DOE standard
37
100
34
1.55
139 46
15543
55
EWH04
Reduce standby losses
120
425
34
14 45
153 90
33993
56
NSSHP01
Improve HP to 1992 standard in South SF homes
86
285
34
0 49
154 39
1716
57
MISE02
Upgrade furnace tan efficiency
48
150
3.5
3 43
157 83
22898
58
ESSER02
Improve room AC in ESF homes, South
15
47
3.5
0.04
157 87
891
59
ESNEC03
Switch to improved HP in North ESF homes
90
285
36
0 08
157 95
290
60
ESSGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in ESF non-elec homes, Sth
50
171
3.7
1.05
159.00
6128
-------
1707 Jul2 19
Grand Supply Curve - Year 2000Maximum Technical Potential
Label
Measure
Code
Measure
Name
Incr.
Cost
1989$/unit
Energy
Savings
kWh/unit
CCE
cents/kWh
Energy Savings
Measure Cumulative
TWh TWh
Applicable
Stock
1 (P
61
NSSER04
Shell improvement in NSF ER/RAC homes, Sth (>1995)
530
1152
3.7
0.10
159.10
84
62
NSSGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in NSF non-elec homes, Sth
50
169
3.7
0 23
159 32
1339
63
EANHP03
Improve HP(2) in EMF HP homes, North
62
179
3.9
0 23
159.55
1291
64
ESNER02
Improve window, ceil & wall in ESF homes, North
1354
2718
40
0 90
160.46
332
65
ESSHP04
Improve shell in ESF HP homes, South
304
593
4.2
0 61
161 07
1027
66
EMNHP01
Improve HP to 92 std in EMH HP homes, North
93
238
4.5
0 00
161 07
13
67
NMSGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in new non-elec MH, South
50
140
45
0.04
161 10
262
68
NMSEC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in new elec htd MH, South
50
140
45
0 06
161 16
419
69
EMSEC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in EMH elec htd homes, Sth
50
136
4 6
0 02
161 18
140
70
ESSEC02
Improve shell in ESF ER/CAC homes, South
444
776
46
064
161 82
824
71
NANHP01
Improve HP to 92 std in NMF HP homes, North
49
119
4 7
0 01
161 83
94
72
EWH08
Replace electric water heater with gas
1380
3539
47
11.77
173 60
3325
73
ESNE02
Improve window, ceil & wall in ESF homes, North
859
1469
4.7
0 50
174.10
340
74
EMSGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in EMH non-elec homes, Sth
50
130
48
0.02
174.12
175
75
EASHP01
Improve HP to 92 std in EMF HP homes, South
49
115
4.9
0 07
174 19
612
76
NASHP02
Improve HP beyond 92 std in NMF HP homes, South
104
244
49
0 07
174 27
296
77
BWTV01
Efficient black and white TV set
1
3
4.9
0.10
174 37
39890
78
NSNEC03
Improve HP in North single-family
190
430
5.0
0.19
174 55
432
79
ESNHP06
Improve ceiling in ESF HP homes, North
3
5
5.1
0.00
174 55
460
80
FRZR02
Evacuated panels for freezer (post 1995)
74
132
5.2
0 88
175.44
6697
81
REF02
Evacuated Panels for refrigerator (post 1995)
62
113
5.4
4.10
179 53
36250
82
EWH07
Horizontal axis clotheswasherw/ EWH (1995-2000)
137
285
55
1.38
180 92
4855
83
MISE07
Horiz axis clthswshr w/EWH (motor svgs) 1995-2000
32
65
5.6
0 66
181.58
10263
84
EWH05
Heat pump water heater (1995-2000)
504
1076
5.6
4.64
186.22
4315
85
EASGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in EMF non-elec homes, Sth
28
61
5.7
0.08
186.30
1287
86
EASEC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in EMF elec htd homes, Sth
28
61
5.7
0.09
186.39
1479
87
EMNHP03
Improve HP(2) in North EMH
95
185
5.8
0 00
186 40
13
88
NSNEC04
Wall to R-19 in new SF homes, North
186
257
59
0.11
186 51
432
89
ESSGC02
Improve CAC in South ESF non-elec homes w/ CAC
309
664
59
4.07
190 58
6128
90
CD-E03
Switch electric clothesdryerto gas
480
807
6 1
11 90
202.48
14745
-------
>7 07 Jul 2
Grand Supply Curve - Year 2000Maximum Technical Potential
Label
Measure
Code
Measure
Name
Incr.
Cost
1989$/unit
Energy
Savings
kWh/unit
CCE
cents/kWh
Energy Savings
Measure Cumulative
TWh TWh
Applicable
Stock
1(P
91
ERNG02
Switch from electric to gas range
590
944
62
11 05
213 52
11710
92
NSSER03
Ceiling to R-30 in NSF ER/RAC homes, Sth (pre-'95)
57
73
63
0 01
213 54
169
93
NSNER03
Wall to R-27, ceil to R-49 in new SF homes, North
1355
1725
6.4
0 27
213 80
155
94
NSNHP04
Wall to R-19 in new SF homes w/ HP, North
267
335
6.5
0 40
214 20
1184
95
EMNER01
Improve RAC in EMH elec htd homes, Nth
10
19
6.5
0.00
214 20
51
96
NSSE02
Ceiling to R-30 in new SF homes w/ ER/-, South
57
70
66
0 02
214 22
327
97
NANHP03
Improve HP(2) in NMF HP homes, North
62
106
67
0 01
214 23
94
93
NMNER01
Improve RAC in NMH elec htd homes, Nth
10
18
6 7
0.00
214 23
23
99
NMNGR01
Improve RAC in NMH non-elec htd homes, Nth
10
18
6.7
0.00
214.24
102
100
ERNG01
Induction cooktop and improved oven (post-1995)
171
250
6.8
4 47
218 71
17894
101
NSNHP07
Superwindows in NSF HP homes, N (post-95)
556
655
6.9
0 38
219 09
588
102
EMNGR01
Improve RAC in EMH non-elec homes, Nth
10
17
7 1
0 01
219 10
354
103
ESNER03
R-30 floor in ESF ER/RAC homes, North
1297
1462
7 1
0 18
219.28
123
104
NASGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in NMF non-elec homes, Sth
28
49
7 1
0 03
219 31
538
105
NASEC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in NMF elec htd homes, Sth
28
49
7 1
0 04
219 34
738
106
ESNE03
R-30 door in ESF ER/- homes, North
1297
1471
7 1
0 50
219 84
340
107
NSSEC03
Wall to R-19 in new SF homes, South
379
429
72
0 34
220 18
789
108
NMSGC02
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std in NMH non-elec homes.
309
537
73
0 14
220.32
262
109
NMSEC02
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std in NMH elec htd homes,
309
537
73
0 23
220 55
419
110
NSSE03
Superwindows in NSF homes w/ ER/-, South(post-"95)
473
521
74
009
220.63
164
111
EASER01
Improve RAC in EMF elec htd homes, Sth
10
16
7.4
0.01
220.65
703
112
EASGR01
Improve RAC in EMF non-elec homes, Sth
10
16
7.4
0.02
220 67
1232
113
EMSEC02
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std in EMH elec htd homes,
309
525
7.4
0.07
220 74
140
114
ESSER03
Improve ceiling in ESF ER/RAC homes, South
410
443
7.5
0.20
220 94
446
115
ESNE04
Improve ceiling in ESF homes, North
14
15
7.6
0.01
220.94
340
116
ESSEC03
Switch to improved HP in South ESF homes
109
162
7.7
0 11
221 05
659
117
EMSGC02
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std in EMH non-elec homes,
309
501
78
0 09
221.14
175
118
EMNEC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in EMH elec htd homes, Nth
43
69
7.9
0.00
221.14
38
119
NASHP01
Improve HP to 92 std in NMF HP homes, South
49
70
80
0 02
221 16
296
120
ESSE02
Improve celling in ESF ER/- homes, South
403
409
8.0
0.14
221.30
354
-------
1707 Jul 2 19
Grand Supply Curve - Year 2000Maximum Technical Potential
Label
Measure
Code
Measure
Name
Incr.
Cost
1989$/unit
Energy
Savings
kWh/unit
CCE
cents/kWh
Energy Savings
Measure Cumulative
TWh TWh
Applicable
Stock
10?
121
NMNEC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in new elec htd MH, North
43
67
81
0 00
221 31
19
122
NMNGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in new non-elec MH, North
43
67
8 1
0 01
221.31
91
123
EMNGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in EMH non-elec homes, Nth
43
64
8.5
0.02
221 33
266
124
NSNER04
Ceiling to R-60 in new SF homes w/ ER/RAC, North
148
139
8.6
0 02
221 35
155
125
NSNE04
Ceiling to R-60 in new SF homes w/ ER/-, North
148
138
87
0 07
221.42
476
126
EASGC02
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std in EMF non-elec homes,
169
234
9 1
0 30
221 72
1287
127
EASEC02
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std in EMF elec htd homes,
169
234
9 1
0.35
222 06
1479
128
NASGR01
Improve RAC in NMF non-elec homes, Sth
10
13
92
0 00
222.06
52
129
NASER01
Improve RAC in NMF elec htd homes, Sth
10
13
9 2
0 00
222 06
167
130
EWH06
Horizontal axis clotheswasher w/ HPWH (1995-2000)
116
143
9.2
0 26
222.32
1798
131
MISE04
Horiz axis clthswshrw/HPWH (motor svgs) 1995-2000
53
65
93
0 25
222 57
3801
132
NSNEC06
Floor to R-30 in new SF homes, North
223
192
94
0 08
222 65
432
133
ESSEC04
Switch to improved HP in South ESF homes
330
399
9.4
0.26
222.91
659
134
NSSEC04
Improve HP in South new SF ER7CAC homes
90
108
95
0.09
223 00
789
135
ESSHP05
Improve ceiling in ESF HP homes, South
2
2
95
O.OO
223.00
1027
136
NSNHP05
R-30 tloor in new SF homes w/ HP. N (< 95)
311
261
9.7
0 16
223 16
596
137
LTG03
Compact Fluorescent Fixtures
263
293
9.9
22 36
245.52
76328
138
ESNEC04
Improve ceiling insulation in ESF homes, North
480
393
99
0 14
245 66
363
139
NSNGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in NSF non-elec homes, Nth
43
54
100
0.12
245.78
2196
140
EANHP04
Improve HP{3) in EMF HP homes, North
228
254
102
0.33
246 11
1291
141
EMSHP03
Improve HP(2) in South EMH
114
127
103
0 00
246 11
17
142
ESNGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in ESF non-elec homes, Nth
43
52
104
0 40
246 51
7600
143
ESNHP07
Improve ceiling in ESF HP homes, North
555
425
106
0.20
246 70
460
144
MISE01
Improve miscellaneous appliance motor efficiency
190
190
11 0
14 50
261.20
76328
145
NSNHP08
R-30 floor in new SF homes w/ HP, N (>'95)
311
226
11.2
0 27
261 47
1184
146
NMSHP03
Improve HP(2) in South NMH
114
115
11 3
0 00
261 47
35
147
NASGC02
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std in NMF non-elec homes,
169
187
11.4
0 10
261 57
538
148
NASEC02
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std in NMF elec htd homes,
169
187
11.4
0.14
261 71
738
149
EASHP03
Improve HP(2) in EMF HP homes, South
62
62
11 4
0 04
261.75
612
150
NSSGC03
Improve CAC in South new SF non-elec homes w/ CAC
309
336
11 6
0.45
262 20
1339
-------
17 07 Jul 2 10
Grand Supply Curve - Year 2000Maximum Technical Potential
Label
Measure
Code
Measure
Name
Incr.
Cost
1989$/unit
Energy
Savings
kWh/unit
CCE
cent&kWh
Energy Savings
Measure Cumulative
TWh TWh
Applicable
Stock
T03
151
NSSER05
Ceiling to R-38 in new SF homes w/ ER/RAC, South
322
219
11 9
0 04
262 24
169
152
NSSHP04
Improve HP in South new SF HP homes
109
104
11.9
0 18
262.42
1716
153
EMNHP04
Improve HP(3) in North EMH
347
327
12.1
0 00
262 42
13
154
ESNER04
Improve windows in ESF homes, North
316
210
122
0.07
262 49
332
155
ESNE05
Improve windows in ESF homes, North
316
209
12 2
0.07
262 56
340
156
NSNEC07
Ceiling to R-30 in new SF homes, North
19
12
125
0 01
262 57
432
157
NSNHP06
R-30 ceiling in new SF homes w/ HP, N(<"95)
44
29
12 6
0.02
262 58
596
158
NSSHP05
Wall to R-19 in new SF homes w/ HP, South
328
210
126
0 36
262 94
1716
159
NSSE04
Ceiling to R-38 In new SF homes w/ ER/-, South
322
205
12 7
0 07
263 01
327
160
ESSER04
Improve windows In ESF ER/RAC homes, South
425
269
128
0 12
263 13
446
161
REF03
Two-Compressor System tor refrigerator (post 1995)
93
69
130
2 50
265.63
36250
162
EMSHP04
Improve HP(3) in South EMH
419
360
13 3
0 01
265 64
17
163
ESSE03
Improve windows in ESF ER/- homes, South
425
259
13.3
0 09
265 73
354
164
ESSER05
Improve wall in ESF ER/RAC homes, South
325
197
134
0 09
265.82
446
165
NSNGR01
Increase condenser rows in RAC in NSF non-elec, N
15
14
135
0.01
265 83
663
166
ESSE04
Improve wall in ESF ER/- homes, South
325
191
138
0 07
265 89
354
167
NMSHP04
Improve HP(3) in South NMH
419
344
139
0.01
265.91
35
168
ESSGC03
Improve CAC(2) in ESF non-elec homes w/ CAC, South
293
263
140
1.61
267 52
6128
169
EANEC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in EMF elec htd homes, Nth
27
23
14.6
0 02
267.54
850
170
EANGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std In EMF elec htd homes, Nlh
27
23
14.6
0 04
267 57
1579
171
ESNHP08
Improve windows in ESF HP homes. North
298
165
14.6
0 08
267.65
460
172
NSNHP09
R-30 ceiling in new SF homes w/ HP, N(>'95)
44
25
146
0.03
267.68
1184
173
ESNEC05
Improve window & wall in ESF homes, North
646
355
148
0.13
267.81
363
174
EASHP04
Improve HP{3) in EMF HP homes, South
228
164
158
0 10
267 91
612
175
NANGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in NMF elec hid homes, Nth
27
21
160
0 01
267 92
504
176
NANEC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in NMF elec htd homes, Nth
27
21
160
0 01
267 93
679
177
NSNGC02
Improve CAC in North NSF non-elec homes w/ CAC
264
208
160
0 46
268.39
2196
178
NANHP04
Improve HP(3) in NMF HP homes, North
228
161
161
0 02
268 41
94
179
ESNGC02
Improve CAC in North ESF non-elec homes w/ CAC
264
201
16.5
1.53
269 93
7600
180
ESSEC05
Improve ceiling insulation in ESF homes, South
403
187
17.5
0.15
270 09
824
-------
\7Q7 Jul 2 19
Label
Grand Supply Curve - Year 200
Measure Measure
Code Name
OMaximum Technical Potent
Incr. Energy
Cost Savings CCE
1989$A/nit kWh/unit cents/kWh
ial
Energy Savings
Measure Cumulative
TWh TWh
Applicable
Stock
1(P
181
182
183
184
185
NSSGR02 Increase condenser area of RAC, NSF non-elec, Sth
ESSHP06 Improve windows in ESF HP homes, South
NASHP03 Improve HP(2) in NMF HP homes, South
NSS6C04 Improve CAC(2) in NSF non-elec homes w/ CAC, South
NSNGC03 Improve CAC(2) In North NSF non-elec homes w/ CAC
87 54 17.7
360 135 21.6
62 26 26.9
293 133 27.8
250 82 38.4
0.02 27011
0 14 270.25
0.01 270.26
0.18 270.43
0.18 270 61
435
1027
296
1339
2196
On
NJ
-------
APPENDIX 2b: CONSERVATION MEASURE DATABASE 2010
This appendix contains the conservation measures that are plotted in Figure 6,
ranked in order of Cost of Conserved Energy (CCE). The CCE represents technology
cost—no program costs are included. Applicable stock represents the number of or
building shells to which the measure can be applied from 1990 to the end of the analysis
period.
63
-------
Supply Curve - Year 2010 Maximum Technical Potential
Label
Measure
Code
Measure
Name
Incr.
Cost
1989$/unit
Energy
Savings
kWh/unit
CCE
cents/kl/Vh
Energy Savings
Measure Cumulative
TWh TWh
Applicable
Stock
id3
1
EWH01
Improve clotheswasherto 1994 standard
1
45
0.2
2.14
2.14
47969
2
NSNEC01
Switch elec furnace to HP in new SF homes, North
222
7298
03
5 72
7 86
784
3
NSSEC01
Switch elec furnace to HP in new SF homes, South
322
6456
06
9 58
17 44
1484
4
ESNEC01
Switch elec turn to HP in existing North SF
822
11853
08
7 83
25 27
661
5
ESNHP02
Improve ceiling insulation in ESF HP homes, North
7
72
08
0 06
25 33
838
6
EWH02
Reduce hot water consumption
50
873
08
41 88
67 21
47969
7
ESNER01
Improve shell in ESF ER/RAC homes, North
274
2374
09
1 44
68 65
605
8
ESNHP03
Improve HP In ESF HP homes, North
151
1598
1.1
1.34
69.99
838
9
ESNHP01
Improve HP to 92 std In ESF HP homes, Norlh
71
719
1 1
0 60
70 59
838
10
EANHP02
Improve HP beyond 92 std In EMF HP homes, North
104
1028
1.2
1.19
71.78
1162
11
ESSHP02
Improve celling insulation in ESF HP homes, South
5
31
1.3
0.06
71 84
1865
12
NSSGC02
Spectrally selective windows, NSF non-elec, South
311
1813
1.4
4.57
76.41
2519
13
NSSER01
Shell improvement in new SF homes w/ ER/RAC, South
1061
5624
1.5
1.79
78 19
318
14
EMNHP02
Improve HP beyond 1992 standard in North EMH
159
1150
1 6
0.01
78 20
9
15
NSNER01
Shell improvement In new SF homes w/ ER/RAC, North
631
3231
1 6
0.25
78.46
78
16
NSSE01
Shell Improvement in new SF homes w/ ER/-, South
1061
5424
1 6
3.34
81.79
616
17
ESNE01
Improve shell In ESF ER/- homes, North
754
3583
1.7
2.22
84 01
619
18
ESSEC01
Switch elec fum to HP In existing South SF
869
5805
1 7
8 69
92 70
1496
19
NSSHP02
Improve HP beyond 1992 standard in South SF homes
183
1122
1.9
3 62
96.32
3230
20
NSSEC02
Improved shell In new SF homes w/ ER/CAC, South
682
2910
1.9
4.32
100.64
1484
21
NANHP02
Improve HP beyond 92 std In NMF HP homes, North
104
623
1.9
0 11
100 75
171
22
MISE03
Improve dishwasher motor to 1994 standard
4
23
1.9
1.23
101.98
52729
23
NSNER02
Shell improvement in new SF homes w/ ER/RAC, North
1095
4639
1.9
0.94
102.93
203
24
ESSHP03
Improve HP in ESF HP homes, South
292
1693
2.0
3 16
106.08
1865
25
LTG01
Timer & Photocell (outdoor)
27
151
2.0
17.69
123.78
117175
26
NSNHP03
Improve HP beyond 1992 standard in North SF homes
241
1379
20
2.96
126.74
2147
27
ESSER01
Improve shell in ESF ER/RAC homes, South
444
1757
2.0
1.42
128.16
809
28
EWH03
Improve dishwasher to 1994 standard
8
45
2.1
2 16
130.32
47969
29
ESSE01
Improve shell in ESF ER/- homes, South
451
1712
2.1
1.10
131.42
642
30
EMSHP02
Improve HP beyond 1992 standard in South EMH
192
981
22
0.01
131.43
13
-------
12 45 Jul ; 19
Ln
Supply Curve - Year 2010 Maximum Technical Potential
Label
Measure
Code
Measure
Name
Incr.
Cost
1989$/unit
Energy
Savings
kWh/unit
CCE
cents/kWh
Energy Savings
Measure Cumulative
TWh TWh
Applicable
Stock
to3
31
NSNHP01
Improve HP to 1992 standard in North SF homes
71
243
2.4
0 52
131.95
2147
32
NMSHP02
Improve HP beyond 1992 standard in South NMH
192
917
2.4
0 06
132.02
71
33
NSSHP03
Improved shell in new SF homes w/ HP, South
711
2398
2.4
7 75
139.76
3230
34
NSSGR01
Increase condenser rows In RAC, NSF non-elec, Sth
12
54
24
0.04
139.81
819
35
EMSHP01
Improve HP to 92 std In EMH HP homes, South
55
251
2.5
0 00
139 81
13
36
REF01
Improve retrigerator to 1993 standard
53
203
25
27.52
167 33
135449
37
NSNEC02
Triple glazed windows in new SF homes, North
223
707
26
0.55
167.89
784
38
EASHP02
Improve HP beyond 92 std in EMF HP homes, South
104
462
2.6
0.25
168.14
548
39
ESNEC02
Improve shell In ESF ER/CAC homes, North
274
842
26
0.56
168.70
661
40
NMSHP01
Improve HP to 92 std in NMH HP homes, South
57
239
2.7
0.02
168 71
71
41
ESNHP04
Improve shell in ESF HP homes, North
121
353
28
0.30
169.01
838
42
NSSER02
Increase condenser rows of RAC in elec NSF, South
12
45
2.9
0.01
169 02
318
43
NMSGR01
Improve RAC in NMH non-elec homes, Sth
10
41
2.9
0 02
169.04
529
44
NMSER01
Improve RAC in NMH elec htd homes, Sth
10
41
29
0.03
169 07
670
45
EANHP01
Improve HP to 92 std in EMF HP homes, North
49
190
29
0 22
169 29
1162
46
NSNHP02
Triple glazed windows in new SF homes w/HP, North
311
1188
30
2.55
171 84
2147
47
EMSER01
Improve RAC in EMH elec htd homes, Sth
10
40
30
0.01
171 85
151
48
CTV01
Efficient color TV set
8
34
3.0
3 71
175 55
108973
49
ESSHP01
Improve HP to 92 std in ESF HP homes, South
86
321
3.1
0.60
176 15
1865
50
CD-E01
Improve clothes dryer to 1994 NAECA standard
22
73
3.1
5 08
181.23
69599
51
EMSGR01
Improve RAC In EMH non-elec homes, Sth
10
38
31
0.02
181 25
429
52
LTG02
Compact Fluorescent Lamps
102
342
33
40.07
221.32
117175
53
ESNHP05
Improve HP in ESF HP homes, North
90
305
3.4
0 26
221 58
838
54
FR2R01
Improve freezer to 1993 DOE standard
37
100
3.4
3.42
225 00
34248
55
EWH04
Reduce standby losses
120
425
3.4
20 39
245 38
47969
56
NSSHP01
Improve HP to 1992 standard in South SF homes
86
285
3.4
0.92
246 31
3230
57
MISE02
Upgrade furnace fan efficiency
48
150
3.5
5.27
251 58
35153
58
ESSER02
Improve room AC in ESF homes, South
15
47
3.5
0 04
251.62
609
59
ESNEC03
Switch to improved HP in North ESF homes
90
285
36
019
251.80
661
60
ESSGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std In ESF non-elec homes, Sth
50
171
3.7
0 95
252.76
5562
-------
12 J5 Jul I 19
Supply Curve - Year 2010 Maximum Technical Potential
Incr.
Energy
Energy Savings
Applicable
Label
Measure
Code
Measure
Name
Cost
1989$/unit
Savings
kWh/unit
CCE
cents/hWh
Measure
TWh
Cumulative
TWh
Stock
Iff3
61
NSSER07
Increase condenser area of RAC in elec NSF, South
20
59
37
0.01
252.76
149
62
NSSER04
Shell improvement in NSF ER/RAC homes, Sth (>1995)
530
1152
3.7
0.27
253.03
233
63
NSSGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in NSF non-elec homes, Sth
50
169
3.7
0 43
253.46
2519
64
FR2R03
5.3 EER compressor for freezer {post-2000)
10
25
38
0.47
253.93
18705
65
REF12
Recycle refrigerator condenser heat (post-2000)
40
100
39
6 81
260.74
68137
66
EANHP03
Improve HP(2) in EMF HP homes, North
62
179
39
0 21
260 95
1162
67
ESNER02
Improve window, ceil & wall in ESF homes, North
1354
2718
40
1.64
262 59
605
68
ESSHP04
Improve shell in ESF HP homes, South
304
593
42
1 11
263 70
1865
69
NSSGR03
Variable speed RAC. NSF non-elec, South (>2000)
67
173
43
0.07
263 76
384
70
EMNHP01
Improve HP to 92 std In EMH HP homes, North
93
238
4.5
0.00
263 77
9
71
CD-E02
Heat pump dryer
230
525
4.5
12.63
276 40
24068
72
NMSGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in new non-elec MH, South
50
140
45
0.07
276 47
529
73
NMSEC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in new elec htd MH, South
50
140
45
0 12
276 59
846
74
EMSEC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in EMH elec htd homes, Sth
50
136
46
0 01
276 61
101
75
ESSEC02
Improve shell in ESF ER/CAC homes, South
444
776
46
1.16
277 77
1496
76
NANHP01
Improve HP to 92 std in NMF HP homes, North
49
119
4.7
0.02
277 79
171
77
EWH08
Replace electric water heater with gas
1380
3539
4.7
1661
294 40
4693
78
ESNE02
Improve window, ceil & wall in ESF homes, North
859
1469
4.7
0.91
295.31
619
79
NSSGR04
Increase condenser area of RAC, non-elec NSF, Sth
20
46
4.8
0.02
295.32
384
80
EMSGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std In EMH non-elec homes, Sth
50
130
4.8
0.02
295.34
126
81
EASHP01
Improve HP to 92 std in EMF HP homes, South
49
115
4.9
0.06
295.40
548
82
NASHP02
Improve HP beyond 92 std in NMF HP homes, South
104
244
49
0.14
295 54
564
83
BWTV01
Elticient black and white TV set
1
3
49
0 11
295 65
43355
84
NSNEC03
Improve HP in North single-family
190
430
5.0
0 34
295.99
784
85
ESNHP06
Improve ceiling in ESF HP homes, North
3
5
51
0.00
295 99
838
86
FRZR02
Evacuated panels for freezer (post 1995)
74
132
5.2
3 35
299.34
25402
87
NMSGR02
Improve RAC(2) in NMH non-elec homes, Sth(post2000
56
132
5.3
0 04
299.38
267
88
NMSER02
Improve RAC(2) in NMH elec htd homes, Sth(post2000
56
132
5.3
0.04
299 42
338
89
REF02
Evacuated Panels for refrigerator (post 1995)
62
113
54
11.80
311.22
104387
90
EMSER02
Improve RAC(2) in EMH elec htd homes, Sth(post2000
56
129
54
0.01
311 23
58
-------
12 45 Jut 1 19
Supply Curve - Year 2010 Maximum Technical Potential
Label
Measure
Code
Measure
Name
Incr.
Cost
1989$/unit
Energy
Savings
kWh/unil
CCE
cents/kWh
Energy Savings
Measure Cumulative
TWh TWh
Applicable
Stock
10?
91
EWH07
Horizontal axis clotheswasherw/ EWH (1995-2000)
137
285
5 5
1 38
312.61
4855
92
EWH10
Horizontal axis clotheswasher w/ EWH(post-2000)
137
285
5.5
3 55
31616
12473
93
REF13
Raise refrig compressor EER to 5 3 (post 2000)
10
18
5.5
1.23
317.39
68137
94
MISE07
Horiz axis clthswshr w/EWH (motor svgs) 1995-2000
32
65
56
0.66
31805
10263
95
MISE05
Horiz axis clthswshr w/EWH (motor svgs) post-2000
32
65
5.6
1 64
319 69
25315
96
EWH08
Heat pump water heater (post-2000)
504
1076
5.6
18.41
338 09
17106
97
EWH05
Heat pump water heater (1995-2000)
504
1076
5.6
464
342.74
4315
98
EMSGR02
Improve RAC(2) In EMH non-elec homes, Sth(post2000
56
123
5.7
0 02
342.76
165
99
EASGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in EMF non-elec homes, Sth
28
61
5.7
0.07
342.83
1152
100
EASEC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std In EMF elec htd homes, Sth
28
61
5.7
0 08
342 91
1324
101
FRZR04
Freezer condenser gas heat
31
50
58
0 94
343 84
18705
102
EMNHP03
Improve HP(2) In North EMH
95
185
5.8
0 00
343 85
9
103
NSNEC04
Wall to R-19 in new SF homes, North
186
257
5.9
0 20
344 05
784
104
ESSGC02
Improve CAC In South ESF non-elec homes w/ CAC
309
664
59
3 69
347.74
5562
105
CD-E03
Switch electric clothesdryer to gas
480
807
61
20 22
367 96
25056
106
ERNG02
Switch from electric to gas range
590
944
6.2
18 29
386 25
19384
107
NSSER03
Ceiling to R-30 in NSF ER/RAC homes, Sth (pre-'95)
57
73
6.3
0 02
38627
318
108
NSNER03
Wall to R-27, ceil to R-49 in new SF homes, North
1355
1725
64
0 48
386 76
281
109
NSNHP04
Wall to R-19 in new SF homes w/ HP, North
267
335
6.5
0 72
38748
2147
110
EMNER01
Improve RAC In EMH elec htd homes, Nth
10
19
6.5
0.00
387.48
37
111
NSSE02
Ceiling to R-30 in new SF homes w/ ER/-, South
57
70
6.6
0.04
387 52
616
112
NANHP03
Improve HP(2) in NMF HP homes, North
62
106
6.7
0 02
38754
171
113
NMNER01
Improve RAC in NMH elec htd homes, Nth
10
18
6.7
0.00
387.54
46
114
NMNGR01
Improve RAC in NMH non-elec htd homes, Nth
10
18
6.7
0.00
387.54
206
115
ERNG01
Induction cooktop and improved oven (post-1995)
171
250
6.8
11.78
399.32
47110
116
NSNHP07
Superwindows in NSF HP homes, N (post-95)
556
655
6.9
1.02
400.33
1551
117
EMNGR01
Improve RAC In EMH non-elec homes, Nth
10
17
7.1
0.00
400.34
256
118
ESNER03
R-30 floor in ESF ER/RAC homes, North
1297
1482
7.1
0 33
400 67
224
119
NASGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in NMF non-elec homes, Sth
28
49
7 1
0 05
400 72
1023
120
NASEC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in NMF elec hid homes, Sth
28
49
7.1
0.07
400.79
1405
-------
12 4 5 Jul 1
Supply Curve - Year 2010 Maximum Technical Potential
Label
Measure
Code
Measure
Name
Incr.
Cost
1989$/unit
Energy
Savings
kWh/unit
CCE
cenls/kWh
Energy Savings
Measure Cumulative
TWh TWh
Applicable
Stock
1(P
121
ESNE03
R-30 floor In ESF ER/- homes, North
1297
1471
7 1
0.91
401 70
619
122
NSSEC03
Wall to R-19 In new SF homes, South
379
429
7.2
0.64
402 34
1484
123
NMSGC02
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std in NMH non-elec homes,
309
537
7.3
0 28
402 62
529
124
NMSEC02
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std In NMH elec htd homes,
309
537
7.3
0.45
403 08
846
125
NSSE03
Superwindows In NSF homes w/ ER/-, South(post-'95)
473
521
74
0.24
403 31
452
126
EASER01
Improve RAC in EMF elec htd homes, Sth
10
16
7.4
0 01
403.32
629
127
EASGR01
Improve RAC in EMF non-elec homes, Sth
10
16
7.4
0.02
403 34
1103
128
EMSEC02
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std in EMH elec htd homes,
309
525
7.4
0.05
403 39
101
129
ESSER03
Improve ceiling In ESF ER/RAC homes, South
410
443
7.5
0.36
403 75
809
130
EASGC03
Variable speed CAC compressor, EMF g/o homes, Sth
105
176
75
0.02
403 77
135
131
EASEC03
Variable speed CAC compressor, EMF elec homes, Sth
105
176
75
0.03
403 80
155
132
ESNE04
Improve ceiling in ESF homes, North
14
15
7.6
0.01
403 81
619
133
ESSEC03
Switch to improved HP In South ESF homes
109
162
77
0 24
404 05
1496
134
EMSGC02
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std in EMH non-elec homes,
309
501
7.8
0 06
404.12
126
135
EMNEC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in EMH elec htd homes, Nth
43
69
7.9
0.00
404.12
27
136
NASHP01
Improve HP to 92 std in NMF HP homes, South
49
70
8.0
0 04
404 16
564
137
ESSE02
Improve ceiling in ESF ER/- homes, South
403
409
80
0 26
404 42
642
138
NMNEC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std In new elec htd MH, North
43
67
8.1
0.00
404 42
38
139
NMNGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in new non-elec MH, North
43
67
8.1
0.01
404 44
183
140
EMNGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std In EMH non-elec homes, Nth
43
64
8.5
0.01
404 45
192
141
NSNER04
Ceiling to R-60 in new SF homes w/ ER/RAC, North
148
139
8.6
0.04
404.49
281
142
NSNE04
Ceiling to R-60 tn new SF homes w/ ER/-, North
148
138
87
0.12
404 61
864
143
EASGC02
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std in EMF non-elec homes,
169
234
9.1
0.30
404 91
1287
144
EASEC02
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std in EMF elec htd homes,
169
234
9.1
0.35
405.25
1479
145
NASGR01
Improve RAC in NMF non-elec homes. Sth
10
13
9.2
0.00
405.25
99
146
NASER01
Improve RAC tn NMF elec htd homes, Sth
10
13
92
0.00
405.26
318
147
EWH06
Horizontal axis clotheswasher w/ HPWH (1995-2000)
116
143
92
0 26
405.51
1798
148
EWH09
Horizontal axis clotheswasher w/HPWH(post-2000)
116
143
92
1.98
407.49
13898
149
MISE04
Horiz axis clthswshr w/HPWH (motor svgs) 1995-2000
53
65
93
0 25
407.74
3801
150
MISE06
Horiz axis clthswshr w/HPWH (motor svgs) post-2000
53
65
93
1 82
409 56
28209
-------
12 -15 Jul 1 19
Pi
0
Supply Curve - Year 2010 Maximum Technical Potential
Label
Measure
Code
Measure
Name
Incr.
Cost
1989$/umt
Energy
Savings
kWh/unit
CCE
cents/kWh
Energy Savings
Measure Cumulative
TWh TWh
Applicable
Stock
1(P
151
NASGC03
Variable speed CAC compressor, NMF g/o homes, Sth
105
141
9.4
0.07
409.63
485
152
NASEC03
Variable speed CAC compressor, NMF elec homes, Sth
105
141
94
0.09
409.72
666
153
NSNEC06
Floor to R-30 in new SF homes, North
223
192
9.4
0 15
409.88
784
154
ESSEC04
Switch to improved HP In South ESF homes
330
399
9.4
0.60
410.47
1496
155
NSSEC04
Improve HP in South new SF ER/CAC homes
90
108
9.5
0.16
410.63
1484
156
ESSHP05
Improve celling in ESF HP homes, South
2
2
95
0 00
410.64
1865
157
NSNHP05
R-30 floor In new SF homes w/ HP, N (<'95)
311
261
97
0 16
410.79
596
158
LTG03
Compact Fluorescent Fixtures
263
293
99
34 33
445.12
117175
159
ESNEC04
Improve ceiling insulation In ESF homes, North
480
393
9.9
0 26
445 38
661
160
NSNGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std In NSF non-elec homes, Nth
43
54
10.0
0.22
445.60
3982
161
EANHP04
Improve HP(3) In EMF HP homes, North
228
254
10.2
0.30
445 89
1162
162
EMSHP03
Improve HP(2) In South EMH
114
127
10.3
0.00
445.90
13
163
ESNGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std In ESF non-elec homes, Nth
43
52
10.4
0 36
446 26
6925
164
ESNHP07
Improve ceiling in ESF HP homes, Norlh
555
425
106
0 36
446 61
838
165
MISE01
Improve miscellaneous appliance motor efficiency
190
190
11.0
22.26
468 87
117175
166
NSNHP08
R-30 floor In new SF homes w/ HP, N (>*95)
311
226
11 2
0.48
469.36
2147
167
NMSHP03
Improve HP(2) in South NMH
114
115
11.3
0.01
469 37
71
168
NASGC02
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std in NMF non-elec homes,
169
187
11.4
0 10
469.47
538
169
NASEC02
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std in NMF elec htd homes,
169
187
11.4
0 14
469 61
738
170
EASHP03
Improve HP(2) in EMF HP homes, South
62
62
11.4
0 03
469.64
548
171
NSSGC03
Improve CAC in South new SF non-elec homes w/ CAC
309
336
11 6
0 85
470 49
2519
172
EMNER02
Improve RAC(2) in EMH elec htd homes, Nth(post2000
56
59
11.8
0 00
470 49
14
173
NSSER05
Ceiling to R-38 in new SF homes w/ ER/RAC, South
322
219
11 9
0 07
470 56
318
174
NSSHP04
Improve HP in South new SF HP homes
109
104
11.9
0.34
470.89
3230
175
EMNHP04
Improve HP(3) in North EMH
347
327
12.1
0.00
470 90
9
176
ESNER04
Improve windows in ESF homes, Norlh
316
210
122
0 13
471 02
605
177
ESNE05
Improve windows in ESF homes, North
316
209
12.2
0.13
471.15
619
178
NSSER06
Variable speed RAC in south NSF homes (post-2000)
67
59
12.4
0.01
471.16
149
179
NSNEC07
Ceiling to R-30 in new SF homes, North
19
12
12.5
0 01
471.17
784
180
NSNHP06
R-30 ceiling in new SF homes w/ HP, N(<'95)
44
29
12 6
0.02
471.19
596
-------
1245
Supply Curve - Year 2010 Maximum Technical Potential
Incr.
Energy
Energy Savings
Applicable
Label
Measure
Code
Measure
Name
Cost
1989$/unit
Savings
kWh/unit
CCE
cents/kWh
Measure
TWh
Cumulative
TWh
Stock
1(P
181
NSSHP05
Wall to R-19 in new SF homes w/ HP, South
328
210
12 6
0 68
471 87
3230
182
NSSE04
Ceiling to R-38 in new SF homes w/ ER/-, South
322
205
12.7
0 13
471.99
616
183
ESSER04
Improve windows in ESF ER/RAC homes, South
425
269
128
0 22
472 21
809
184
REF03
Two-Compressor System for refrigerator (post 1995)
93
69
13 0
7.20
479.41
104387
185
EMSHP04
Improve HP(3) in South EMH
419
360
133
0 00
479.42
13
186
ESSE03
Improve windows in ESF ER/- homes, South
425
259
13.3
0 17
479.58
642
187
EASER02
Improve RAC(2) in EMF elec htd homes, Sth{post2000
56
53
13.3
0.00
479 59
74
188
EASGR02
Improve RAC(2) In EMF non-elec homes, Sth(post2000
56
53
13 3
0.01
479.59
129
189
ESSER05
Improve wall In ESF ER/RAC homes, South
325
197
13.4
0.16
479.75
809
190
NSNGR01
Increase condenser rows In RAC in NSF non-elec, N
15
14
13 5
0 02
479.77
1202
191
ESSE04
Improve wall in ESF ER/- homes, South
325
191
13.8
0.12
479 89
642
192
NMSHP04
Improve HP(3) in South NMH
419
344
13.9
0 02
479.92
71
193
ESSGC03
Improve CAC(2) in ESF non-elec homes w/ CAC, South
293
263
14.0
1.46
481.38
5562
194
EANEC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std In EMF elec htd homes, Nth
27
23
14.6
0.02
481.40
765
195
EANGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std In EMF elec htd homes, Nth
27
23
14.6
0.03
481 43
1421
196
ESNHP08
Improve windows in ESF HP homes, North
298
165
14.6
0.14
481 57
838
197
NSNHP09
R-30 ceiling in new SF homes w/ HP, N(>'95)
44
25
14 6
0 05
461.62
2147
198
ESNEC05
Improve window & wall in ESF homes, North
646
355
14 8
0.23
481 86
661
199
EASHP04
Improve HP(3) in EMF HP homes, South
228
164
15.8
0.09
481.95
548
200
NANGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in NMF elec htd homes, Nth
27
21
16.0
0.02
481 97
919
201
NANEC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in NMF elec htd homes, Nth
27
21
160
0.03
481.99
1239
202
NSNGC02
Improve CAC in North NSF non-elec homes w/ CAC
264
208
160
0 83
482.82
3982
203
NANHP04
Improve HP(3) in NMF HP homes. North
228
161
16.1
0.03
482 85
171
204
ESNGC02
Improve CAC in North ESF non-elec homes w/ CAC
264
201
16.5
1.39
484.24
6925
205
NASGR02
Improve RAC{2) in NMF non-elec homes, Sth(post2G00
56
42
166
0.00
484.24
47
206
NASER02
Improve RAC(2) in NMF elec htd homes, Sth(post2000
56
42
16.6
0.01
484.25
151
207
ESSEC05
Improve ceiling Insulation in ESF homes, South
403
187
17.5
0.28
484.53
1496
208
NSSGR02
Increase condenser area of RAC, NSF non-elec, Sth
87
54
17 7
0.02
484.55
435
209
NSNGR02
Variable speed RAC, NSF non-elec, North (>2000)
83
46
19.8
0 02
484.58
539
210
ESSHP06
Improve windows in ESF HP homes, South
360
135
21.6
0 25
484 83
1865
-------
12 45 Jut ; /9
Supply Curve - Year 2010 Maximum Technical Potential
Label
Measure
Code
Measure
Name
Incr.
Cost
1989$/unit
Energy
Savings
kWh/unil
CCE
cents/kWh
Energy Savings
Measure Cumulative
TWh TWh
Applicable
Stock
10s
211
NSNGR03
Increase condenser area of RAC, NSF non-elec, Nth
26
12
23.8
0.01
484 83
539
212
NASHP03
Improve HP(2) in NMF HP homes, South
62
26
26 9
0.01
484.85
564
213
NSSGC04
Improve CAC(2) in NSF non-elec homes w/ CAC, South
293
133
27.8
0 34
48518
2519
214
NSNGC03
Improve CAC(2) in North NSF non-elec homes w/ CAC
250
82
38 4
0.33
485 51
3982
-------
APPENDIX 3: COMMENTS ON CONSERVATION MEASURES
The following detailed tables document the sources and methods used to derive the
energy savings numbers in our national database. The first three pages (Figures A.3.1-
A.3.3) show graphical depictions of the most complicated end-uses (ranges, dryers, and
water heaters). They show baseline unit energy consumptions (UECs) at the top, and the
UECs and eligible fractions for each branch in the supply curve for these end-uses.
References
References to Koomey 1991 should read Koomey et al. 1991.
References to RECS 87 are to US DOE 1989a (US DOE, U.S. Department of
Energy. 1989a. Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Housing Characteristics 1987.
EIA, Energy Information Admimstraoon. DOE/EIA-0314(87). May 1989)
References to PEAR are to EAP 1987 (EAP, Energy Analysis Program. 1987.
Program for Energy Analysis of Residences (PEAR 2.1): User's Manual. Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory. PUB-610. March 1987.)
References to LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation database are to LBL. 1990.
Appliance Energy Conservation Database. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. September
1990.
Explanation of abbreviations and terms
UEC = unit energy consumption (baseline unit)
UES = unit energy savings for a single measure, assuming all preceding measures
have already been implemented.
incremental cost = the added cost of improving the efficiency of an appliance or
building over the preceding measure. For all end-uses except existing buildings, this
parameter is defined as the cost per applicable building (or device). The costs shell
measures in existing buildings are taken from a source that did not show the cost per
applicable building, so the incremental cost in this case is averaged over ALL existing
buildings, and hence appears lower in absolute terms than would be expected. See text for
more explanation.
lifetime = life of measure or device, in years
% of stock applicable = the percentage of all homes or appliances in an endpuse to
which the measure can be applied
preceding measure = those measures implemented before implementing the measure
under consideration
73
-------
Consumer price index conversion factors used in ACCESS:
To convert from
to
factor =
1983$
1989$
1.24
1984$
1.19
1985 $
1.15
1986$
1.13
1987 $
1.09
1988$
1.05
1989$
1.00
1990$
0.95
74
-------
Figure A-3.1. ELECTRIC RANGE
Baseline ERNG
UEC = 944 kWh
ERNG02
Switch to Gas Range
22% eligible
UEC = 0 kWh
ERNG01
Induction Slmproved Oven
70% eligible
UEC = 694 kWh
Measure eligibility is expressed as a percentage of total electric range stock.
75
-------
Figure A-3.2: ELECTRIC CLOTHES DRYER
Baseline CD-E
UEC = 880 kWh
CD-E01
1994 Standard
100% eligible
UEC = 807 kWh
CD-E03
Switch to Gas Dryer
36% eligible
UEC = 0 kWh
CD-E02
Heat Pump Dryer
64% eligible
UEC = 282 kWh
Measure eligibility is expressed as a percentage of total electric clothes dryer stock.
76
-------
Figure A-3.3 : ELECTRIC WATER HEATER
EWH Baseline Unit
UEC = 3539 kWh
EWH01
1994 Standard Clotheswasher
(Hot Water Savings), 91.5% eligible
UEC . 3494 kWh
EWH08
Switch to Gas, 8.5% eligible
UEC = 0 kWh
EWH02
Flow Restrictors, 91.5% eligible
UEC - 2621 kWh
EWH03
1994 Standard Dishwasher
(Hot Water Savings), 91.5% eligible
UEC = 2576 kWh
EWH04
Reduce Standby Losses, 91.5% eligible
UEC - 2151 kWh
(^95
2000)
Measure eligibility is expressed as a percentage of
total EWH stock.
We assume that all electric WHs tn the south and
10% of the WHs in the north that were not switched
to gas will be switched to HPWHs (i.e., 48% of all
EWHs can be switched to HPWHs). We have assumed
only half of the 48% is achievable in the
1995-2000 period, since factories would need
time to gear up. After 2000, all 48% will be
eligible.
We assume that half of all clothes washers will be
switched to horizontal axis clothes washers between
1995 and 2000. After 2000, we assume that all
could be switched to honzontal axis. The energy
savings depends on the efficiency of the water
heater, hence there are different measures for
horizontal axis washers in homes with EWH and in
homes with HPWH Hie eligible fraction in each
case is equal to the saturation of clotheswashers in
1990 (80.9%; or 40.4% eligible before 2000)
times the percentage of units with HPWHs or with
EWHs
(Post - 20Q0)
EWH05
Heat Pump WH
24% eligible
UEC = 1076 kWh
EWH07
Horizontal Axis CW
(Standard EWH)
27.3% eligible
UEC - 1866 kWh
EWH06
Horizontal Axis CW
9 7% eligible
UEC = 934 kWh
EWH 08
Heat Pump WH
48% eligible
UEC = 1076 kWh
EWH10
Horizontal Axis CW
(Standard EWH)
35.2% eligible
UEC = 1866 kWh
EWH09
Horizontal Axis CW
38 9% eligible
UEC o 934 kWh
77
-------
END USE: BWTV Black and white television sets, 13 Inch
1990 UEC: 50 kWh Lifetime reflects high turnover to color sets, not necessarily engineering life. Baseline
Lifetime (yrs): 6 model has mechanical tuning, white picture - 28 W, black picture -17 W. From LBL's
Fuel Type: electric compilation of utility RASSes, we found that 37% of homes have at least one B&W TV
set. We assumed 6 viewing hours per household per day, which may be comprised of 1
set on for 6 hrs or 2 sets on for 3 hrs each, and so on.
Source: US DOE, November 1988
Efficient black and white TV set
BWTV01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $1 in 1988$
UES: 2.5 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 6
% of stock applicable: 100%
Measure includes replacing surge protection resistor + additional output taps on the
power supply. Screen power is reduced 5% by this measure.
Source: US DOE, November 1988
Preceding Measure: none
END USE: CD-E Clothes Dryer electric
1990 UEC: 880 kWh Electric dryer (weighted average of standard 5.9 cu.ft. dryer, compact 120V and compact
Lifetime (yrs): 17 240 V dryers). UEC Is the average new unit UEC bought in 1990 (from LBL-REM). The
Fuel Type: electric average energy factor is 2.76 (from US DOE 1990).
Source: LBL-REM
78
-------
Improve clothes dryer to 1994 NAECA standard
CD-E01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $21 in 1988$
UES: 73.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 17
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve clothes dryer to 1994 standard efficiency. Energy savings and cost are from US
DOE 1990. Cost assumes a retail markup factor of 1.46 (from LBL-MIM).
Source: US DOE 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
Heat pump dryer
CD-E02
new measure
measure active between 2000 and 2010
Incremental Cost $219 in 1988$
UES: 524.9 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 17
% of stock applicable: 64%
Heat pump dryers are assumed to be widely available after 2000 (heat pump dryers have
now been succesfully developed and tested). We assume all dryers not switched to gas,
or 64% of the stock, are replaced with the HP dryer. Cost and energy savings are from
US DOE 1990 and are incremental from the 1994 standard. Heat pump dryer energy fac-
tor is 8.61 Ibs/kWh (weighted average of compact and standard size dryers).
Source: US DOE 1990.
Preceding Measure: CD-E01
Switch electric clothesdryer to gas
CD-E03
new measure/fuel switching
Yearly Gas Use: 34.9
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $480 In 1989$
UES: 807.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 17
% of stock applicable: 36%
About 36% of U.S. elec. clothes dryer stock is found in homes having gas service. This
measure involves replacing the electric clothesdryer with a comparable gas unit. The cost
includes a gas line extension and the incremental cost of a gas dryer (at a total of $250)
plus $230 for the present valued cost of gas over the 17-year lifetime (derived from the
1990 Annual Energy Outlook). Energy savings assume the 1994 standard measure has
been implemented first and represent the entire UEC of the electric unit. The gas unit will
use about 35 therms (REM 1990 new unit UEC).
Source: Investigations by C. Atkinson, Aug 1990
Preceding Measure: CD-E01
79
-------
END USE: CTV Color television sets 19-20 Inch
1990 UEC: 205 kWh Baseline model has electronic tuning, standby power of 4.4 W, white picture - 100W,
Lifetime (yrs): 11 black picture - 60 W. From LBL's compilation of utility RASSes, 93% of homes have at
Fuel Type: electric least one color TV set. We assume that the average daily number of viewing hours per
household is 6. (This is similar to the Nielsen research findings of 7 hrs in 1986, and can
be Interpreted as one set on for 6 hrs or 2 sets on for 3 hrs each, etc.).
Source: US DOE, November 1988
Efficient color TV set
CTV01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $7 in 1988$
UES: 34.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 11
% of stock applicable: 100%
Measures include reducing standby power to 2W, reducing white/black screen power by
5% (93W/55W), plus increase efficiency of display (91W/53W).
Source: US DOE, November 1988
Preceding Measure: none.
END USE: EANEC Existing MF w/ CAC, North
1990 UEC: 12147 kWh Existing multi family with electric furnaces and central AC in the North. Furnace efficiency
Lifetime (yrs): 30 is assumed to be 100%. CAC efficiency is 9.96 SEER (REM 1990 new unit). UECs are
Fuel Type: electric derived from multifamily heating and cooling loads for Chicago (Ritschard 1989).
Ritschard's MF vintage categories were weighted by RECS87 data to obtain an average
UEC for existing MF units. Efficiency of space conditioning equipment is from LBL-REM.
The fraction of total MF stock in this htg/clg category is from RECS87 data.
Source: Ritschard 1989 and RECS87.
80
-------
Improve CAC to 1992 std In EMF elec htd homes, Nth
EANEC01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $27 In 1989$
UES: 23.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve average new unit CAC efficiency to 10.5 SEER in existing electrically heated
multl family homes In the South. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the
average new unit efficiency In 1992, after the standard is operative. It is higher than the
standard (10.0 SEER), reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. Cost Is from
LBL's Energy Conservation Database, scaled down by a factor of 0.62 to account for the
smaller capacity (The database cost is for a 35 kBtu/hr peak cooling capacity, whereas
the peak load for apartments In the north Is about 12 kBtu/hr, from Ritschard 1989). The
cost factor was derived from an EPRI TAG 1987 cost-capacity curve for the smallest HP
available (23 kBtu/hr) compared to the 35 kBtu unit.
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990. EPRI TAG 1987.
Preceding Measure: none
END USE: EANGC Existing MF wI non-elec htg & CAC, North
1990 UEC: 446 kWh Existing non-electrically heated multi family with central AC in the North. Furnace
Lifetime (yrs): 30 efficiency is assumed to be 100%. CAC efficiency is 9.96 SEER (REM 1990 new unit).
Fuel Type: electric UECs are derived from multifamily heating and cooling loads for Chicago (Ritschard
1989). Ritschard's MF vintage categories were weighted by RECS87 data to obtain an
average UEC for existing MF units. Efficiency of space conditioning equipment is from
LBL-REM. The fraction of total MF stock in this htg/clg category is from RECS87 data.
Source: Ritschard 1989 and RECS87.
81
-------
Improve CAC to 1992 std In EMF elec htd homes, Nth
EANGC01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $27 In 1989$
UES: 23.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve average new unit CAC efficiency to 10.5 SEER in existing electrically heated
multi family homes In the South. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the
average new unit efficiency in 1992, after the standard Is operative. It is higher than the
standard (10.0 SEER), reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. Cost Is from
LBL's Energy Conservation Database, scaled down by a factor of 0.62 to account for the
smaller capacity (The database cost Is for a 35 kBtu/hr peak cooling capacity, whereas
the peak load for apartments in the north is about 12 kBtu/hr, from Rilschard 1989). The
cost factor was derived from an EPRI TAG 1987 cost-capacity curve for the smallest HP
available (23 kBtu/hr) compared to the 35 kBtu unit.
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990. EPRI TAG 1987.
Preceding Measure: none
END USE: EANHP Existing MF wI heat pump, North
1990 UEC: 5967 kWh Existing multi family with heat pumps in the North. Heat pump efficiency is 9.86 SEER
Lifetime (yrs): 30 and 7.24 HSPF (REM 1990 new unit). UECs are derived from multifamily heating and
Fuel Type: electric cooling loads for Chicago (Ritschard 1989). Ritschard's MF vintage categories were
weighted by RECS87 data to obtain an average UEC for existing MF units. Efficiency of
space conditioning equipment is from LBL-REM. The fraction of total MF stock in this
htg/clg category Is from RECS87 data.
Source: Ritschard 1989 and RECS87.
82
-------
Improve HP to 92 std In EMF HP homes, North
EANHP01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $49 in 1989$
UES: 190.1 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve average new unit HP efficiency to 7.46 HSPF, 10.5 SEER in existing multi family
buildings in the North. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the average
new unit efficiency in 1992, after the standard is operative. It is higher than the standard,
reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. Cost is from LBL's Energy Conserva-
tion Database, scaled down by a factor of 0.69 to account for the smaller capacity (The
database cost is for a 35 kBtu/hr peak cooling capacity, whereas the peak load for apart-
ments in the north Is about 12 kBtu/hr, from Ritschard 1989). The cost factor was derived
from an EPRI TAG 1987 cost-capacity curve for the smallest HP available (23 kBtu/hr)
compared to the 35 kBtu unit.
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990. EPRI TAG 1987.
Preceding Measure: none
Improve HP beyond 92 std In EMF HP
EANHP02
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $104 In 1989$
UES: 1027.6 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990. EPRI TAG 1987.
Preceding Measure: EANHP01
homes, North
Improve average new unit HP efficiency to 9.06 HSPF, 13.03 SEER from LBL-REM's
average 1992 new unit efficiency. Applies to existing multi family buildings in the North.
Cost is from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, scaled down by a factor of 0.69 to ac-
count for the smaller capacity (The database cost is for a 35 kBtu/hr peak cooling capaci-
ty, whereas the peak load for apartments in the south is about 12 kBtu/hr, from Ritschard
1989). The cost factor was derived from an EPRI TAG 1987 cost-capacity curve for the
smallest HP available (23 kBtu/hr) compared to the 35 kBtu unit.
83
-------
Improve HP(2) In EMF HP homes, North
EANHP03
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $62 in 1989$
UES: 179.4 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990. EPRI TAG 1987.
Preceding Measure: EANHP02
Improve average new unit HP efficiency to 9.43 HSPF, 13.28 SEER. Applies to existing
multi family buildings in the South. Cost is from LBL's Energy Conservation Database,
scaled down by a factor of 0.69 to account for the smaller capacity (The database cost is
for a 35 kBtu/hr peak cooling capacity, whereas the peak load for apartments in the
south is about 12 kBtu/hr, from Ritschard 1989). The cost factor was derived from an
EPRI TAG 1987 cost-capacity curve for the smallest HP available (23 kBtu/hr) compared
to the 35 kBtu unit.
Improve HP{3) In EMF HP homes, North
EANHP04
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $228 In 1989$
UES: 254.4 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 10Q%
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990. EPRI TAG 1987.
Preceding Measure: EANHP03
Improve average new unit HP efficiency to 9.93 HSPF, 15.14 SEER. Applies to new multi
family buildings in the North. Cost is from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, scaled
down by a factor of 0.69 to account for the smaller capacity (The database cost is for a
35 kBtu/hr peak cooling capacity, whereas the peak load for apartments in the north is
about 12 kBtu/hr, from Ritschard 1989). The cost factor was derived from an EPRI TAG
1987 cost-capacity curve for the smallest HP available (23 kBtu/hr) compared to the 35
kBtu unit.
84
-------
END USE: EASEC Existing MF w/ CAC, South
1990 UEC: 4209 kWh Existing multi family with electric furnaces and central AC In the South. Furnace
Lifetime (yrs): 30 efficiency Is assumed to be 100%. CAC efficiency is 9.96 SEER (REM 1990 new unit).
Fuel Type: electric UECs are derived from multifamily heating and cooling loads for Fort Worth (Ritschard
1989). Rltschard's MF vintage categories were weighted by RECS87 data to obtain an
average UEC for existing MF units. The Fort Worth UECs were adjusted to Charleston
weather using heating and cooling degree day ratios (Andersson, et al 1986). Efficiency
of space conditioning equipment is from LBL-REM. The fraction of total MF stock in this
htg/clg category Is from RECS87 data.
Source: Ritschard 1989 and RECS87.
Improve CAC to 1992 std In EMF elec htd homes, Sth
EASEC01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $28 in 1989$
UES• 61.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve average new unit CAC efficiency to 10.5 SEER in existing electrically heated
multi family homes in the South. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the
average new unit efficiency in 1992, after the standard is operative. It is higher than the
standard (10.0 SEER), reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. Cost is from
LBL's Energy Conservation Database, scaled down by a factor of 0.64 to account for the
smaller capacity (The database cost is for a 35 kBtu/hr peak cooling capacity, whereas
the peak load for apartments in the south is about 14 kBtu/hr, from Ritschard 1989). The
cost factor was derived from an EPRI TAG 1987 cost-capacity curve for the smallest HP
available (23 kBtu/hr) compared to the 35 kBtu unit.
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990. EPRI TAG 1987.
Preceding Measure: none
85
-------
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std In EMF elec htd homes,
EASEC02 Improve average new unit CAC efficiency to 13.3 SEER from 10.5 SEER in existing
new measure electrically heated multi family homes in the South. Energy savings calculated from the
measure active between 1990 and 2000 efficiencies. Cost is from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, scaled down by a factor
Incremental Cost $169 in 1989$ of 0.64 to account for the smaller capacity (The database cost is for a 35 kBtu/hr peak
UES: 233.7 kWh cooling capacity, whereas the peak load for apartments in the south is about 14 kBtu/hr,
Lifetime (yrs): 12 from Ritschard 1989). The cost factor was derived from an EPRI TAG 1987 cost-capacity
% of stock applicable: 100% curve for the smallest HP available (23 kBtu/hr) compared to the 35 kBtu unit. This meas-
ure makes way in the year 2000 for the more cost-effective variable speed compressor
unit, assumed to become available in 2000.
Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: EASEC01
Variable speed CAC compressor, EMF elec homes, Sth
EASEC03
new measure
measure active between 2000 and 2010
Incremental Cost $105 in 1989$
UES: 176.1 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
Variable speed compressor improves average new unit CAC efficiency to 12.48 SEER
from 10.5 SEER (1992 new unit) in existing electrically heated multi family homes in the
South. Energy savings calculated from the efficiencies. Cost is from LBL's Energy Con-
servation Database, scaled down by a factor of 0.64 to account for the smaller capacity
(The database cost is for a 35 kBtu/hr peak cooling capacity, whereas the peak load for
apartments in the south is about 14 kBtu/hr, from Ritschard 1989). The cost factor was
derived from an EPRI TAG 1987 cost-capacity curve for the smallest HP available (23
kBtu/hr) compared to the 35 kBtu unit.
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990. EPRI TAG 1987.
Preceding Measure: EASEC01
86
-------
END USE: EASER Existing MF w/ RAC, South
1990 UEC: 3393 kWh Existing multi family with electric furnaces and room AC in the South. Furnace efficiency
Lifetime (yrs): 30 is assumed to be 100%. Cooling UEC is assumed to be 31% of the central AC UEC
Fuel Type: electric (RCG/Hagler, Bailly, 1990). UECs are derived from multifamily heating and cooling loads
for Fort Worth (Ritschard 1989). Ritschard's MF vintage categories were weighted by
RECS87 data to obtain an average UEC for existing MF units. The Fort Worth UECs
were adjusted to Charleston weather using heating and cooling degree day ratios
(Andersson, et al 1986). Efficiency of space conditioning equipment is from LBL-REM.
The fraction of total MF stock in this htg/clg category is from RECS87 data.
Source: Ritschard 1989 and RECS87.
Improve RAC in EMF elec htd homes, Sth
EASER01 Improve average new unit RAC efficiency to 9.42 SEER from the 1990 baseline (9.0
new measure SEER) in existing electrically heated multi family homes in the South. Cost assumes an 8
measure active between 1990 and 2010 kBtu/hr capacity and is from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database. Measure
Incremental Cost $10 in 1989$ involves increasing condenser rows. Energy savings calculated from the change in
UES: 16.4 kWh efficiency.
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100% Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
Improve RAC(2) In EMF elec htd homes, Sth(post2000
EASER02
new measure
measure active between 2000 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $56 in 1989$
UES: 52.6 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
Variable speed unit assumed to be available after 2000. Energy savings Is from LBL's
Conservation Database 1990 and represents a 15% savings over the 9.42 SEER unit.
Applies to existing electrically heated multi family homes In the South. Cost assumes an
8 kBtu/hr capacity and is from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database.
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: EASER01
87
-------
END USE: EASGC Existing MF w/ non-elec htg & CAC, South
1990UEC. 1182kWh Existing non-electrlcally heated muiti family with central AC in the South. Furnace
Lifetime (yrs): 30 efficiency is assumed to be 100%. CAC efficiency is 9.96 SEER (REM 1990 new unit).
Fuel Type: electric UECs are derived from multifamily heating and cooling loads for Fort Worth (Ritschard
1989). Ritschard's MF vintage categories were weighted by RECS87 data to obtain an
average UEC for existing MF units. The Fort Worth UECs were adjusted to Charleston
weather using heating and cooling degree day ratios (Andersson, et al 1986). Efficiency
of space conditioning equipment is from LBL-REM. The fraction of total MF stock in this
htg/clg category is from RECS87 data.
Source: Ritschard 1989 and RECS87.
Improve CAC to 1992 std in EMF non-elec homes, Sth
EASGC01 Improve average new unit CAC efficiency to 10.5 SEER in existing gas heated multi fam-
new measure ily homes in the South. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the average
measure active between 1990 and 2010 new unit efficiency in 1992, after the standard is operative. It is higher than the standard
Incremental Cost. $28 in 1989$ (10.0 SEER), reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. Cost is from LBL's En-
UES: 61.0 kWh ergy Conservation Database, scaled down by a factor of 0.64 to account for the smaller
Lifetime (yrs): 12 capacity (The database cost is for a 35 kBtu/hr peak cooling capacity, whereas the peak
% of stock applicable: 100% load for apartments in the south is about 14 kBtu/hr, from Ritschard 1989). The cost fac-
tor was derived from an EPRI TAG 1987 cost-capacity curve for the smallest HP avail-
able (23 kBtu/hr) compared to the 35 kBtu unit.
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990. EPRI TAG 1987.
Preceding Measure: none
88
-------
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std In EMF non-elec homes,
EASGC02 Improve average new unit CAC efficiency to 13.3 SEER from 10.5 SEER in existing
new measure gas/other heated multi family homes in the South. Energy savings calculated from the
measure active between 1990 and 2000 efficiencies. Cost is from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, scaled down by a factor
Incremental Cost $169 in 1989$ of 0.64 to account for the smaller capacity (The database cost is for a 35 KBtu/hr peak
UES: 233.7 kWh cooling capacity, whereas the peak load for apartments in the south is about 14 kBtu/hr,
Lifetime (yrs): 12 from Rltschard 1989). The cost factor was derived from an EPRI TAG 1987 cost-capacity
% of stock applicable: 100% curve for the smallest HP available (23 kBtu/hr) compared to the 35 kBtu unit.
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990. EPRI TAG 1987.
Preceding Measure: EASGC01
Variable speed CAC compressor, EMF g/o homes, Sth
EASGC03 Variable speed compressor improves average new unit CAC efficiency to 12.48 SEER
new measure from 10.5 SEER (1992 new unit) in existing gas/other heated multi family homes in the
measure active between 2000 and 2010 South. Energy savings calculated from the efficiencies. Cost is from LBL's Energy Con-
Incremental Cost $105 in 1989$ servation Database, scaled down by a factor of 0.64 to account for the smaller capacity
UES: 176.1 kWh (The database cost is for a 35 kBtu/hr peak cooling capacity, whereas the peak load for
Lifetime (yrs): 12 apartments in the south is about 14 kBtu/hr, from Ritschard 1989). The cost factor was
% of stock applicable: 100% derived from an EPRI TAG 1987 cost-capacity curve for the smallest HP available (23
kBtu/hr) compared to the 35 kBtu unit.
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990. EPRI TAG 1987.
Preceding Measure: EASGC01
89
-------
MF w/ non-elec htg & RAC, South
Existing non-electrically heated multi family with room AC in the South. Cooling UEC is
assumed to be 31% of the central AC UEC (RCG/Hagler, Bailly, 1990). UECs are derived
from multifamily heating and cooling loads for Fort Worth {Ritschard 1989). Ritschard's
MF vintage categories were weighted by RECS87 data to obtain an average UEC for ex-
isting MF units. The Fort Worth UECs were adjusted to Charleston weather using heating
and cooling degree day ratios (Andersson, et al 1986). Efficiency of space conditioning
equipment is from LBL-REM. The fraction of total MF stock in this htg/clg category is
from RECS87 data.
Source: Ritschard 1989 and RECS87.
Improve RAC In EMF non-elec homes, Sth
EASGR01 Improve average new unit RAC efficiency to 9.42 SEER from the 1990 baseline (9.0
new measure SEER) in existing gas/other heated multi family homes in the South. Measure involves in-
measure active between 1990 and 2010 creasing condenser rows. Cost assumes an 8 KBtu/hr capacity and is from LBL's Appii-
Incremental Cost $10 in 1989$ ance Energy Conservation Database. Energy savings calculated from the change in
l/ES:16.4kWh efficiency.
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100% Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
Improve RAC(2) In EMF non-elec homes, Sth(post2000
EASGR02 Variable speed unit assumed to be available after 2000. Energy savings is from LBL's
new measure Conservation Database 1990 and represents a 15% savings over the 9.42 SEER unit,
measure active between 2000 and 2010 Applies to existing gas/other heated multi family homes in the South. Cost assumes an 8
Incremental Cost $56 in 1989$ kBtu/hr capacity and is from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database.
UES: 52.6 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12 Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
% of stock applicable: 100% prece(jing Measurg: ^ASGR01
END USE: EASGR Existing
1990 UEC: 367 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 30
Fuel Type: electric
90
-------
END USE: EASHP Existing MF w/ heat pump, South
1990 DEC: 2621 kWh Existing multi family with heat pumps in the South. Heat pump efficiency is 9.86 SEER
Lifetime (yrs): 30 and 7.24 HSPF (REM 1990 new unit). UECs are derived from multifamily heating and
Fuel Type: electric cooling loads for Fort Worth (Ritschard 1989). Ritschard's MF vintage categories were
weighted by RECS87 data to obtain an average UEC for existing MF units. The Fort
Worth UECs were adjusted to Charleston weather using heating and cooling degree day
ratios (Andersson, et al 1986). Efficiency of space conditioning equipment is from LBL-
REM. The fraction of total MF stock in this htg/clg category is from RECS87 data.
Source: Ritschard 1989 and RECS87.
Improve HP to 92 std In EMF HP homes, South
EASHP01 Improve average new unit HP efficiency to 7.46 HSPF, 10.5 SEER in new multi family
new measure buildings In the South. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the average
measure active between 1990 and 2010 new unit efficiency in 1992, after the standard Is operative. It is higher than the standard,
Incremental Cost $49 in 1989$ reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. Cost is from LBL's Energy Conserva-
UES: 114.9 kWh tion Database, scaled down by a factor of 0.69 to account for the smaller capacity (The
Lifetime (yrs): 14 database cost is for a 35 kBtu/hr peak cooling capacity, whereas the peak load for apart-
% of stock applicable: 100% ments in the south is about 14 kBtu/hr, from Ritschard 1989). The cost factor was
derived from an EPRI TAG 1987 cost-capacity curve for the smallest HP available (23
kBtu/hr) compared to the 35 kBtu unit.
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990. EPRI TAG 1987.
Preceding Measure: none
91
-------
Improve HP beyond 92 std In EMF HP
EASHP02
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $104 in 1989$
UES: 462.3 kWh
Lifetime (yrs)\ 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
homes, South
Improve average new unit HP efficiency to 9.06 HSPF, 13.03 SEER from LBL-REM's
average 1992 new unit efficiency. Applies to existing multi family buildings In the South.
Cost is from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, scaled down by a factor of 0.69 to ac-
count for the smaller capacity (The database cost is for a 35 KBtu/hr peak cooling capaci-
ty, whereas the peak load for apartments in the south is about 14 kBtu/hr, from Ritschard
1989). The cost factor was derived from an EPRI TAG 1987 cost-capacity curve for the
smallest HP available (23 kBtu/hr) compared to the 35 kBtu unit.
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990. EPRI TAG 1987.
Preceding Measure: EASHP01
Improve HP(2) In EMF HP homes, South
EASHP03
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $62 in 1989$
UES: 61.8 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve average new unit HP efficiency to 9.43 HSPF, 13.28 SEER. Applies to existing
multi family buildings in the South. Cost is from LBL's Energy Conservation Database,
scaled down by a factor of 0.69 to account for the smaller capacity (The database cost is
for a 35 kBtu/hr peak cooling capacity, whereas the peak load for apartments in the
south is about 14 kBtu/hr, from Ritschard 1989). The cost factor was derived from an
EPRI TAG 1987 cost-capacity curve for the smallest HP available (23 kBtu/hr) compared
to the 35 kBtu unit.
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990. EPRI TAG 1987.
Preceding Measure: EASHP02
92
-------
Improve HP(3) In EMF HP homes, South
EASHP04
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $228 in 1989$
UES: 164.1 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve average new unit HP efficiency to 9.93 HSPF, 15.14 SEER. Applies to existing
multi family buildings In the South. Cost Is from LBL's Energy Conservation Database,
scaled down by a factor of 0.69 to account for the smaller capacity (The database cost is
for a 35 kBtu/hr peak cooling capacity, whereas the peak load for apartments in the
south is about 14 kBtu/hr, from Ritschard 1989). The cost factor was derived from an
EPRI TAG 1987 cost-capacity curve for the smallest HP available (23 kBtu/hr) compared
to the 35 kBtu unit.
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990. EPRI TAG 1987.
Preceding Measure: EASHP03
END USE: EMNEC Existing MH w/ CAC, North
1990 UEC: 12522 kWh Existing mobile homes with electric furnaces and central AC in the North. Furnace
Lifetime (yrs): 30 efficiency is assumed to be 100%. CAC efficiency is 9.96 SEER (REM 1990 new unit).
Fuel Type: electric UEC is from PEAR runs using baseline shell characteristics correspond to minimum HUD
code requirement for Zone II (Mills, 1984). Insulation values for the north (HUD Zone II)
are: R-14 ceiling, R-11 wall, R-11 floor, and double glazing. Home was modelled as a 1-
story, 1025 sqft home with crawl space foundation in Cincinnati (closest city to Chicago in
PEAR database having crawl). UECs were adjusted to Chicago weather using heating
and cooling degree days (Andersson et al 1986). The floor area is from RECS87 data for
existing mobile homes with ER in the north. Infiltration rate is assumed to be 0.45 ACH.
Fraction of total MH stock in this category is from RECS87.
Source: MHI, 1991a and 1990. RECS 1987. Mills 1984.
93
-------
Improve CAC to 1992 std in EMH elec htd homes, Nth
EMNEC01 Improve average new unit CAC efficiency to 10.5 SEER in existing electrically heated
new measure mobile homes in the North. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the aver-
measure active between 1990 and 2010 age new unit efficiency in 1992, after the standard is operative. It is higher than the stan-
Incremental Cost $43 in 1989$ dard (10.0 SEER), reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. Cost assumes a
UES: 69.0 kWh 35 kBtu/hr capacity.
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100% Source: Energy savings from PEAR. Cost from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation
Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
END USE: EMNER Existing MH w/ RAC, North
1990 UEC: 11602 kWh Existing mobile homes with electric furnaces and room AC in the North. Furnace
Lifetime (yrs): 30 efficiency is assumed to be 100%. Room AC UEC is assumed to be 31% of the central
Fuel Type: electric AC UEC (RCG/Hagler, Bailly, 1990). Central AC UEC is from PEAR runs using baseline
shell characteristics correspond to minimum HUD code requirement for Zone II (Mills,
1984). Insulation values for the north (HUD Zone II) are: R-14 ceiling, R-11 wall, R-11
floor, and double glazing. Home was modelled as a 1-story, 1025 sqft home with crawl
space foundation in Cincinnati (closest city to Chicago in PEAR database having crawl).
UECs were adjusted to Chicago weather using heating and cooling degree days (Anders-
son et al 1986). The floor area is from RECS87 data for existing mobile homes with ER in
the north. Infiltration rate is assumed to be 0.45 ACH. Fraction of total MH stock in this
category is from RECS87.
Source: MHI, 1991a and 1990. RECS 1987. Mills 1984.
94
-------
Improve RAC In EMH elec htd homes,
EMNER01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $10 in 1989$
UES: 18.5 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
Nth
Improve average new unit RAC efficiency to 9.42 SEER from the 1990 baseline {9.0
SEER) in existing electrically heated mobile homes in the North. Cost assumes an 8
kBtu/hr capacity and is from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database. Measure
Involves increasing condenser rows. Energy savings calculated from the change in
efficiency.
Source: Cost from L8L's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
Improve RAC(2) In EMH elec htd homes, Nth(post2000
EMNER02
new measure
measure active between 2000 and 2010
Incremental Cost $56 in 1989$
UES: 59.3 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
Variable speed unit assumed to be available after 2000. Energy savings is from LBL's
Conservation Database 1990 and represents a 15% savings over the 9.42 SEER unit.
Applies to existing electrically heated mobile homes in the North. Cost assumes an 8
kBtu/hr capacity and is from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database.
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: EMNER01
END USE: EMNGC Existing MH w/ non-elec htg & CAC, North
1990 UEC: 1236 kWh Existing non-electrically heated mobile homes with central AC in the North. Furnace
Lifetime (yrs): 30 efficiency Is assumed to be 100%. CAC efficiency is 9.96 SEER (REM 1990 new unit).
Fuel Type: electric UEC is from PEAR runs using baseline shell characteristics correspond to minimum HUD
code requirement for Zone II (Mills, 1984). Insulation values for the north (HUD Zone II)
are: R-14 ceiling, R-11 wall, R-11 floor, and double glazing. Home was modelled as a 1-
story, 804 sqft home with crawl space foundation In Cincinnati (closest city to Chicago in
PEAR database having crawl). UECs were adjusted to Chicago weather using heating
and cooling degree days (Andersson et al 1986). The floor area is from RECS87 data for
existing mobile homes with ER in the north. Infiltration rate is assumed to be 0.45 ACH.
Fraction of total MH stock in this category is from RECS87.
Source: MHI, 1991a and 1990. RECS 1987. Mills 1984.
95
-------
Improve CAC to 1992 std In EMH non-elec homes, Nth
EMNGC01 Improve average new unit CAC efficiency to 10.5 SEER in existing gas heated mobile
new measure homes in the North. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the average new
measure active between 1990 and 2010 unit efficiency in 1992, after the standard is operative. It is higher than the standard (10.0
Incremental Cost $43 in 1989$ SEER), reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. Cost assumes a 35 KBtu/hr
UES-. 64.0 kWh capacity.
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100% Source: Energy savings from PEAR. Cost from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation
Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
END USE: EMNGR Existing MH w/ non-elec htg & RAC, North
1990 UEC: 383 kWh Existing non-electrically heated mobile homes with room AC in the North. Room AC UEC
Lifetime (yrs): 30 is assumed to be 31% of the central AC UEC (RCG/Hagler, Bailly, 1990). Central AC
Fuel Type: electric UEC is from PEAR runs using baseline shell characteristics correspond to minimum HUD
code requirement for Zone II (Mills, 1984). Insulation values for the north (HUD Zone II)
are: R-14 ceiling, R-11 wall, R-11 floor, and double glazing. Home was modelled as a 1-
story, 804 sqft home with crawl space foundation in Cincinnati (closest city to Chicago in
PEAR database having crawl). UECs were adjusted to Chicago weather using heating
and cooling degree days (Andersson et al 1986). The floor area is from RECS87 data for
existing mobile homes with ER in the north. Infiltration rate is assumed to be 0.45 ACH.
Fraction of total MH stock in this category is from RECS87.
Source: MHI, 1991a and 1990. RECS 1987. Mills 1984.
96
-------
Improve RAC In EMH non-elec homes, Nth
EMNGR01 Improve average new unit RAC efficiency to 9.42 SEER from the 1990 baseline (9.0
new measure SEER) in existing non-electrically heated mobile homes in the North. Measure involves
measure active between 1990 and 2010 increasing condenser rows. Cost assumes an 6 kBtu/hr capacity and is from LBL's Appli-
Incremental Cost. $10 In 1989$ ance Energy Conservation Database. Energy savings calculated from the change in
UES: 17.1 kWh efficiency.
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100% Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
END USE: EMNHP Existing MH w/ heat pump, North
1990 UEC: 6622 KWh Existing mobile homes with heat pumps in the North. Heal pump efficiency is 9.86 SEER
Lifetime (yrs): 30 and 7.24 HSPF (REM 1990 new unit). UEC is from PEAR runs using baseline shell
Fuel Type: electric characteristics correspond to minimum HUD code requirement for Zone II (Mills, 1984).
Insulation values for the north (HUD Zone II) are: R-14 ceiling, R-11 wall, R-11 floor, and
double glazing. Home was modelled as a 1-story, 800 sqft home with crawl space foun-
dation in Cincinnati (closest city to Chicago in PEAR database having crawl). UECs were
adjusted to Chicago weather using heating and cooling degree days (Andersson et al
1986). The floor area is from RECS87 data for existing mobile homes with ER in the
north. Infiltration rate is assumed to be 0.45 ACH. Fraction of total MH stock in this
category is from RECS87.
Source: MHI, 1991a and 1990. RECS 1987. Mills 1984.
97
-------
Improve HP to 92 std in EMH HP homes,
EMNHP01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $93 in 1989$
UES: 237.6 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database. Sep 1990. Energy savings
from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: none
North
Improve average new unit HP efficiency to 7.46 HSPF, 10.5 SEER in existing mobile
homes in the North. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the average new
unit efficiency in 1992, after the standard is operative. It is higher than the standard,
reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. Cost is from LBL's Energy Conserva-
tion Database for a peak cooling capacity of 35 kBtu/hr and is adjusted by a scaling fac-
tor equal to the ratio of the mobile home UEC to the single family UEC for this combina-
tion of heating and cooling types. The scaling factor in this case is 1.3.
Improve HP beyond 1992 standard In North EMH
EMNHP02
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $151 in 1988$
UES: 1150.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve heat pump to HSPF = 9.06 and SEER = 13.03 from LBL-REM's 1992 average
new unit efficiency.
Source: PEAR for energy savings, cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep
1990.
Preceding Measure: EMNHP01
Improve HP(2) In North EMH
EMNHP03
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $90 in 1988$
UES: 185.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve heat pump to HSPF = 9.43 and SEER = 13.28.
Source: PEAR for energy savings, cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep
1990.
Preceding Measure: EMNHP02
98
-------
Improve HP(3) In North EMH
EMNHP04
new measure Improve heat pump to HSPF = 9.93 and SEER = 15.14.
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $330 In 1988$ Source: PEAR for energy savings, cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep
UES: 327.0 kWh 1990-
Lifetime (yrs): 14 Preceding Measure: EMNHP03
% of stock applicable: 100%
END USE: EMSEC Existing MH w/ CAC, South
1990 UEC: 8452 kWh Existing mobile homes with electric furnaces and central AC in the South. Furnace
Lifetime (yrs): 30 efficiency is assumed to be 100%. CAC efficiency is 9.96 SEER (REM 1990 new unit).
Fuel Type: electric UEC is from PEAR runs using baseline shell characteristics corresponding to minimum
HUD code requirement for Zone I (Mills, 1984). Insulation values for the south (HUD
Zone I) are: R-11 ceiling, R-11 wall, R-7 floor, and single glazing. Home was modelled as
a 1-story, 940 sqft home with crawl space foundation in Charleston. The floor area is
from RECS87 data for existing mobile homes with ER in the south. Infiltration rate is as-
sumed to be 0.56 ACH. Fraction of total MH stock in this category is from RECS87.
Source: MHI, 1991a and 1990. RECS 1987. Mills 1984.
Improve CAC to 1992 std In EMH elec hid homes, Sth
EMSEC01 Improve average new unit CAC efficiency to 10.5 SEER in existing electrically heated
new measure mobile homes in the South. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the aver-
measure active between 1990 and 2010 age new unit efficiency in 1992, after the standard is operative. It is higher than the stan-
Incremental Cost $50 in 1989$ dard (10.0 SEER), reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. Cost assumes a
UES: 136.0 kWh 41 kBtu/hr capacity and is increased over LBL's Conservation database 35kBtu cost by a
Lifetime (yrs): 12 factor of 17%. Factor was derived from EPRI TAG 1987 cost versus capacity curve.
% of stock applicable: 100%
Source: Energy savings from PEAR. Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database,
Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
99
-------
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std In EMH elec htd homes,
EMSEC02 Improve average new unit CAC efficiency to 13.3 SEER from 10.5 SEER in existing
new measure electrically heated mobile homes In the South. Energy savings calculated from the
measure active between 1990 and 2010 efficiencies. Cost assumes a 41 kBtu/hr capacity in the south and is 17% higher than
Incremental Cost $309 in 1989$ LBL's Conservation database cost for a 35kBtu unit (percentage derived from EPRI TAG
LIES: 524.5 kWh 1987 CAC cost versus capacity curve).
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100% Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: EMSEC01
END USE: EMSER Existing MH w/ RAC, South
1990 UEC: 6702 KWh Existing mobile homes with electric furnaces and room AC in the South. Furnace
Lifetime (yrs): 30 efficiency is assumed to be 100%. Room AC UEC is assumed to be 31% of the central
Fuel Type: electric AC UEC (RCG/Hagler, Bailly, 1990). Central AC UEC is from PEAR runs using baseline
shell characteristics corresponding to minimum HUD code requirement for Zone I (Mills,
1984). Insulation values for the south (HUD Zone I) are: R-11 ceiling, R-11 wall, R-7
floor, and single glazing. Home was modelled as a 1-story, 940 sqft home with crawl
space foundation in Charleston. The floor area is from RECS87 data for existing mobile
homes with ER in the south. Infiltration rate is assumed to be 0.56 ACH. Fraction of total
MH stock in this category Is from RECS87.
Source: MHI, 1991a and 1990. RECS 1987. Mills 1984.
Improve RAC In EMH elec htd homes, Sth
EMSER01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $10 In 1989$
UES: 40.2 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve average new unit RAC efficiency to 9.42 SEER from the 1990 baseline (9.0
SEER) in existing electrically heated mobile homes in the South. Cost assumes an 8
kBtu/hr capacity and is from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database. Measure
involves Increasing condenser rows. Energy savings calculated from the change in
efficiency.
Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
100
-------
Improve RAC(2) In EMH elec htd homes,
EMSER02
new measure
measure active between 2000 and 2010
Incremental Cost $56 in 1989$
UES: 129.3 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
Sth(post2000
Variable speed unit assumed to be available after 2000. Energy savings is from LBL's
Conservation Database 1990 and represents a 15% savings over the 9.42 SEER unit.
Applies to existing electrically heated mobile homes in the South. Cost assumes an 8
kBtu/hr capacity and is from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database.
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: EMSER01
END USE: EMSGC Existing MH wI non-elec htg & CAC, South
1990 UEC: 2532 kWh Existing non-electrically heated mobile homes with central AC in the South. Furnace
Lifetime (yrs): 30 efficiency is assumed to be 100%. CAC efficiency is 9.96 SEER (REM 1990 new unit).
Fuel Type: electric UEC is from PEAR runs using baseline shell characteristics corresponding to minimum
HUD code requirement for Zone I (Mills, 1984). Insulation values for the south (HUD
Zone I) are: R-11 ceiling, R-11 wall, R-7 floor, and single glazing. Home was modelled as
a 1-story, 847 sqft home with crawl space foundation in Charleston. The floor area is
from RECS87 data for existing mobile homes with ER in the south. Infiltration rate is as-
sumed to be 0.56 ACH. Fraction of total MH stock In this category is from RECS87.
Source: MHI, 1991a and 1990. RECS 1987. Mills 1984.
Improve CAC to 1992 std In EMH non-elec homes, Sth
EMSGC01 Improve average new unit CAC efficiency to 10.5 SEER in existing gas heated mobile
new measure homes in the South. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the average new
measure active between 1990 and 2010 unit efficiency in 1992, after the standard Is operative. It is higher than the standard (10.0
Incremental Cost $50 in 1989$ SEER), reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. Cost assumes a 41 kBtu/hr
UES: 130.0 kWh capacity and is increased over LBL's Conservation database 35kBtu cost by a factor of
Lifetime (yrs): 12 17%. Factor was derived from EPRI TAG 1987 cost versus capacity curve.
% of stock applicable: 100%
Source: Energy savings from PEAR. Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database,
Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
101
-------
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std In EMH non-elec homes,
EMSGC02 Improve average new unit CAC efficiency to 13.3 SEER from 10.5 SEER in existing
new measure gas/other heated mobile homes in the South. Energy savings calculated from the
measure active between 1990 and 2010 efficiencies. Cost assumes a 41 kBtu/hr capacity in the south and is 17% higher than
Incremental Cost. $309 in 1989$ LBL's Conservation database cost for a 35kBtu unit (percentage derived from EPRI TAG
UES: 500.6 kWh 1987 CAC cost versus capacity curve).
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100% Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: EMSGC01
END USE: EMSGR Existing MH w/ non-elec htg & RAC, South
1990 UEC: 861 kWh Existing non-electrically heated mobile homes with room AC in the South. Room AC UEC
Lifetime (yrs): 30 is assumed to be 31% of the central AC UEC (RCG/Hagler, Bailly, 1990). Central AC
Fuel Type: electric UEC is from PEAR runs using baseline shell characteristics corresponding to minimum
HUD code requirement for Zone I (Mills, 1984). Insulation values for the south (HUD
Zone I) are: R-11 ceiling, R-11 wall, R-7 floor, and single glazing. Home was modelled as
a 1-story, 1025 sqft home with crawl space foundation in Charleston. The floor area is
from RECS87 data for existing mobile homes with ER in the south. Infiltration rate is as-
sumed to be 0.56 ACH. Fraction of total MH stock in this category is from RECS87.
Source: MHI, 1991a and 1990. RECS 1987. Mills 1984.
Improve RAC In EMH non-elec homes, Sth
EMSGR01 Improve average new unit RAC efficiency to 9.42 SEER from the 1990 baseline (9.0
new measure SEER) in existing non-electrically heated mobile homes in the South. Measure involves
measure active between 1990 and 2010 increasing condenser rows. Cost assumes an 8 kBtu/hr capacity and is from LBL's Appli-
Incremental Cost $10 in 1989$ ance Energy Conservation Database. Energy savings calculated from the change in
UES: 38.4 kWh efficiency.
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100% Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
102
-------
Improve RAC(2) In EMH non-elec homes, Sth(post2000
EMSGR02 Variable speed unit assumed to be available after 2000. Energy savings is from LBL's
new measure Conservation Database 1990 and represents a 15% savings over the 9.42 SEER unit,
measure active between 2000 and 2010 Applies to existing electrically heated mobile homes in the South. Cost assumes an 8
Incremental Cost $56 in 1989$ kBtu/hr capacity and Is from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database.
UES: 123.4 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12 Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
% of stock applicable-. 100% preceding Mgasure. EMSGR0,
END USE: EMSHP Existing MH w/ heat pump, South
1990 UEC: 5545 kWh Existing mobile homes with heat pumps in the South. Heat pump efficiency is 9.86 SEER
Lifetime (yrs): 30 and 7.24 HSPF (REM 1990 new unit). UEC is from PEAR runs using baseline shell
Fuel Type: electric characteristics corresponding to minimum HUD code requirement for Zone I (Mills, 1984).
Insulation values for the south (HUD Zone I) are: R-11 ceiling, R-11 wall, R-7 floor, and
single glazing. Home was modelled as a 1-story, 1040 sqft home with crawl space foun-
dation in Charleston. The floor area is from RECS87 data for existing mobile homes with
ER in the south. Infiltration rate is assumed to be 0.56 ACH. Fraction of total MH stock in
this category is from RECS87.
Source: MHI, 1991a and 1990. RECS 1987. Mills 1984.
103
-------
Improve HP to 92 std In EMH HP homes,
EMSHP01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost: $55 in 1989$
UES: 250.6 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990. Energy savings
from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: none
South
Improve average new unit HP efficiency to 7.46 HSPF, 10.5 SEER In existing mobile
homes In the South. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the average new
unit efficiency in 1992, after the standard Is operative. It is higher than the standard,
reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. Cost is from LBL's Energy Conserva-
tion Database for a peak cooling capacity of 35 kBtu/hr and is adjusted by a scaling fac-
tor equal to the ratio of the mobile home UEC to the single family UEC for this combina-
tion of heating and cooling types. The scaling factor in this case is 0.8.
Improve HP beyond 1992 standard In South EMH
EMSHP02
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $183 in 1988$
UES: 981.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve heat pump to HSPF = 9.06 and SEER = 13.03 from LBL-REM's 1992 average
new unit efficiency. Cost assumes a 41 kBtu/hr capacity in the south and includes a 21%
increase over the cost of a 35 kBtu/hr unit derived from EPRI TAG 1987 cost versus
capacity table.
Source: PEAR for energy savings, cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep
1990.
Preceding Measure: EMSHP01
Improve HP(2) In South EMH
EMSHP03
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $109 in 1988$
UES: 127.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve heat pump to HSPF = 9.43 and SEER = 13.28. Cost assumes a 41 kBtu/hr
capacity In the south and includes a 21% Increase over the cost of a 35 kBtu/hr unit
derived from EPRI TAG 1987 cost versus capacity table.
Source: PEAR for energy savings, cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep
1990.
Preceding Measure: EMSHP02
104
-------
Improve HP(3) In South EMH
EMSHP04
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $399 In 1988$
UES: 360.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve heat pump to HSPF = 9.93 and SEER = 15.14. Cost assumes a 41 KBtu/hr
capacity in the south and includes a 21% increase over the cost of a 35 kBtu/hr unit
derived from EPRI TAG 1987 cost versus capacity table.
Source: PEAR for energy savings, cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep
1990.
Preceding Measure: EMSHP03
END USE: ERNG Electric Range
1990 UEC: 944 kWh Baseline UEC is LBL-REM forecast for 1990 new units. It is probably high because it
Lifetime (yrs): 18 does not yet take into account the widespread use of microwave ovens.
Fuel Type: electric
Source: US DOE, November 1989
Induction cooktop and Improved oven (post-1995)
ERNG01 Measure includes Induction heaters on cooktop and an adjustable-size, convection oven,
new measure Induction heaters are shown to save over 50% compared to standard electric coils. We
measure active between 1995 and 2010 assume that only two out of the four burners are switched to induction. Adjustable-size
Incremental Cost. $180 in 1990$ oven + convection saves 30%, but accounts for only 15% of total range use. We assume
UES: 250.0 kWh these technologies could become widely available by 1995 and that they would be ap-
Lifetime (yrs): 18 plied to almost all of the electric ranges remaining after fuel-switching.
% of stock applicable: 70%
Source: LBL engineering estimates.
Preceding Measure: none
105
-------
Switch from electric to gas range
ERNG02 Electric savings represent the UEC of the replaced electric unit. The gas unit will use
new measure/fuel switching about 48 therms (REM 1990 new unit UEC). 22% of homes with electric ranges have gas
Yearly Gas Use: 47.8 service(from LBL's compilation of utility RASS data), and we assume that all of these
measure active between 1990 and 2010 homes will switch to gas dryers. The cost includes $300 for the additional first cost of the
Incremental Cost. $590 in 1989$ gas unit compared to an electric, plus gas line extension and flues; and $290 for the
UES: 943.5 kWh present valued cost of buying natural gas over the range's 15-year lifetime.
Lifetime (yrs): 18
% of stock applicable: 22% Source: RASS data, and Meier et al, 1983.
Preceding Measure: none
END USE: ESNE Existing SF homes w/o cooling, North
1990 UEC: 18311 kWh Existing single family homes with electric furnaces and no cooling in the North. The fur-
Lifetime (yrs): 30 nace is set back at night and has 100% efficiency. UEC is from PEAR runs using base-
Fuel Type: electric line shell characteristics derived from RECS84 and updated to 1990 levels {Boghosian,
1991). Insulation values for north ER homes are: R-20.8 ceiling, R-4.7 wall, 0.54 ACH,
and 1.8 window layers. The prototype is a 1-story, 1582 sqft home with unheated base-
ment in Chicago. We diverge from Boghosian's data only in foundation insulation. For the
sake of simplicity, we assumed R-11 insulation in the floors and no foundation insulation.
The fraction of SF stock in this category is from RECS87.
Source: Boghosian, 1991 and RECS 1987.
Improve shell In ESF ER/- homes, North
ESNE01
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $754 in 1989$
UES: 3583.0 kWh
replacement rafe:5%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
Shell improvements are from Boghosian, 1991 and include: decreasing the infiltration
rate to 0.41, increasing average wall insulation to R-6.15, adding R-19 to all insulated
ceilings, and adding R-30 to all non-insulated ceilings. COST AND ENERGY SAVINGS
ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL EXISTING HOMES OF THIS FUEL TYPE AND DO NOT
REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST PER APPLICABLE HOUSE.
Source: Measures and costs from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: none
106
-------
Improve window, cell & wall In ESF homes, North
ESNE02
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $859 In 1989$
UES: 1469.0 kWh
replacement rafe:5%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
This measure involves Increasing average wall insulation to R-8.4, adding R-30 to all in-
sulated ceilings, and adding single-glazed storm windows to all single-glazed windows.
COST AND ENERGY SAVINGS ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL EXISTING HOMES OF
THIS FUEL TYPE AND DO NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST PER APPLICABLE
HOUSE.
Source: Measure and cost from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: ESNE01
R-30 floor In ESF ER/- homes, North
ESNE03
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $1297 in 1989$
UES: 1471.0 kWh
replacement rafe:5%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
This measure involves increasing average floor insulation to R-30. The cost of the meas-
ure is assumed to be the same as the cost for insulating crawl spaces. The measure is
applicable only to homes with crawlspaces (15%) or unheated basements (22%), or 37%
of all northern ER homes. COST AND ENERGY SAVINGS ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL
EXISTING HOMES OF THIS FUEL TYPE AND DO NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL
COST PER APPLICABLE HOUSE.
Source: Cost from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: ESNE02
Improve celling In ESF homes, North
ESNE04
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $14 in 1989$
UES: 15.0 kWh
replacement rafe:5%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
This measure involves insulating all non-insulated ceilings to R-49. COST AND ENERGY
SAVINGS ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL EXISTING HOMES OF THIS FUEL TYPE AND
DO NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST PER APPLICABLE HOUSE.
Source: Measure and cost from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: ESNE03
107
-------
Improve windows in ESF homes, North
ESNE05
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $316 In 1989$
UES: 209.0 kWh
replacement rate:5%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
This measure involves replacing all single-glazed windows with double-glazed, low-e,
argon-filled units. COST AND ENERGY SAVINGS ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL EXIST-
ING HOMES OF THIS FUEL TYPE AND DO NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST PER
APPLICABLE HOUSE.
Source: Measure and cost from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: ESNE04
END USE: ESNEC Existing SF w/ CAC, North
1990 UEC: 19296 kWh Existing SF homes with electric furnaces and central AC in the North. Furnace efficiency
Lifetime (yrs): 30 is assumed to be 100%. CAC efficiency is 9.96 SEER (REM 1990 new unit). The furnace
Fuel Type: electric is set back at night and has 100% efficiency. UEC is from PEAR runs using baseline
shell characteristics derived from RECS84 and updated to 1990 levels (Boghosian,
1991). Insulation values for north ER homes are: R-20.8 ceiling, R-4.7 wall, 0.54 ACH,
and 1.8 window layers. The prototype is a 1 -story, 1582 sqft home with unheated base-
ment in Chicago. We diverge from Boghosian's data only in foundation insulation. For
the sake of simplicity, we assumed R-11 insulation in the floors and no foundation insula-
tion. The fraction of SF stock in this category is from RECS87.
Source: Boghosian, 1991 and RECS 1987.
108
-------
Switch etec turn to HP In existing North SF
ESNEC01
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $822 In 1989$
UES: 11853.0 kWh
replacement /ate:4%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Switch the electric furnace and central air conditioner to a heat pump having HSPF of
9.06 and SEER of 13.03. All homes with CAC and electric furnaces are switched. There
is virtually no difference in cost between a standard heat pump and a CAC/electric heat-
ing system (EPRI, 1987). Measure cost includes $222 for the cost of this HP over a 1990
standard HP (from LBL's AEC Database) plus $600 for changes in ducting and controls.
The average lifetimes of CAC and electric furnaces are 12 and 23 years, respectively.
We assumed that the furnace and CAC were installed at the same time, hence every 24
years both will retire approximately simultaneously. Our retrofit rate is thus 1/24, or 4%,
per year.
Source: PEAR for energy savings, costs from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, J
McMahon, revised Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
Improve shell In ESF ER/CAC homes, North
ESNEC02
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $274 in 1989$
UES: 842.2 kWh
replacement rate:5%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
Shell improvements are from Boghosian, 1991 and include: decreasing the infiltration
rate to 0.41, increasing average wall insulation to R-6.15, and insulating all non-insulated
ceilings to R-30. COST AND ENERGY SAVINGS ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL EXIST-
ING HOMES OF THIS FUEL TYPE AND DO NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST PER
APPLICABLE HOUSE.
Source: measures and costs from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: ESN EC01
109
-------
Switch to Improved HP In North ESF homes
ESNEC03
retrofit measure Switch all ER/CAC homes to an improved efficiency heat pump (HSPF 9.5 and SEER
measure active between 1990 and 2010 13-3)- Replacement rate Is assumed to be 4% per year (see measure ESNEC01).
Incremental Cost. $90 In 1989$
UES: 285.2 kWh Source: PEAR for energy savings, cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database. Sep
replacement rate:4%/year 1990.
Lifetime (yrs): 14 Preceding Measure: ESNEC02
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve celling Insulation In ESF homes, North
ESNEC04
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $480 in 1989$
UES: 392.8 kWh
replacement rate:5%iyear
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
This measure involves adding R-19 to all insulated ceilings. COST AND ENERGY SAV-
INGS ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL EXISTING HOMES OF THIS FUEL TYPE AND DO
NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST PER APPLICABLE HOUSE.
Source: Measure and cost from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR
Preceding Measure: ESNEC03
Improve window & wall in ESF homes,
ESNEC05
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
incremental Cost $646 in 1989$
UES: 354.5 kWh
replacement rafe:5%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
North
This measure involves Increasing average wall insulation to R-8.4 and adding single-
glazed storm windows to all single-glazed windows. COST AND ENERGY SAVINGS
ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL EXISTING HOMES OF THIS FUEL TYPE AND DO NOT
REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST PER APPLICABLE HOUSE.
Source: Measure and cost from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: ESNEC04
110
-------
END USE: ESNER Existing SF w/ RAC, North
1990 UEC: 18616 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 30
Fuel Type: electric
Existing SF homes with electric furnaces and room AC in the North. Cooling UEC is as-
sumed to be 31% of the central AC UEC (RCG/Hagler, Bailly, 1990). The furnace Is set
back at night and has 100% efficiency. UEC Is from PEAR runs using baseline shell
characteristics derived from RECS84 and updated to 1990 levels (Boghosian, 1991). In-
sulation values for north ER homes are: R-20.8 ceiling, R-4.7 wall, 0.54 ACH, and 1.8
window layers. The prototype Is a 1-story, 1582 sqft home with unheated basement in
Chicago. We diverge from Boghoslan's data only in foundation insulation. For the sake of
simplicity, we assumed R-11 insulation in the floors and no foundation insulation. The
fraction of SF stock in this category Is from RECS87.
Source: Boghosian, 1991 and RECS 1987.
Improve shell In ESF ER/RAC homes, North
ESNER01
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $274 in 1989$
UES: 2374.0 kWh
replacement rate:5%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
Shell improvements are from Boghosian, 1991 and include: decreasing the infiltration
rate to 0.41, increasing average wall insulation to R-6.15, and adding R-30 to all non-
insulated ceilings. COST AND ENERGY SAVINGS ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL EXIST-
ING HOMES OF THIS FUEL TYPE AND DO NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST PER
APPLICABLE HOUSE.
Source: Measures and costs from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: none
Improve window, cell & wall In ESF homes, North
ESNER02
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $1354 in 1989$
UES: 2718.0 kWh
replacement rate:5%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
This measure involves increasing average wall insulation to R-8.4, adding R-30 to all in-
sulated ceilings, adding R-49 to all non-Insulated ceilings, and adding single-glazed storm
windows to all single-glazed windows. COST AND ENERGY SAVINGS ARE AVER-
AGES OVER ALL EXISTING HOMES OF THIS FUEL TYPE AND DO NOT REFLECT
THE ACTUAL COST PER APPLICABLE HOUSE.
Source: Measure and cost from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: ESNER01
111
-------
R-30 floor In ESF ER/RAC homes, North
ESNER03
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $1297 in 1989$
UES: 1482.0 kWh
replacement ra(e:5%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 37%
This measure Involves Increasing average floor insulation to R-30. The cost of the meas-
ure is assumed to be the same as the cost for insulating crawl spaces. The measure is
applicable only to homes with crawlspaces (15%) or unhealed basements (22%), or 37%
of all northern ER homes. COST AND ENERGY SAVINGS ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL
EXISTING HOMES OF THIS FUEL TYPE AND DO NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL
COST PER APPLICABLE HOUSE.
Source: Cost from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: ESNER02
Improve windows In ESF homes, North
ESNER04
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $316 in 1989$
UES: 210.0 kWh
replacement rate:5%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
This measure involves replacing all single-glazed windows with double-glazed, low-e,
argon-filled units. COST AND ENERGY SAVINGS ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL EXIST-
ING HOMES OF THIS FUEL TYPE AND DO NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST PER
APPLICABLE HOUSE.
Source: Measure and cost from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: ESNER03
112
-------
END USE: ESNGC Existing SF w/ non-elec htg & CAC, North
1990 UEC: 1006 kWh Existing non-electrically heated SF homes with central AC in the North. Furnace
Lifetime (yrs): 30 efficiency is assumed to be 100%. CAC efficiency is 9.96 SEER (REM 1990 new unit).
Fuel Type: electric UEC is from PEAR runs using baseline shell characteristics derived from RECS84 and
updated to 1990 levels (Boghosian, 1991). Insulation values for north fuel-heated homes
are: R-21 ceiling, R-2.1 wall, 0.62 ACH, and 1.8 window layers. The prototype is a 1-
story, 1550 sqft home with unheated basement in Chicago. We diverge from Boghosian's
data only in foundation Insulation. For the sake of simplicity, we assumed R-11 insulation
In the floors and no foundation insulation. The fraction of SF stock in this category is from
RECS87.
Source: Boghosian, 1991 and RECS 1987.
Improve CAC to 1992 std in ESF non-elec homes, Nth
ESNGC01 Improve average new unit CAC efficiency to 10.5 SEER in existing single family
new measure gas/other heated homes in the North. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of
measure active between 1990 and 2010 the average new unit efficiency in 1992, after the standard is operative. It is higher than
Incremental Cost $43 in 1989$ the standard (10.0 SEER), reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. Cost as-
UES: 52.0 kWh sumes a 35 kBtu/hr capacity unit.
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100% Source: Energy savings from PEAR. Cost from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation
Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
Improve CAC In North ESF non-elec homes w/ CAC
ESNGC02 Improve the central air conditioner efficiency to 13.3 SEER. Cost assumes a 35 kBtu/hr
new measure capacity unit,
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $264 in 1989$ Source: PEAR for energy savings, cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep
UES1.201.0 kWh 1990. K
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100% Preceding Measure: NSNGC01
113
-------
END USE: ESNHP Existing SF w/ heat pump, North
1990 UEC: 9747 kWh Existing SF homes with heat pumps in the North. Heat pump efficiency is 9.86 SEER and
Lifetime (yrs): 30 7.24 HSPF (REM 1990 new unit). UEC Is from PEAR runs using baseline shell charac-
Fuel Type: electric teristics derived from RECS84 and updated to 1990 levels (Boghosian, 1991). Insulation
values for north HP homes are: R-24 ceiling, R-6.8 wall, 0.45 ACH, and 1.7 window
layers. The prototype is a 1-story, 1853 sqft home with unhealed basement In Chicago.
We diverge from Boghoslan's data only in foundation insulation. For the sake of simplici-
ty, we assumed R-11 insulation in the floors and no foundation insulation. The fraction of
SF stock in this category Is from RECS87.
Source: Boghosian, 1991 and RECS 1987.
Improve HP to 92 std In ESF HP homes, North
ESNHP01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $71 in 1989$
UES: 719.3 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve average new unit HP efficiency to 7.46 HSPF, 10 5 SEER in existing single fam-
ily homes in the North. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the average
new unit efficiency in 1992, after the standard is operative. It is higher than the standard,
reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. Cost assumes a 35 kBtu/hr capacity.
Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990. Energy savings
from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: none
Improve celling Insulation in ESF HP homes, North
ESNHP02
retrofit measure This measure involves adding R-19 to all non-insulated ceilings. COST AND ENERGY
measure active between 1990 and 2010 SAVINGS ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL EXISTING HOMES OF THIS FUEL TYPE AND
Incremental Cost. $7 In 1989$ DO NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST PER APPLICABLE HOUSE.
UES: 71.6 kWh
replacement ra/e:5%/year Source: Measure and cost from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Lifetime (yrs): 30 Preceding Measure: ESNHP01
% of stock applicable: 100%
114
-------
Improve HP In ESF HP homes, North
ESNHP03
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $151 in 1989$
UES: 1598.1 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve heat pump from LBL-REM's 1992 average new unit efficiency to 9.06 HSPF,
13.03 SEER. Cost assumes a 35 kBtu/hr capacity.
Source: Cost and efficiency from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990. En-
ergy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: ESNHP02
Improve shell In ESF HP homes, North
ESNHP04
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $121 in 1989$
UES: 353.0 kWh
replacement rate:5%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
Shell improvements are from Boghosian, 1991 and include: decreasing the infiltration
rate to 0.42 and increasing average wall insulation to R-8.49. COST AND ENERGY SAV-
INGS ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL EXISTING HOMES OF THIS FUEL TYPE AND DO
NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST PER APPLICABLE HOUSE.
Source: measures and costs from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: ESNHP03
Improve HP In ESF HP homes, North
ESNHP05
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $90 in 1989$
UES: 304.9 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve heat pump to 9.5 HSPF, 13.3 SEER.
Source: Cost and efficiency from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990. En-
ergy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: ESNHP04
115
-------
Improve celling In ESF HP homes, North
ESNHP06
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $3 in 1989$
UES: 4.8 kWh
replacement rate:5%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
This measure involves adding R-30 to all non-insulated ceilings. COST AND ENERGY
SAVINGS ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL EXISTING HOMES OF THIS FUEL TYPE AND
DO NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST PER APPLICABLE HOUSE.
Source: Measure and cost from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: ESNHP05
Improve celling In ESF HP homes, North
ESNHP07
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $555 in 1989$
UES: 425.1 kWh
replacement rate:5%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
This measure involves adding R-30 to all insulated ceilings. COST AND ENERGY SAV-
INGS ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL EXISTING HOMES OF THIS FUEL TYPE AND DO
NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST PER APPLICABLE HOUSE.
Source: Measure and cost from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: ESNHP06
Improve windows In ESF HP homes, North
ESNHP08
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $298 in 1989$
UES: 165.4 KWh
replacement rate:5%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
This measure involves adding single-glazed storm windows to all single-glazed windows.
COST AND ENERGY SAVINGS ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL EXISTING HOMES OF
THIS FUEL TYPE AND DO NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST PER APPLICABLE
HOUSE.
Source: Measure and cost from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: ESNHP07
116
-------
END USE: ESSE Existing SF homes w/o cooling, South
1990 UEC: 8201 kWh Existing single family homes with electric furnaces and no cooling in the South. The fur-
Lifetime (yrs): 30 nace is set back at night and has 100% efficiency. UEC Is from PEAR runs using base-
Fuel Type: electric line shell characteristics derived from RECS84 and updated to 1990 levels (Boghosian,
1991). Insulation values for south ER homes are: R-18 ceiling, R-3.9 wall, U-0.95 founda-
tion, 0.71 ACH, and 1.5 window layers. The prototype is a 1-story, 1470 sqft home with
slab foundation In Charleston. The fraction of SF stock In this category is from RECS87.
Source: Boghosian, 1991 and RECS 1987.
Improve shell in ESF ER/- homes, South
ESSE01
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost: $451 in 1989$
UES: 1712.0 kWh
replacement ra/e:5%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
Shell improvements are from Boghosian, 1991 and include: decreasing the infiltration
rate to 0.46, increasing average wall insulation to R-6.45, and adding R-30 to all non-
insulated ceilings. COST AND ENERGY SAVINGS ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL EXIST-
ING HOMES OF THIS FUEL TYPE AND DO NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST PER
APPLICABLE HOUSE.
Source: Measures and costs from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: none
Improve celling in ESF ER/- homes, South
ESSE02
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $403 in 1989$
UES: 409.0 kWh
replacement rate:5%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
This measure involves adding R-19 to all insulated ceilings. COST AND ENERGY SAV-
INGS ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL EXISTING HOMES OF THIS FUEL TYPE AND DO
NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST PER APPLICABLE HOUSE.
Source: Measure and cost from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: ESSE01
117
-------
Improve windows in ESF ER/- homes, South
ESSE03
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $425 in 1989$
UES: 259.0 kWh
replacement rate:5%fyear
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
This measure involves adding single-glazed storm windows to all single-glazed windows.
COST AND ENERGY SAVINGS ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL EXISTING HOMES OF
THIS FUEL TYPE AND DO NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST PER APPLICABLE
HOUSE.
Source: Measure and cost from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: ESSE02
Improve wall In ESF ER/- homes, South
ESSE04
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $325 in 1989$
UES: 191.0 kWh
replacement rafe:5%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
This measure improves wall insulation to R-8.3. COST AND ENERGY SAVINGS ARE
AVERAGES OVER ALL EXISTING HOMES OF THIS FUEL TYPE AND DO NOT RE-
FLECT THE ACTUAL COST PER APPLICABLE HOUSE.
Source: Measure and cost from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: ESSE03
END USE: ESSEC Existing SF w/ CAC, South
1990 UEO. 11436 KWh Existing SF homes with electric furnaces and central AC in the South. Furnace efficiency
Lifetime (yrs): 30 is assumed to b8 100%. CAC efficiency is 9.96 SEER (REM 1990 new unit). The furnace
Fuel Type: electric is set back at night and has 100% efficiency. UEC is from PEAR runs using baseline
shell characteristics derived from RECS84 and updated to 1990 levels (Boghosian,
1991). Insulation values for south ER homes are: R-18 ceiling, R-3.9 wall, U-0.95 founda-
tion, 0.71 ACH, and 1.5 window layers. The prototype is a 1-story, 1470 sqft home with
slab foundation in Charleston. The fraction of SF stock in this category is from RECS87.
Source: Boghosian, 1991 and RECS 1987.
118
-------
Switch elec furn to HP In existing South
ESSEC01
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $869 In 1989$
UES: 5805.0 kWh
replacement /ate:4%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
SF
Switch the electric resistance heater and central air conditioner to a heat pump having
HSPF of 9.06 and SEER of 13.03. All homes with CAC and electric furnaces are
switched. There is virtually no difference in cost between a standard heat pump and a
CAC/electric heating system (EPRI, 1987). Measure cost Includes $269 for the cost of
this HP over a 1990 standard HP (from LBL's AEC Database, adjusted by 21% to ac-
count for greater size of unit) plus $600 for changes in ducting and controls. The average
lifetimes of CAC and electric furnaces are 12 and 23 years, respectively. We assumed
that the furnace and CAC were installed at the same time, hence every 24 years both will
retire approximately simultaneously. Our retrofit rate is thus 1/24, or 4%, per year.
Source: PEAR for energy savings, costs from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, J
McMahon, revised Sep 1990. EPRI TAG 1987
Preceding Measure: none
Improve shell in ESF ER/CAC homes, South
ESSEC02 Shell improvements are from Boghosian, 1991 and include: decreasing the infiltration
retrofit measure rate to 0.46, increasing average wall insulation to R-6.45, and insulating all non-insulated
measure active between 1990 and 2010 ceilings to R-30. COST AND ENERGY SAVINGS ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL EXIST-
Incremental Cost $444 in 1989$ ING HOMES OF THIS FUEL TYPE AND DO NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST PER
UES: 776.2 kWh APPLICABLE HOUSE.
replacement rate:5%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 30 Source: measures and costs from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
% of stock applicable-. 100% Preceding Measure: ESSEC01
119
-------
Switch to Improved HP In South ESF homes
ESSEC03
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $109 in 1989$
UES: 162.2 kWh
replacement rafe:4%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Switch all EFVCAC homes to an improved efficiency heat pump (HSPF 9.5 and SEER
13.3). Cost assumes a unit capacity of 41 KBtu/hr and Is adjusted by 21% over the LBL
Appliance Database cost for a 35 kBtu/hr unit. Price increase was determined from EPRI
TAG 1987 cost vs. capacity curves for heat pumps. Replacement rate Is assumed to be
4%/year (see measure ESSEC02 description).
Source: PEAR for energy savings, cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep
1990. EPRI TAG 1987.
Preceding Measure: ESSEC02
Switch to Improved HP In South ESF homes
ESSEC04
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $330 in 1989$
UES: 399.0 kWh
replacement ra/e:4%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Switch all ER/CAC homes to an improved efficiency heat pump (HSPF 9.93 and SEER
15.14). Cost assumes a unit capacity of 41 kBtu/hr and is adjusted by 21% over the LBL
Appliance Database cost for a 35 kBtu/hr unit. Price increase was determined Irom EPRI
TAG 1987 cost vs. capacity curves for heat pumps. Replacement rate is assumed to be
4%/year (see measure ESSEC02 description).
Source: PEAR for energy savings, cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep
1990. EPRI TAG 1987.
Preceding Measure: ESSEC03
Improve celling insulation In ESF homes, South
ESSEC05
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $403 In 1989$
UES: 186.8 kWh
replacement rate:5%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
This measure Involves adding R-19 to all Insulated ceilings. COST AND ENERGY SAV-
INGS ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL EXISTING HOMES OF THIS FUEL TYPE AND DO
NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST PER APPLICABLE HOUSE.
Source: Measure and cost from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: ESSEC04
120
-------
END USE: ESSER Existing SF w/ RAC, South
1990 UEO. 9301 kWh Existing SF homes with electric furnaces and room AC in the South. Cooling UEC is as-
Lifetime (yrs): 30 sumed to be 34% of the central AC UEC (RCG/Hagler, Bailly, 1990). The furnace Is set
Fuel Type: electric back at night and has 100% efficiency. UEC is from PEAR runs using baseline shell
characteristics derived from RECS84 and updated to 1990 levels (Boghosian, 1991). In-
sulation values for south ER homes are: R-18 ceiling, R-3.9 wall, U-0.95 foundation, 0.71
ACH, and 1.5 window layers. The prototype is a 1-story, 1470 sqft home with slab foun-
dation in Charleston. The fraction of SF stock in this category is from RECS87.
Source: Boghosian, 1991 and RECS 1987.
Improve shell In ESF ER/RAC homes, South
ESSER01
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $444 in 1989$
UES: 1757.0 kWh
replacement rate:5%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
Shell improvements are from Boghosian, 1991 and include: decreasing the infiltration
rate to 0.46, increasing average wall insulation to R-6.45, and adding R-19 to all non-
insulated ceilings. COST AND ENERGY SAVINGS ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL EXIST-
ING HOMES OF THIS FUEL TYPE AND DO NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST PER
APPLICABLE HOUSE.
Source: Measures and costs from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: none
Improve room AC In ESF homes, South
ESSER02
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $15 in 1989$
UES: 46.5 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 15
% of stock applicable: 100%
Increase condenser rows, improving RAC efficiency to 9.42 EER.
Source: Savings and cost from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database, Sep
1990.
Preceding Measure: ESSER01
121
-------
Improve celling In ESF ER/RAC homes, South
ESSER03 This measure involves adding R-19 to all insulated ceilings, and insulating all non-
retrofit measure insulated ceilings to R-30. COST AND ENERGY SAVINGS ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL
measure active between 1990 and 2010 EXISTING HOMES OF THIS FUEL TYPE AND DO NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL
Incremental Cost $410 in 1989$ COST PER APPLICABLE HOUSE.
UES: 443.0 kWh
replacement rate:5%/year Source: Measure and cost from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100% Preceding Measure: ESSER02
Improve windows In ESF ER/RAC homes, South
C99ER04 Thte measure involves adding single-glazed storm windows to all single-glazed windows
retrofit measure COST AND ENERGY SAVINGS ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL EXISTING HOMP8 OP
measure active between 1990 and 2010 TH)S FUEL TYPE AND DO NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST PER APPLICABLE
Incremental Cost. $425 in 1989$ HOUSE
UES: 269.0 kWh
replacement rate:5%/year Source: Measure and cost from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100% Preceding Measure: ESSER03
Improve wall In ESF ER/RAC homes, South
ESSER05
retrofit measure This measure improves wall insulation to R-8.3. COST AND ENERGY SAVINGS ARE
measure active between 1990 and 2010 AVERAGES OVER ALL EXISTING HOMES OF THIS FUEL TYPE AND DO NOT RE-
Incremental Cost $325 in 1989$ ^LECT THE ACTUAL COST PER APPLICABLE HOUSE.
UES: 196.5 KWh
replacement rate:5%/year Source: Measure and cost from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Lifetime (yrs): 30 Preceding Measure: ESSER04
% of stock applicable: 100%
122
-------
END USE: ESSGC Existing SF w/ non-elec htg & CAC, South
1990 UEC. 3325 kWh Existing non-electrically heated SF homes with central AC in the South. Furnace
Lifetime (yrs): 30 efficiency Is assumed to be 100%. CAC efficiency is 9.96 SEER (REM 1990 new unit).
Fuel Type: electric UEC is from PEAR runs using baseline shell characteristics derived from RECS84 and
updated to 1990 levels (Boghosian, 1991). Insulation values for south ER homes are:
R-17 ceiling, R-2.1 wall, U-1.05 foundation, 0.72 ACH, and 1.4 window layers. The proto-
type is a 1-story, 1467 sqft home with slab foundation in Charleston. The fraction of SF
stock in this category is from RECS87.
Source: Boghosian, 1991 and RECS 1987.
Improve CAC to 1992 std In ESF non-elec homes, Sth
ESSGC01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $50 in 1989$
UES: 171.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve average new unit CAC efficiency to 10.5 SEER in existing single family
gas/other heated homes in the South. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of
the average new unit efficiency in 1992, after the standard is operative. It is higher than
the standard (10.0 SEER), reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. Cost as-
sumes a 41 kBtu/hr capacity and is increased over LBL's Conservation database 35kBtu
cost by a factor of 17%. Factor was derived from EPRI TAG 1987 cost versus capacity
curve.
Source: Energy savings from PEAR. Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database,
Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
Improve CAC In South ESF non-elec homes wI CAC
ESSGC02 Improve the central air conditioner efficiency to 13.3 SEER. Cost assumes a 41 kBtu/hr
new measure unit capacity,
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $309 In 1989$ Source: PEAR for energy savings, cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep
UES: 664.0 kWh 1990i modified by EPRI TAG 1987 factor.
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100% Preceding Measure: ESSGC01
123
-------
Improve CAC(2) in ESF non-elec homes w/ CAC, South
ESSGC03 Improve the central air conditioner efficiency to 14.87 SEER from 13.3 SEER. Cost as-
new measure sumes a 41 kBtu/hr capacity,
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $293 in 1989$ Source: PEAR for energy savings, cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep
UES-. 263.0 kWh 1990, adjusted by EPRI TAG 1987 factor.
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100% Preceding Measure: ESSGC02
END USE: ESSHP Existing SF wI heat pump, South
1990 UEC: 7672 kWh Existing SF homes with heat pumps in the South. Heat pump efficiency is 9 86 SEER
Lifetime (yrs): 30 and 7.24 HSPF (REM 1990 new unit). UEC is from PEAR runs using baseline shell
Fuel Type: electric characteristics derived from RECS84 and updated to 1990 levels (Boghosian, 1991). In-
sulation values for south HP homes are: R-21 ceiling, R-6.2 wall, U-0.92 foundation, 0 7
ACH, and 1.6 window layers. The prototype is a 1-story, 1784 sqft home with slab foun-
dation in Charleston. The fraction of SF stock in this category is from RECS87.
Source: Boghosian, 1991 and RECS 1987.
Improve HP to 92 std In ESF HP homes,
ESSHP01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost: $86 in 1989$
UES: 320.5 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990. Energy savings
from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: none
South
Improve average new unit HP efficiency to 7.46 HSPF, 10.5 SEER in existing single fam-
ily homes In the South. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the average
new unit efficiency in 1992, after the standard is operative. It Is higher than the standard,
reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. The heat pump capacity is assumed
to be 41 kBtu/hr (from EPRI TAG 1987 estimates of peak cooling load). The cost is 21%
greater than the northern, 35 kBtu unit cost. The price increase factor was determined
using EPRI TAG cost vs. capacity curves.
124
-------
Improve celling Insulation In ESF HP homes, South
ESSHP02
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $5 in 1989$
UES: 30.8 kWh
replacement rate:5%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
This measure Involves adding R-19 to all non-insulated ceilings. COST AND ENERGY
SAVINGS ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL EXISTING HOMES OF THIS FUEL TYPE AND
DO NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST PER APPLICABLE HOUSE.
Source: Measure and cost from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: ESSHP01
Improve HP in ESF HP homes, South
ESSHP03
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $292 in 1989$
UES: 1693.2 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve heat pump from LBL-REM's 1992 average new unit efficiency to 9.5 HSPF, 13.3
SEER. Cost assumes 41 kBtu/hr capacity and is adjusted for this capacity as discussed
above (see measure ESSHP01 description).
Source: Cost and efficiency from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990 En-
ergy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: ESSHP02
Improve shell In ESF HP homes, South
ESSHP04
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $304 in 1989$
UES: 593.0 kWh
replacement ra/e:5%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
Shell improvements are from Boghosian, 1991 and include: decreasing the infiltration
rate to 0.48 and increasing average wall insulation to R-7.95. COST AND ENERGY SAV-
INGS ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL EXISTING HOMES OF THIS FUEL TYPE AND DO
NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST PER APPLICABLE HOUSE.
Source: measures and costs from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: ESSHP03
125
-------
Improve celling In ESF HP homes, South
ESSHP05
retrofit measure This measure involves adding R-30 to all non-insulated ceilings. COST AND ENERGY
measure active between 1990 and 2010 SAVINGS ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL EXISTING HOMES OF THIS FUEL TYPE AND
Incremental Cost $2 In 1989$ N°T REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST PER APPLICABLE HOUSE.
UES: 1.7 kWh
replacement rate:5%/year Source: Measure and cost from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Lifetime (yrs): 30 Preceding Measure: ESSHP04
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve windows in ESF HP homes, South
ESSHP06
retrofit measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $360 in 1989$
UES: 135.1 KWh
replacement rate.5%/year
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
This measure involves adding single-glazed storm windows to all single-glazed windows.
COST AND ENERGY SAVINGS ARE AVERAGES OVER ALL EXISTING HOMES OF
THIS FUEL TYPE AND DO NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST PER APPLICABLE
HOUSE.
Source: Measure and cost from Boghosian, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: ESSHP05
END USE: EWH Elec. Water Heater
1990 UEC: 3539 kWh UEC is average 1990 new unit UEC (from LBL-REM) & includes the hot water consump-
Lifetime (yrs): 13 tion of dishwashers and clothes washers. The energy use of the washer motors is includ-
Fuel Type: electric ed in the MISE (miscellaneous) enduse UEC.
Source: US DOE, November 1989
126
-------
Improve clotheswasher to 1994 standard
EWH01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $1 In 1987$
UES: 44.6 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 92%
Measure Includes the hot water energy savings due to the 1994 clotheswasher standard.
The saturation of clotheswashers in all housing types In 1990 is 80.9% (LBL-REM). The
cost and energy savings are from a recent LBL-REM run with the 1994 standards. The
absolute savings (55kWh) and cost ($0.80) were multiplied by the saturation in order to
apply this measure to all homes. The applicable fraction (91.5%) reflects the fact that
8.5% of the EWHs have switched to gas WHs. The savings and cost are weighted aver-
ages over the two types of clotheswashers (standard and compact). The standard does
not improve motor efficiency.
Source: LBL-REM
Preceding Measure: None.
Reduce hot water consumption
EWH02
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $50 in 1989$
UES: 873.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 10
% of stock applicable: 92%
Install faucet aerators and low-flow showerheads in 91.5% of all homes with electric WHs
(8.5% have been switched to gas WHs). Energy savings and assumptions are from
Krause et al., 1987. Energy savings for the aerators assumes that faucets account for
30% of the total water heater UEC and that the aerator reduces flow by two-thirds. One
third of the homes are assumed to have aerators already. Savings were proportioned
from Krause's 175 kWh to reflect our baseline (3539 kWh compared to Krause's 4000
kWh). Savings becomes 155 kWh. The cost assumes 5 aerators per household at $2
each. We assume 2 low-flow showerheads per home at a cost of $20 each. Flow is re-
duced from 4.8 gpm to 2.0 gpm. The savings, when scaled to our baseline, are 718 kWh
(20%). The savings assume that 10% of the households already have such shower-
heads.
Source: Krause et al. 1987, pp 4-9 -4-11. Costs are LBL estimates.
Preceding Measure: EWH01
127
-------
Measure includes the hot water energy savings due to the 1994 dishwasher standard.
The saturation of dishwashers in all housing types in 1990 is 49% (LBL-REM). The cost
is from US DOE 1990; we assume a retail markup of 1.46 {from LBL-MIM). The cost of
this measure (hot water savings from the standard) is apportioned from the total cost
(which also includes motor improvements) according to the respective energy savings
due to motor efficiency and water use reduction. The savings and cost are weighted
averages over the two major types of dishwashers -- standard and standard with water
heating booster. The absolute savings (91.9 kWh) and cost ($15.1) were multiplied by
the saturation in order to apply this measure to all homes. The applicable fraction
(91.5%) reflects the fact that 8.5% of the EWHs have switched to gas WHs.
Source: US DOE 1990, LBL-REM and LBL-MIM.
Preceding Measure: EWH02.
Reduce standby losses
EWH04 Replace retired and new standard water heaters with units having highly insulated tanks
new measure and heat traps. Measure includes polyurethane foam sides, top and bottom cavity plus a
measure active between 1990 and 2010 50 mm pad underneath the tank. Saves about 320 kWh/yr more in standby losses than
Incremental Cost $120 in 1989$ the standard 3" fiberglass tank insulation at a cost between $60 and $120 (Perlman
UES: 425.0 kWh 1987). We have assumed a $90 incremental cost for the insulation. A pair of square plas-
Lifetime (yrs): 13 tic heat traps plus short lengths of insulation on the pipes is also added. The traps plus
% of stock applicable: 92% pipe insulation reduced standby losses by 160 kWh/yr in preliminary tests (Perlman
1987). Copper heat traps plus pipe insulation have been shown to reduce standby losses
by an average of 105 kWh/yr (Perlman 1987). We have conservatively assumed 105
kWh would be saved. Net savings for this measure is thus 425 kWh. We have assumed
$30 for the cost of the heat traps and pipe insulation. Measure applies to 91.5% of the
EWHs (remaining 8.5% have switched to gas water heaters).
Source: Perlman 1987.
Preceding Measure: EWH03
Improve dishwasher to 1994 standard
EWH03
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $7 in 1988$
UES: 45.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 13
% of stock applicable: 92%
128
-------
Heat pump water heater (1995-2000)
EWH05
new measure
measure active between 1995 and 2000
Incremental Cost. $530 in 1990$
UES: 1076.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 13
% of stock applicable: 24%
Savings and cost are based on the third-generation heat pump water heater now being
developed for EPRI by Crispalre of Atlanta. We assume that all electric WHs in the south
could be switched to HPWHs, since reduction in cooling load would compensate for any
increase in heating load due to the HPWH. We assume that 10% of the WHs in the north
are located in unheated basements and could thus be switched. The total eligible fraction
is 51.6% in the south plus 4.8% in the north (RECS87). We have assumed only half of
the 56.4% is achievable in the 1995-2000 period, since factories would need time to gear
up. After subtracting the units that will be switched to gas WHs (assuming distribution in
N and S is proportional to EWH population), the eligible fraction is 24%. Under these as-
sumptions, about 1 million HPWHs will be sold each year - a 500 fold increase over
today's production volume. We assume a 20% reduction in capital costs would accom-
pany the increased volume (from discussions with Terry Chan of LBL). Installed cost of
the HPWH should be about $800 in 1992 (Shuford, 1991). Assuming $130 for installa-
tion, the capital cost after 20% reduction is $670*0.8= $536. Installed cost is then
$536+$130 = $666. The unit mounts onto a standard tank; we have added $200 for the
tank (Petrie 1988, p.3). Basecase unit cost is $200 for the tank/heater plus $130 installa-
tion (Lerman 1988). Incremental cost is $866-$330 = $536. The third-generation unit is
expected to have a COP of 3.4 and real energy savings of 60-65% (Shuford 1991) but
we have conservatively assumed 50% energy savings. Previous utility field tests have
documented real energy savings of 50% on average for 45 utilities throughout the U.S.
(EPR11984) for less efficient WHs.
Source: Shuford 1991; EPRI 1984. Cost reduction factor for increased production
volume from discussions with Terry Chan of LBL's Appliance Standards Group, June
1991.
Preceding Measure: EWH04
129
-------
Horizontal axis clotheswasher w/ HPWH (1995-2000)
EWH06 Horizontal axis clothes washers are widely used in Europe, but not In the U.S. We as-
new measure sume a lead time ot 5 years is necessary for them to become widely available here. In
measure active between 1995 and 2000 the 1995-2000 period, we assume that half of the clotheswashers sold could be horizon-
Incremental Cost. $110 In 1986$ tal axis. The eligible fraction is thus 0.5*0.81, or 0.405, where 0.81 is the saturation of
UES: 142.5 kWh clotheswashers from LBL-REM. This measure applies only to homes that wilt be switched
Lifetime (yrsj: 14 to HPWHs (24% of all homes between 1995 & 2000). The eligible fraction is thus
% of stock applicable: 10% 0.405*24 = 9.7%. The energy savings and cost are incremental from the 1994 standard
and are from US DOE 1990. We assumed a COP of 2.0 for the HPWH, thus the savings
from US DOE 1990 were halved to reflect the more efficient water heater. The total cost
of the measure is $160 (assuming a retail markup of 1.46 from LBL-MIM) and has been
apportioned according to energy savings in motor use (listed as a MISE enduse meas-
ure, cost = $50) and in hot water use.
Source: LBL-REM, US DOE 1990, LBL-MIM.
Preceding Measure: EWH05
Horizontal axis clotheswasher w/ EWH (1995-2000)
EWH07 Horizontal axis clothes washers are widely used in Europe, but not in the U.S. We as-
new measure sume a lead time of 5 years is necessary for them to become widely available here. In
measure active between 1995 and 2000 the 1995-2000 period, we assume that half of the clotheswashers sold could be horizon-
Incremental Cost $130 In 1988$ tal axis. The eligible fraction is thus 0.5*0.81, or 0.405, where 0.81 is the saturation of
UES: 285.0 kWh clotheswashers from LBL-REM. This measure applies only to homes that will NOT be
Lifetime (yrs): 14 switched to HPWHs or gas WHs (67.5% of all homes between 1995 & 2000). The eligible
% of stock applicable: 27% fraction is thus 0.405*67.5 = 27.3%. The energy savings and cost are incremental from
the 1994 standard and are from US DOE 1990. The total cost of the measure is $160
(assuming a retail markup of 1.46 from LBL-MIM) and has been apportioned according to
energy savings in motor use (listed as a MISE enduse measure, cost = $30) and in hot
water use. The water use portion of the cost Is $130.
Source: LBL-REM, US DOE 1990, LBL-MIM.
Preceding Measure: EWH04
130
-------
Replace electric water heater with gas
EWH08
new measure/fuel switching
Yearly Gas Use: 159.5
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $1380 in 1989$
UBS: 3539.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 13
% of stock applicable: 9%
LBL's compilation of utility surveys indicates that about 8.5% of homes with electric water
heaters have gas service, and we switch the electric water heaters in these homes to gas
water heaters. We switch these units first, thus the electricity savings is equivalent to the
baseline UEC of 3539 kWh. Gas use increases by 159.5 Th (LBL-REM, 1990 new unit).
The incremental cost of $1380 includes $100 for the added cost of a gas water heater
over an electric one; plus $300 for a gas line extension, power vent, and/or flue where
necessary; plus $980 for the levelized price of gas over the 15-year lifetime of the appli-
ance.
Source: LBL investigations, LBL-REM and utility RASSes.
Preceding Measure: none
Horizontal axis clotheswasher w/HPWH(post-2000)
EWH09 Horizontal axis clothes washers are widely used in Europe, but not in the U.S. We as-
new measure sume a lead time of 5 years is necessary for them to become widely available here. After
measure active between 2000 and 2010 the year 2000, we assume that all of the clotheswashers sold could be horizontal axis
Incremental Cost $110 in 1988$ The eligible fraction is thus 0,81 (the saturation of clotheswashers from LBL-REM) times
UES: 142.5 kWh the percentage of units that are switched to HPWHs (48%), or 38.9%. (This measure ap-
Lifetime (yrs): 14 plies only to homes that are switched to HPWHs). The energy savings and cost are in-
% of stock applicable: 39% cremental from the 1994 standard and are from US DOE 1990. We have assumed a
COP of 2.0 for the HPWH and have halved the savings from US DOE 1990 to reflect a
more efficient water heater. The total cost of the measure is $160 (assuming a retail
markup of 1.46 from LBL-MIM) and has been apportioned according to energy savings in
motor use (listed as a MISE enduse measure, cost = $50) and in hot water use. The wa-
ter use portion of the cost is $110.
Source: LBL-REM, US DOE 1990, LBL-MIM.
Preceding Measure: EWH08
131
-------
Horizontal axis clotheswasher w/ EWH(post-2000)
EWH10 Horizontal axis clothes washers are widely used In Europe, but not in the U.S. We as-
new measure sume a lead time of 5 years is necessary for them to become widely available here. After
measure active between 2000 and 2010 the year 2000, we assume that all of the clotheswashers sold could be horizontal axis.
Incremental Cost $130 in 1988$ The eligible fraction is thus 0.81 (the saturation of clotheswashers from LBL-REM) times
UES: 285.0 kWh the percentage of units that are not switched to HPWHs or gas WHs (43.5%), or 35.2%.
Lifetime (yrs): 14 (This measure applies only to homes that are NOT switched to HPWHs or gas WHs).
% of stock applicable: 35% The energy savings and cost are incremental from the 1994 standard and are from US
DOE 1990, The total cost of the measure is $160 (assuming a retail markup of 1.46 from
LBL-MIM) and has been apportioned according to energy savings in motor use (listed as
a MISE enduse measure, cost = $30) and in hot water use. The water use portion of the
cost is $130.
Source: LBL-REM, US DOE 1990, LBL-MIM.
Preceding Measure: EWH04
ENDUSE: FRZR Manual defrost freezer
1990 UEC: 568 kWh Total freezer stock is approximated as 50% upright manual defrost, 50% chest manual
Lifetime (yrs): 21 defrost. Baseline UEC represents a weighted average of the 1990 NAECA standards for
Fuel Type: electric chest and upright manual defrost freezers (upright automatic defrost freezers are a small
fraction of the freezer stock and were not Included, resulting in a 4% lower overall aver-
age UEC than REM's). Savings and costs are weight-averaged in the same manner.
Baseline and measures assume no CFCs.
Source: LBL-REM
132
-------
Improve freezer to 1993 DOE standard
FRZR01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $34 in 1987$
UES: 99.8 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 21
% of stock applicable: 100%
1993 standard upgrade measures include: - 5.05 EER compressor - 2.5" side, bottom
and door insulation (foam) Cost assumes a retail markup factor of 1.7, from LBL-MIM.
Source: US DOE Nov 1989
Preceding Measure: none
Evacuated panels for freezer (post 1995)
FRZR02
new measure Estimated cost is tor powder-filled panels. Assumes a 1.7 retail markup factor (from LBL-
measure active between 1995 and 2010 MIM).
Incremental Cost $68 in 1987$
UES' 132.0 kWh Source: US DOE Nov 1989
Lifetime (yrs): 21 Preceding Measure: FRZR01
% of stock applicable: 100%
5.3 EER compressor for freezer (post-2000)
FRZR03
new measure Based on technology likely to be available by the year 2000.
measure active between 2000 and 2010
Incremental Cost $11 in 1990$ Source: LBL engineering estimates.
UES: 25.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 21 Preceding Measure: FRZR02
% of stock applicable: 100%
133
-------
Freezer condenser gas heat
FRZR04
new measure Energy savings and cost are best predictions of post-2000 technology,
measure active between 2000 and 2010
Increments! Cost. $33 in 1990$ Source: LBL engineering estimates.
UES: 50.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 21 Preceding Measure: FRZR03
% of stock applicable: 100%
END USE: LTG Lighting (Indoor and Outdoor)
1990 UEC: 1060 kWh incandescent lights, no controls. Indoor lights on 3-5 hrs/day; outdoor on 6 hrs/day SF,
Lifetime (yrs): 15 12 hrs apt. Weighted average of large, medium, small singlefamily/mobile home, and
Fuel Type: electric apartments, from RECS 1987 housing stock. Baseline cost (present value. 15 years) =
$307.20.Assumes $0.75 per incandescent lamp. Vacation periods are assumed to lower
the amount of time the indoor lamps are used per year to 85% or 95% (see Appendix for
full details). Exterior lamps are assumed to be on year-round.
Source: Barbara Atkinson, LBL Principal Research Associate. Cost from retail stores.
Saturations and hourly usage data from 8 utilities' RASSes (see Appendix for details).
Timer & Photocell (outdoor)
LTG01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $29 in 1990$
UES: 151.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 15
% of stock applicable: 100%
For single family and mobile homes, the average number of hours outdoor lights are on is
decreased from 6 hours to 3 hours. In the basecase, we assume 35% leave the lights on
more than 3 hours/day and do not already have a timer. The basecase also assumes
that 50% of all apartment units leave exterior lights on more than 6 hrs/day. The average
operation of these lamps is reduced from 12 to 6 hrs/day. Each timer and photocell is as-
sumed to be shared by an average of 4 apartment units. Cost data are from Grainger's
General Catalog. Saturations are from eight utilities' RASSes. For details of calculations,
see Lighting Appendix.
Source: Barbara Atkinson and Grainger's General Catalog, No.377,1990.
Preceding Measure: none
134
-------
Compact Fluorescent Lamps
LTG02
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $107 In 1990$
UES: 342.0 KWh
Lifetime (yrs): 15
% of stock applicable: 100%
Source: Barbara Atkinson, LBL Principal Research Associate; Energy Federation Inc ca-
talog, MA, March 1990; manufacturers' catalogs.
Preceding Measure: LTG01
Compact Fluorescent Screw-In Retrofit where applicable without fixture change (interior:
30% of 100 W fixtures, 50% of 75 W, 60% of 60 W; exterior: 50% of large and medium
single family, 25% of small/mobile homes and apts.) Where not applicable, energy-saving
incandescents. These include krypton lamps indoors and halogen lamps outdoors. Cost
data are from Energy Federation Inc catalog, Massachusetts. March 1990. Lifetimes and
wattages are from various manufacturers' catalogs. Saturations are estimated by LBL
Principal Research Associate Barbara Atkinson. For details of calculations, see Lighting
Appendix.
Compact Fluorescent Fixtures
LTG03
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $277 in 1990$
UES: 293.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 15
% of stock applicable: 100%
Compact fluorescent fixture retrofits, interior and exterior, for remaining incandescents
that could not be retrofit with screw-in fluorescents. Cost data are from Energy Federa-
tion Inc catalog, MA, March 1990 and Real Goods' Alternative Energy Sourcebook cata-
log, CA, 1990. For details of the calculation of savings and costs, see the Lighting Ap-
pendix.
Source: Barbara Atkinson; Energy Federation, Inc., MA, March 1990 catalog; and Real
Goods' Alternative Energy Sourcebook catalog, 1990.
Preceding Measure: LTG02
135
-------
END USE: MISE Miscellaneous electricity
1990 UEC. 559 kWh Miscellaneous includes clotheswasher and dishwasher motor electricity use, but excludes
Lifetime (yrs): 15 television set use (TV sets are treated separately). Baseline UEC is from REM, adjusted
Fuel Type: electric to meet our definition of the enduse (i.e., REM defines miscellaneous as Including TVs
but excluding washing appliance motors). Both enduses are intended to be catch-alls for
electricity use that does not fall under one of the defined enduse categories.
Source: LBL-REM
Improve miscellaneous appliance motor efficiency
MISE01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $200 in 1990$
UES: 190.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 15
% of stock applicable: 100%
This includes motor improvements for pumps, ceiling fans, pool pumps, vacuum
cleaners, etc Excludes furnace fan and laundry motor improvements
Source: LBL engineering estimates.
Preceding Measure: None
Upgrade furnace fan efficiency
MISE02
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $50 in 1990$
UES: 150.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 15
% of stock applicable: 30%
This assumes installation of variable speed furnace fan and hood fan. It also assumes a
2-stage gas burner. Carrier claims that its variable speed units cut electricity use by
80% due to greatly reduced air movement rates and benefits from cubic law. Rafner,
et.al.1990 estimates furnace fan UEC as 500 kWh (national average). Our estimate of
30% savings (150kWh) is thus conservative.
Source: Rainer, et al 1990 and LBL engineering estimates.
Preceding Measure: none
136
-------
Improve dishwasher motor to 1994 standard
MISE03
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $4 in 1990$
UES: 23.4 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 13
% of stock applicable: 45%
This Is the weighted average savings over the two major types ol dishwashers {standard
and standard with water heating booster). The total cost of the 1994 standard is appor-
tioned according to the respective savings in water heating energy and motor energy.
The saturation of dishwashers is 49% of the total housing stock in 1990 (LBL-REM).
However, 8.5% of all electric water heaters are switched to gas. thus the eligible fraction
of dishwashers in homes with EWHs becomes 44.8%. Manufacturer's cost from US
DOE 1990 was multiplied by LBL-MIM's retail markup for dishwashers of 1.46.
Source: US DOE 1990 LBL-MIM and LBL-REM
Preceding Measure: None
Horiz axis clthswshr w/HPWH {motor svgs) 1995-2000
MISE04 Motor energy savings due to the horizontal axis clotheswasher. Between 1995 and
new measure 2000, only half of the eligible stock (80.9% of all homes have clotheswashers (LBL-
measure active between 1995 and 2000 REM}) will go to horizontal axis. After 2000, we assume greater availability of these units
Incremental Cost $50 in 1988$ in the U.S. and will switch all eligible units to horizontal axis. Since 8.5% of alt electric wa-
UES: 64.6 kWh ter heaters are switched to gas WHs, only 91.5% of EWHs are eligible for this measure;
Lifetime (yrs): 14 eligible fraction is then Q.915"(0.809/2) = 37%. This measure applies only where the
% of stock applicable: 10% EWH has been switched to a HPWH, thus Ihe eligible fraction is lowered again to 9.7%
(see description of EWH06 for details). Energy savings and cost for the motor are from
US DOE 1990, p.3-23. Both assume the 1994 standard comes first. The cost assumes a
1.46 retail markup {LBL-MIM) and is apportioned to both an EWH measure and this
measure according to the respective energy savings in hot water consumption and in mo-
tor use.
Source; US DOE 1990 LBL-MIM and LBL-REM.
Preceding Measure: none
137
-------
Horlz axis clthswshr w/EWH (motor svgs) post-2000
MISE05 Motor energy savings due to the horizontal axis clotheswasher. Between 1995 and
new measure 2000, only half of the eligible stock (80.9% of all homes have clotheswashers (LBL-
measure active between 2000 and 2010 REM)) will go to horizontal axis. After 2000, we assume greater availability of these units
Incremental Cost. $30 in 1988$ in the U.S. and will switch all eligible units to horizontal axis. Since 8.5% of all electric wa-
UES: 64.6 kWh ter heaters are switched to gas WHs, only 91.5% of EWHs are eligible for this measure;
Lifetime (yrs): 14 eligible fraction is then 0.915*0.809 = 74%. This measure applies only where the EWH
% of stock applicable: 35% has not been switched to a HPWH, thus the eligible fraction is lowered again to 35.2%
(see description of EWH10 for details). Energy savings and cost for the motor are from
US DOE 1990, p.3-23. Both assume the 1994 standard comes first. The cost assumes a
1.46 retail markup (LBL-MIM) and is apportioned to both an EWH measure and this
measure according to the respective energy savings in hot water consumption and in mo-
tor use.
Source: US DOE 1990 LBL-MIM and LBL-REM.
Preceding Measure: none
Horlz axis clthswshr w/HPWH (motor svgs) post-2000
MISE06 Motor energy savings due to the horizontal axis clotheswasher. Between 1995 and
new measure 2000, only half of the eligible stock (80.9% of all homes have clotheswashers (LBL-
measure active between 2000 and 2010 REM)) will go to horizontal axis. After 2000, we assume greater availability of these units
Incremental Cost $50 in 1988$ In the U.S. and will switch all eligible units to horizontal axis. Since 8.5% of all electric wa-
UES: 64.6 kWh ter heaters are switched to gas WHs, only 91.5% of EWHs are eligible for this measure;
Lifetime (yrs): 14 eligible fraction is then 0.915*0.809 = 74%. This measure applies only where the EWH
% of stock applicable: 39% has been switched to a HPWH, thus the eligible fraction is lowered again to 38.9% (see
description of EWH09 for details). Energy savings and cost for the motor are from US
DOE 1990, p.3-23. Both assume the 1994 standard comes first. The cost assumes a
1.46 retail markup (LBL-MIM) and is apportioned to both an EWH measure and this
measure according to the respective energy savings in hot water consumption and in mo-
tor use.
Source: US DOE 1990 LBL-MIM and LBL-REM.
Preceding Measure: none
138
-------
Horlz axis clthswshr w/EWH (motor svgs) 1995-2000
MISE07 Motor energy savings due to the horizontal axis clotheswasher. Between 1995 and
new measure 2000, only half of the eligible stock (80.9% of all homes have clotheswashers (LBL-
measure active between 1995 and 2000 REM)) will go to horizontal axis. After 2000, we assume greater availability of these units
Incremental Cost $30 in 1988$ in the U.S. and will switch all eligible units to horizontal axis. Since 8.5% of all electric wa-
UES: 64.6 kWh ter heaters are switched to gas WHs, only 91.5% of EWHs are eligible for this measure;
Lifetime (yrs): 14 eligible fraction is then 0.915*(0.809/2) = 37%. This measure applies only where the
% of stock applicable: 27% EWH has not been switched to a HPWH, thus the eligible fraction is lowered again to
27.3% (see description of EWH07 for details). Energy savings and cost for the motor are
from US DOE 1990, p.3-23. Both assume the 1994 standard comes first. The cost as-
sumes a 1.46 retail markup (LBL-MIM) and is apportioned to both an EWH measure and
this measure according to the respective energy savings in hot water consumption and in
motor use.
Source: US DOE 1990 LBL-MIM and LBL-REM
Preceding Measure: none
END USE: NANEC New multl family w/ CAC, North
1990 UEC: 7180 kWh New multi family with electric furnaces and central AC in the North. Furnace efficiency is
Lifetime (yrs): 30 assumed to be 100%. CAC efficiency is 9.96 SEER (REM 1990 new unit). UECs are
Fuel Type: electric derived from heating and cooling loads for Chicago mulitfamily homes built in the 1980's
(Ritschard 1989). Efficiency of space conditioning equipment is from LBL-REM. The frac-
tion of all new MF units in this htg/clg category is from RECS87 data for MF homes built
in the 1980's.
Source: Ritschard 1989 and RECS87.
139
-------
Improve CAC to 1992 std In NMF elec htd homes, Nth
NANEC01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $27 in 1989$
UES: 21.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve average new unit CAC efficiency to 10.5 SEER in new electrically heated multi
family homes in the South. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the aver-
age new unit efficiency in 1992, after the standard is operative. It is higher than the stan-
dard (10.0 SEER), reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. Cost assumes a
12 KBtu/hr capacity (average peak load for Chicago apartments, from Ritschard 1989)
and Is 62% of LBL's Conservation database cost of a 35kBtu unit (percentage derived
from EPRI TAG 1987 CAC cost versus capacity curve). Energy savings calculated from
(he change In efficiency.
Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure none
END USE: NANGC New MF w/ non-elec htg & CAC, North
1990 UEC: 412 kWh New non-electrically heated multi family with central AC in the North. Furnace efficiency
Lifetime (yrs): 30 is assumed to be 100%. CAC efficiency is 9.96 SEER (REM 1990 new unit). UECs are
Fuel Type, electric derived from heating and cooling loads for Chicago mulitfamily homes built in the 1980's
(Ritschard 1989). Efficiency of space conditioning equipment is from LBL-REM. The frac-
tion of all new MF units in this htg/clg category is from RECS87 data for MF homes built
In the 1980's.
Source: Ritschard 1989 and RECS87.
140
-------
Improve CAC to 1992 std In NMF elec htd homes, Nth
NANGC01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $27 in 1989$
UES: 21.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve average new unit CAC efficiency to 10.5 SEER in new electrically heated multi
family homes in the South. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the aver-
age new unit efficiency in 1992, after the standard is operative. It is higher than the stan-
dard (10.0 SEER), reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. Cost assumes a
12 kBtu/hr capacity (average peak load for Chicago apartments, from Ritschard 1989)
and Is 62% of LBL's Conservation database cost of a 35kBtu unit (percentage derived
from EPRI TAG 1987 CAC cost versus capacity curve). Energy savings calculated from
the change in efficiency.
Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
END USE: NANHP New multi family w/ heat pump, North
1990 UEC: 3606 kWh New multi family with heat pumps in the North. Heat pump efficiency is 9 86 SEER and
Lifetime (yrs): 30 7.24 HSPF (REM 1990 new unit). UECs are derived from heating and cooling loads for
Fuel Type: electric Chicago mulitfamily homes built in the 1980's (Ritschard 1989). Efficiency of space con-
ditioning equipment is from LBL-REM. The fraction of all new MF units in this htg/clg
category is from RECS87 data for MF homes built in the 1980's.
Source: Ritschard 1989 and RECS87.
141
-------
North
Improve average new unit HP efficiency to 7.46 HSPF, 10.5 SEER in new multi family
buildings In the South. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the average
new unit efficiency in 1992, after the standard Is operative. It is higher than the standard,
reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. Cost is from LBL's Energy Conserva-
tion Database, scaled down by a factor of 0.69 to account for the smaller capacity (The
database cost Is for a 35 kBtu/hr peak cooling capacity, whereas the peak load for apart-
ments in the north is about 12 kBtu/hr, from Ritschard 1989). The cost factor was derived
from an EPRI TAG 1987 cost-capacity curve for the smallest HP available (23 kBtu/hr)
compared to the 35 kBtu unit.
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database. Sep 1990. EPRI TAG 1987
Preceding Measure: none
Improve HP beyond 92 std in NMF HP homes, North
NANHP02 Improve average new unil HP efficiency to 9.06 HSPF, 13.03 SEER from LBL-REM's
new measure average 1992 new unit efficiency. Applies to new multi family buildings in the North. Cost
measure active between 1990 and 2010 is from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, scaled down by a factor of 0.69 to account
Incremental Cost. $104 in 1989$ for the smaller capacity (The database cost is for a 35 kBtu/hr peak cooling capacity,
UES: 622.8 kWh whereas the peak load for apartments in the south Is about 12 kBtu/hr, from Ritschard
Lifetime (yrs): 14 1989). The cost factor was derived from an EPRI TAG 1987 cost-capacity curve for the
% of stock applicable: 100% smallest HP available (23 kBtu/hr) compared to the 35 kBtu unit.
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990. EPRI TAG 1987.
Preceding Measure: NANHP01
Improve HP to 92 std In NMF HP homes,
NANHP01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $49 in 1989$
UES: 119.4 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
142
-------
Improve HP(2) in NMF HP homes, North
NANHP03
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $62 tn 1989$
LIES: 106.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve average new unit HP efficiency to 9.43 HSPF, 13.28 SEER. Applies to new multi
family buildings in the South. Cost is from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, scaled
down by a factor of 0.69 to account for the smaller capacity (The database cost is for a
35 KBtu/hr peak cooling capacity, whereas the peak load for apartments in the south is
about 12 kBtu/hr, from Ritschard 1989). The cost factor was derived from an EPRI TAG
1987 cost-capacity curve for the smallest HP available (23 kBtu/hr) compared to the 35
kBtu unit.
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990. EPRI TAG 1987.
Preceding Measure: NANHP02
Improve HP(3) In NMF HP homes, North
NANHP04
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $228 in 1989$
UES: 161.3 kWh
Lifetime (yrs). 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve average new unit HP efficiency to 9.93 HSPF, 15.14 SEER. Applies to new multi
family buildings in the North. Cost is from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, scaled
down by a factor of 0 69 to account for the smaller capacity (The database cost is for a
35 kBtu/hr peak cooling capacity, whereas the peak load for apartments in the south is
about 12 kBtu/hr, from Ritschard 1989). The cost factor was derived from an EPRI TAG
1987 cost-capacity curve for the smallest HP available (23 kBtu/hr) compared to the 35
kBtu unit.
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990. EPRI TAG 1987.
Preceding Measure: NANHP03
143
-------
END USE: NASEC New multl family w/ CAC, South
1990 UEC. 1807 kWh New multl family with electric furnaces and central AC in the South. Furnace efficiency is
Lifetime (yrs): 30 assumed to be 100%. CAC efficiency is 9.96 SEER (REM 1990 new unit). UECs are
Fuel Type: electric derived from heating and cooling loads for Fort Worth mulitfamily homes built In the
1980's (Ritschard 1989). The Fort Worth UECs were adjusted to Charleston weather us-
ing heating and cooling degree day ratios (Andersson, et al 1986). Efficiency of space
conditioning equipment is from LBL-REM. The fraction of all new MF units in this htg/clg
category is from RECS87 data for MF homes built in the 1980's.
Source: Ritschard 1989 and RECS87.
Improve CAC to 1992 std in NMF elec htd homes, Sth
NASEC01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $28 in 1989$
UES: 49.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve average new unit CAC efficiency to 10.5 SEER in new electrically heated multi
family homes in the South. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the aver-
age new unit efficiency in 1992, after the standard is operative. It is higher than the stan-
dard (10.0 SEER), reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. Cost assumes a
14 kBtu/hr capacity (average peak load for Fort Worth aparments, from Ritschard 1989)
and is 64% of LBL's Conservation database cost of a 35k8tu unit (percentage derived
from EPRI TAG 1987 CAC cost versus capacity curve). Energy savings calculated from
the change in efficiency.
Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
144
-------
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std In NMF elec htd homes,
NASEC02
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2000
Incremental Cost $169 in 1989$
UES: 186.8 KWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve average new unit CAC efficiency to 13.3 SEER from 10.5 SEER in new electri-
cally heated multi family homes in the South. Energy savings calculated from the
efficiencies. Cost assumes a 14 kBtu/hr capacity (average peak load for Fort Worth apar-
ments, from Ritschard 1989) and is 64% of LBL's Conservation database cost of a
35kBtu unit (percentage derived from EPRI TAG 1987 CAC cost versus capacity curve).
This measure makes way in the year 2000 for the more cost-effective variable speed
compressor unit, assumed to become available in 2000.
Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: NASEC01
Variable speed CAC compressor, NMF elec homes, Sth
NASEC03
new measure
measure active between 2000 and 2010
Incremental Cost $105 in 1989$
UES: 140.8 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
Variable speed compressor improves average new unit CAC efficiency to 12.48 SEER
from 10.5 SEER (1992 new unit) in new electrically heated multi family homes in the
South. Energy savings calculated from the efficiencies. Cost assumes a 14 kBtu/hr capa-
city (average peak load for Fort Worth aparments, from Ritschard 1989) and is 64% of
LBL's Conservation database cost of a 35kBtu unit (percentage derived from EPRI TAG
1987 CAC cost versus capacity curve). This measure is assumed to be available begin-
ning in the year 2000.
Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: NASEC01
145
-------
RAC, South
New multi family with electric furnaces and room AC in the South. Furnace efficiency Is
assumed to be 100%. Cooling UEC is assumed to be 34% of the central AC UEC
(RCG/Hagler, Bailly, 1990). UECs are derived from heating and cooling loads for Fort
Worth mulitfamily homes built in the 1980's (Ritschard 1989). The Fort Worth UECs were
adjusted to Charleston weather using heating and cooling degree day ratios (Andersson,
et al 1986). Efficiency of space conditioning equipment is from LBL-REM. The fraction of
all new MF units In this htg/clg category is from RECS87 data for MF homes built in the
1980's.
Source: Ritschard 1989 and RECS87.
Improve RAC In NMF elec htd homes, Sth
NASER01 Improve average new unit RAC efficiency to 9.42 SEER from the 1990 baseline (9.0
new measure SEER) in new electrically heated multi family homes in the South. Cost assumes an 8
measure active between 1990 and 2010 kBtu/hr capacity and is from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database. Measure
Incremental Cost: $10 in 1989$ involves increasing condenser rows. Energy savings calculated from the change in
UES: 13.1 kWh efficiency.
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100% Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
Improve RAC(2) In NMF elec htd homes, Sth(post2000
NASER02 Variable speed unit assumed to be available after 2000. Energy savings is from LBL's
new measure Conservation Database 1990 and represents a 15% savings over the 9.42 SEER unit,
measure active between 2000 and 2010 Applies to new electrically heated multi family homes in the South. Cost assumes an 8
Incremental Cost. $56 in 1989$ kBtu/hr capacity and is from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database.
UES: 42.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12 Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
% olstock applicable. 100% Pmxdbg Measure: NASER01
END USE: NASER New multi family w/
1990 UEC: 1155kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 30
Fuel Type: electric
146
-------
END USE: NASGC New MF w/ non-elec htg & CAC, South
1990 UEC: 945 kWh New non-electrically heated multi family with central AC in the South. Furnace efficiency
Lifetime (yrs): 30 is assumed to be 100%. CAC efficiency Is 9.96 SEER (REM 1990 new unit). UECs are
Fuel Type: electric derived from heating and cooling loads for Fort Worth mulitfamily homes built in the
1980's (Ritschard 1989). The Fort Worth UECs were adjusted to Charleston weather us-
ing heating and cooling degree day ratios (Andersson, et al 1986). Efficiency of space
conditioning equipment is from LBL-REM. The fraction of all new MF units in this htg/clg
category is from RECS87 data for MF homes built in the 1980's.
Source: Ritschard 1989 and RECS87.
Improve CAC to 1992 std In NMF non-elec homes, Sth
NASGC01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $28 in 1989$
UES: 49.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve average new unit CAC efficiency to 10.5 SEER in new gas heated multi family
homes in the South. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the average new
unit efficiency in 1992, after the standard is operative. It is higher than the standard (10 0
SEER), reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. Cost assumes a 14 kBtu/hr
capacity (average peak load for Fort Worth aparments, from Ritschard 1989) and is 64%
of LBL's Conservation database cost of a 35kBtu unit (percentage derived from EPRI
TAG 1987 CAC cost versus capacity curve). Energy savings calculated from the change
in efficiency.
Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
147
-------
I
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std In NMF non-elec homes,
NASGC02
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2000
Incremental Cost $169 in 1989$
UES: 186.8 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve average new unit CAC efficiency to 13.3 SEER from 10.5 SEER in new
gas/other heated multi family homes in the South. Energy savings calculated from the
efficiencies. Cost assumes a 14 kBtu/hr capacity (average peak load for Fort Worth apar-
ments. from Ritschard 1989) and is 64% of LBL's Conservation database cost of a
35kBtu unit (percentage derived from EPRI TAG 1987 CAC cost versus capacitv curve).
This measure makes way In the year 2000 for the more cost-effective variable speed
compressor unit, assumed to become available in 2000.
Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: NASGC01
Variable speed CAC compressor, NMF g/o homes, Sth
NASGC03
new measure
measure active between 2000 and 2010
Incremental Cost $105 in 1989$
UES: 140.8 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
Variable speed compressor improves average new unit CAC efficiency to 12.48 SEER
Irom 10.5 SEER (1992 new unit) in new gas/other heated multi family homes in the
Soulh. Energy savings calculated from the efficiencies. Cost assumes a 14 kBtu/hr capa-
city (average peak load for Fort Worth aparments, from Ritschard 1989) and is 64% of
LBL's Conservation database cost of a 35kBtu unit (percentage derived from EPRI TAG
1987 CAC cost versus capacity curve). This measure is assumed to be available begin-
ning in the year 2000.
Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: NASGC01
148
-------
END USE: NASGR New MF w/ non-elec htg & RAC, South
1990 UEC: 293 kWh New non-electricalty heated muiti family with room AC in the South. Cooling UEC is as-
Llfetime (yrs): 30 sumed to be 34% of the central AC UEC (RCG/Hagler, Bailly, 1990). UECs are derived
Fuel Type: electric from heating and cooling loads for Fort Worth mulitfamily homes built in the 1980's
(Ritschard 1989). The Fort Worth UECs were adjusted to Charleston weather using heat-
ing and cooling degree day ratios (Andersson, et al 1986). Efficiency of space condition-
ing equipment is from LBL-REM. The fraction of all new MF units in this htg/clg category
is from RECS87 data for MF homes built in the 1980's.
Source: Ritschard 1989 and RECS87.
Improve RAC In NMF non-elec homes, Sth
NASGR01 Improve average new unit RAC efficiency to 9.42 SEER from the 1990 baseline (9 0
new measure SEER) in new gas/other heated multi family homes in the South. Measure involves in-
measure active between 1990 and 2010 creasing condenser rows. Cost assumes an 8 kBtu/hr capacity and is from LBl's Appli-
Incremental Cost $10 in 1989$ ance Energy Conservation Database. Energy savings calculated from the change in
UES: 13.1 kWh efficiency.
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100% Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
Improve RAC(2) In NMF non-elec homes, Sth{post2000
NASGR02
new measure
measure active between 2000 and 2010
Incremental Cost $56 in 1989$
UES: 42.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
Variable speed unit assumed to be available after 2000. Energy savings is from LBL's
Conservation Database 1990 and represents a 15% savings over the 9.42 SEER unit.
Applies to new gas/other heated multi family homes in the South. Cost assumes an 8
kBtu/hr capacity and Is from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database.
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: NASGR01
149
-------
END USE: NASHP New multl family w/ heat pump, South
1990 UEO. 1361 kWh New multl family with heat pumps in the South. Heat pump efficiency is 9.86 SEER and
Lifetime (yrs): 30 7.24 HSPF (REM 1990 new unit). UECs are derived from heating and cooling loads for
Fuel Type: electric Fort Worth mulitfamily homes built in the 1980's (Ritschard 1989). The Fort Worth UECs
were adjusted to Charleston weather using heating and cooling degree day ratios
(Andersson, et al 1986). Efficiency of space conditioning equipment is from LBL-REM.
The fraction of all new MF units in this htg/clg category is from RECS87 data for MF
homes built in the 1980's.
Source: Ritschard 1989 and RECS87.
Improve HP to 92 std In NMF HP homes, South
NASHP01 Improve average new unit HP efficiency to 7 46 HSPF, 10.5 SEER in new multi family
new measure buildings in the South. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the average
measure active between 1990 and 2010 new unit efficiency in 1992, after the standard is operative. It is higher than the standard,
Incremental Cost. $49 in 1989$ reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. Cost is from LBL's Energy Conserva-
UES\ 70.2 kWh tion Database, scaled down by a factor of 0.69 to account for the smaller capacity (The
Lifetime (yrs): 14 database cost is for a 35 kBtu/hr peak cooling capacity, whereas the peak load for apart-
% of stock applicable: 100% ments in the south is about 14 kBtu/hr, from Ritschard 1989). The cost factor was
derived from an EPRI TAG 1987 cost-capacity curve for the smallest HP available (23
kBtu/hr) compared to the 35 kBtu unit.
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990. EPRI TAG 1987.
Preceding Measure: none
150
-------
Improve HP beyond 92 std In NMF HP
NASHP02
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $104 in 1989$
UES: 243.7 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
homes, South
Improve average new unit HP efficiency to 9.06 HSPF, 13.03 SEER from LBL-REM's
average 1992 new unit efficiency. Applies to new multl family buildings in the South. Cost
is from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, scaled down by a factor of 0.69 to account
for the smaller capacity (The database cost is for a 35 kBtu/hr peak cooling capacity,
whereas the peak load for apartments in the south Is about 14 kBtu/hr, from Ritschard
1989). The cost factor was derived from an EPRI TAG 1987 cost-capacity curve for the
smallest HP available (23 kBtu/hr) compared to the 35 kBtu unit.
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990. EPRI TAG 1987.
Preceding Measure: NASHP01
Improve HP(2) In NMF HP homes, South
NASHP03
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $62 in 1989$
UES: 26.3 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve average new unit HP efficiency to 9.43 HSPF, 13 28 SEER. Applies to new muiti
family buildings in the South. Cost is from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, scaled
down by a factor of 0.69 to account for the smaller capacity (The database cost is for a
35 kBtu/hr peak cooling capacity, whereas the peak load for apartments in the south is
about 14 kBtu/hr, from Ritschard 1989). The cost factor was derived from an EPRI TAG
1987 cost-capacity curve for the smallest HP available (23 kBtu/hr) compared to the 35
kBtu unit.
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990. EPRI TAG 1987.
Preceding Measure: NASHP02
151
-------
END USE: NMNEC New mobile homes wICAC, North
1990 DEC: 10910 kWh New mobile homes with electric furnaces and central AC in the North. Furnace efficiency
Lifetime (yrs): 30 is assumed to be 100%. CAC efficiency is 9.96 SEER (REM 1990 new unit). UECs are
Fuel Type: electric from PEAR runs using baseline shell characteristics from the Manufactured Housing
Institute's Survey of Retailers, 1991. The shells are representative of the most popular
packages sold currently. Average insulation values for the north are: R-26 ceiling, R-18
wall, R-14 floor, and double glazing. Home was modelled as a 1-story, 1195 sqft home
with crawl space foundation in Cincinnati (closest city to Chicago in PEAR database hav-
ing crawl). UECs were adjusted to Chicago weather using heating and cooling degree
days (Andersson, et al. 1986). The floor area is nationwide average sold in 1989 (from
MHI Quick Facts, 1990/91). Infiltration rate is assumed to be 0.36 ACH. Fraction of total
MH stock in this category is from RECS87.
Source: MHI, 1991a and 1990. RECS 1987
Improve CAC to 1992 std In new elec htd MH, North
NMNEC01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $43 in 1989$
UES: 67.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve average new unit CAC efficiency to 10.5 SEER in new electrically heated mobile
homes in the North. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the average new
unit efficiency in 1992, after the standard is operative. It is higher than the standard (10 0
SEER), reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. Cost assumes a 35 kBtu/hr
capacity.
Source: Energy savings from PEAR. Cost from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation
Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
152
-------
END USE: NMNER New mobile homes w/ RAC, North
1990 UEC: 10008 kWh New mobile homes with electric furnaces and room AC in the North. Furnace efficiency is
Lifetime (yrs): 30 assumed to be 100%. Cooling UEC is assumed to be 31% of the central AC UEC
Fuel Type: electric (RCG/Hagler, Bailly, 1990). UECs are from PEAR runs using baseline shell characteris-
tics from the Manufactured Housing Institute's Survey of Retailers, 1991. The shells are
representative of the most popular packages sold currently. Average insulation values for
the north are: R-26 ceiling, R-18 wall, R-14 floor, and double glazing. Home was
modelled as a 1-story, 1195 sqft home with crawl space foundation in Cincinnati (closest
city to Chicago in PEAR database having crawl). UECs were adjusted to Chicago weath-
er using degree days (Andersson et al 1986). Floor area is nationwide average sold in
1989 (from MHI Quick Facts, 1990/91). Infiltration rate is assumed to be 0 36 ACH. Frac-
tion of total MH stock in this category is from RECS87.
Source. MHI, 1991a and 1990 RECS 1987
Improve RAC In NMH elec htd homes,
NMNER01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $10 in 1989$
UES\ 18.1 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
Nth
Improve average new unit RAC efficiency to 9.42 SEER from the 1990 baseline (9 0
SEER) in new electrically heated mobile homes in the North. Cost assumes an 8 kBtu/hr
capacity and is from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database. Measure involves
increasing condenser rows. Energy savings calculated from the change in efficiency.
Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
153
-------
elec htg & CAC, North
New non-electrically heated mobile homes with central AC in the North. Furnace
efficiency Is assumed to be 100%. CAC efficiency is 9.96 SEER (REM 1990 new unit).
UECs are from PEAR runs using baseline shell characteristics from the Manufactured
Housing Institute's Survey of Retailers, 1991. The shells are representative of the most
popular packages sold currently. Average insulation values for the north are: R-26 ceil-
ing, R-18 wall, R-14 floor, and double glazing. Home was modelled as a 1-story, 1195
sqft home with crawl space foundation in Cincinnati (closest city to Chicago in PEAR da-
tabase having crawl). UECs were adjusted to Chicago weather using heating and cooling
degree days (Andersson, et al. 1986). The floor area is nationwide average sold in 1989
(from MHI Quick Facts, 1990/91). Infiltration rate is assumed to be 0 36 ACH. Fraction of
total MH stock in this category is from RECS87.
Source: MHI, 1991a and 1990. RECS 1987.
Improve CAC to 1992 std In new non-elec MH, North
NMNGC01 Improve average new unit CAC efficiency to 10 5 SEER in new gas heated mobile
new measure homes in the North. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the average new
measure active between 1990 and 2010 unit efficiency in 1992, after the standard is operative. It is higher than the standard (10.0
Incremental Cost $43 in 1989$ SEER), reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. Cost assumes a 35 kBtu/hr
UES: 67.0 kWh capacity.
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100% Source: Energy savings from PEAR. Cost from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation
Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
END USE: NMNGC New MH w/ non-
1990 UEC. 1307 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 30
Fuel Type: electric
154
-------
END USE: NMNGR New MH w/ non-elec htg & RAC, North
1990 UEC: 405 kWh New non-electrlcally heated mobile homes with room AC in the North. Cooling UEC is as-
Lifetime (yrs): 30 sumed to be 31% of the central AC UEC (RCG/Hagler, Bailly, 1990). UECs are from
Fuel Type: electric PEAR runs using baseline shell characteristics from the Manufactured Housing Institute's
Survey of Retailers, 1991. The shells are representative of the most popular packages
sold currently. Average insulation values for the north are: R-26 ceiling, R-18 wall, R-14
floor, and double glazing. Home was modelled as a 1-story, 1195 sqft home with crawl
space foundation in Cincinnati (closest city to Chicago in PEAR database having crawl).
UECs were adjusted to Chicago weather using heating and cooling degree days (Anders-
son, et al. 1986). The floor area is nationwide average sold in 1989 (from MHI Quick
Facts, 1990/91). Infiltration rate is assumed to be 0 36 ACH Fraction of total MH stock in
this category is from RECS87.
Source: MHI, 1991a and 1990. RECS 1987.
Improve RAC (n NMH non-elec htd homes, Nth
NMNGR01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $10 in 1989$
UES: 18.1 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve average new unit RAC efficiency to 9.42 SEER from the 1990 baseline (9.0
SEER) in new electrically heated mobile homes in the North. Cost assumes an 8 kBtu/hr
capacity and is from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database. Measure involves
increasing condenser rows. Energy savings calculated from the change in efficiency.
Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
155
-------
END USE: NMSEC New mobile homes w/CAC, South
1990 UEC: 7877 kWh New mobile homes with electric furnaces and central AC in the South. Furnace efficiency
Lifetime (yrs): 30 Is assumed to be 100%. CAC efficiency is 9.96 SEER (REM 1990 new unit). UECs are
Fuel Type: electric from PEAR runs using baseline shell characteristics from the Manufactured Housing
Institute's Survey of Retailers, 1991. The shells are representative of the most popular
packages sold currently. Average Insulation values for the south are: R-20 ceiling, R-12
wall, R-10 floor, and 1.26 window layers. Home was modelled as a 1-story, 1195 sqft
home with crawl space foundation in Charleston. The floor area is nationwide average
sold in 1989 (from MHI Quick Facts, 1990/91). Infiltration rate is assumed to be 0.45
ACH. Fraction of total MH stock in this category is Irom RECS87.
Source: MHI, 1991a and 1990. RECS 1987.
Improve CAC to 1992 std in new elec htd MH, South
NMSEC01 Improve average new unit CAC efliciency to 10.5 SEER in new etectncatly heated mobile
new measure homes in the South. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the average new
measure active between 1990 and 2010 unit efficiency in 1992, after the standard is operative. It is higher than the standard (10.0
Incremental Cost $50 in 1989$ SEER), reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. Cost assumes a 41 kBtu/hr
UES: 140.0 kWh capacity and is increased over LBL's Conservation database 35kBtu cost by a factor of
Lifetime (yrs): 12 17%. Factor was derived from EPRI TAG 1987 cost versus capacity curve.
% of stock applicable: 100%
Source: Energy savings from PEAR. Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database,
Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
156
-------
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std In NMH elec htd homes,
NMSEC02 Improve average new unit CAC efficiency to 13.3 SEER from 10.5 SEER in new electri-
new measure cally heated mobile homes In the South. Energy savings calculated from the efficiencies,
measure active between 1990 and 2010 Cost assumes a 41 KBtu/hr capacity in the south and is 17% higher than LBL's Conser-
Incremental Cost $309 in 1989$ vation database cost for a 35kBtu unit (percentage derived from EPRI TAG 1987 CAC
UES: 536.9 kWh cost versus capacity curve).
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100% Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: NMSEC01
END USE: NMSER New mobile homes w/ RAC, South
1990 UEC. 6084 kWh New mobile homes with electric furnaces and room AC in the South Furnace efficiency
Lifetime (yrs). 30 is assumed to be 100%. Cooling UEC is assumed to be 34% of the central AC UEC
Fuel Type: electric (RCG/Hagler, Bailly, 1990). UECs are from PEAR runs using baseline shell characteris-
tics from the Manufactured Housing Institute's Survey of Retailers, 1991. The shells are
representative of the most popular packages sold currently. Average insulation values for
the south are: R-20 ceiling, R-12 wall, R-10 floor, and 1.26 window layers. Home was
modelled as a 1-story, 1195 sqft home with crawl space foundation in Charleston. The
floor area is nationwide average sold in 1989 (from MHI Quick Facts, 1990/91).
Infiltration rate is assumed to be 0.45 ACH. Fraction of total MH stock in this category is
from RECS87.
Source: MHI, 1991a and 1990. RECS 1987.
Improve RAC In NMH elec htd homes, Sth
NMSER01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $10 in 1989$
UES: 41.2 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve average new unit RAC efficiency to 9.42 SEER from the 1990 baseline (9.0
SEER) In new electrically heated mobile homes In the South. Cost assumes an 8 kBtu/hr
capacity and is from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database. Measure involves
increasing condenser rows. Energy savings calculated from the change in efficiency.
Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
157
-------
Improve RAC(2) In NMH elec htd homes,
NMSER02
new measure
measure active between 2000 and 2010
Incremental Cost $56 in 1989$
UES: 132.3 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
Sth(post2000
Variable speed unit assumed to be available after 2000. Energy savings is from LBL's
Conservation Database 1990 and represents a 15% savings over the 9.42 SEER unit.
Applies to new electrically heated mobile homes in the South. Cost assumes an 8 kBtu/hr
capacity and is from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database.
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: NMSER01
END USE: NMSGC New MH w/ non-elec htg & CAC, South
1990 UEC: 2716 kWh New non-electrically heated mobile homes with central AC in the South Furnace
Lifetime (yrs)\ 30 efficiency is assumed to be 100%. CAC efficiency is 9 96 SEER (REM 1990 new unit)
Fuel Type: electric UECs are from PEAR runs using baseline shell characteristics from the Manufactured
Housing Institute's Survey of Retailers, 1991. The shells are representative of the most
popular packages sold currently. Average insulation values for the south are: R-20 ceil-
ing, R-12 wall, R-10 floor, and 1.26 window layers. Home was modelled as a 1-story,
1195 sqft home with crawl space foundation in Charleston. The floor area is nationwide
average sold in 1989 (from MHI Quick Facts, 1990/91). Infiltration rate is assumed to be
0.45 ACH. Fraction of total MH stock in this category is from RECS87.
Source: MHI, 1991a and 1990. RECS 1987.
158
-------
Improve CAC to 1992 std In new non-elec MH, South
NMSGC01 Improve average new unit CAC efficiency to 10.5 SEER in new gas heated mobile
new measure homes in the South. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the average
measure active between 1990 and 2010 new unit efficiency in 1992, after the standard is operative. It is higher than the standard
Incremental Cost $50 in 1989$ (10.0 SEER), reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. Cost assumes a 41
UES: 140.0 kWh kBtu/hr capacity and is increased over LBL's Conservation database 35kBtu cost by a
Lifetime (yrs): 12 factor of 17%. Factor was derived from EPRI TAG 1987 cost versus capacity curve.
% of stock applicable: 100%
Source: Energy savings from PEAR. Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database,
Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std in NMH
NMSGC02
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $309 in 1989$
UES: 536.9 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
non-elec homes,
Improve average new unit CAC efficiency to 13.3 SEER from 10.5 SEER in new
gas/other heated mobile homes in the South. Energy savings calculated from the
efficiencies. Cost assumes a 41 kBtu/hr capacity in the south and is 17% higher than
LBL's Conservation database cost for a 35kBtu unit (percentage derived from EPRI TAG
1987 CAC cost versus capacity curve).
Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: NMSGC01
159
-------
END USE: NMSGR New MH w/ non-elec htg & RAC, South
1990 UEC: 923 kWh New non-electrically heated mobile homes with room AC in the South. Cooling UEC is
Lifetime (yrs): 30 assumed to be 34% of the central AC UEC (RCG/Hagler, Bailly, 1990). UECs are from
Fuel Type: electric PEAR runs using baseline shell characteristics from the Manufactured Housing Institute's
Survey of Retailers, 1991. The shells are representative of the most popular packages
sold currently. Average insulation values for the south are: R-20 ceiling, R-12 wall, R-10
floor, and 1.26 window layers. Home was modelled as a 1-story, 1195 sqft home with
crawl space foundation in Charleston. The floor area is nationwide average sold in 1989
(from MHI Quick Facts, 1990/91). Infiltration rate is assumed to be 0.45 ACH. Fraction of
total MH stock in this category is from RECS87.
Source: MHI, 1991a and 1990. RECS 1987.
Improve RAC in NMH non-elec homes,
NMSGR01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $10 in 1989$
UES: 41.2 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
Sth
Improve average new unit RAC efficiency to 9.42 SEER from the 1990 baseline (9.0
SEER) in new gas/other heated mobile homes in the South. Measure involves increasing
condenser rows. Cost assumes an 8 kBtu/hr capacity and is from LBL's Appliance Ener-
gy Conservation Database. Energy savings calculated from the change in efficiency.
Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
Improve RAC(2) In NMH non-elec homes, Sth(post2000
NMSGR02
new measure
measure active between 2000 and 2010
Incremental Cost $56 in 1989$
UES: 132.3 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
Variable speed unit assumed to be available after 2000. Energy savings is from LBL's
Conservation Database 1990 and represents a 15% savings over the 9.42 SEER unit.
Applies to new gas/other heated mobile homes in the South. Cost assumes an 8 kBtu/hr
capacity and is from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database.
Source: LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: NMSGR01
160
-------
END USE: NMSHP New mobile homes wI heat pump, South
1990 UEC: 5174 kWh New mobile homes with heat pumps in the South. Heat pump efficiency is 9.86 SEER
Lifetime (yrs): 30 and 7.24 HSPF (REM 1990 new unit). UECs are from PEAR runs using baseline shell
Fuel Type: electric characteristics from the Manufactured Housing Institute's Survey of Retailers, 1991. The
shells are representative of the most popular packages sold currently. Average insulation
values for the south are: R-20 ceiling, R-12 wall, R-10 floor, and 1.26 window layers
Home was modelled as a 1-story, 1195 sqft home with crawl space foundation in
Charleston. The floor area is nationwide average sold in 1989 (from MHI Quick Facts,
1990/91). Infiltration rate is assumed to be 0.45 ACH Fraction of total MH stock in this
category is from RECS87.
Source: MHI, 1991a and 1990. RECS 1987.
Improve HP to 92 std in NMH HP homes, South
NMSHP01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $57 in 1989$
UES: 238.8 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve average new unit HP efficiency to 7.46 HSPF, 10.5 SEER in new mobile homes
in the South. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the average new unit
efficiency in 1992, after the standard is operative. It is higher than the standard, reflecting
the above-standard units that are bought. Cost is from LBL's Energy Conservation Data-
base for a peak cooling capacity of 35 kBtu/hr and is adjusted by a scaling factor equal to
the ratio of the mobile home UEC to the single family UEC for this combination of heating
and cooling types. The scaling factor in this case is 1.2.
Source: Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep 1990. Energy savings
from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: none
161
-------
Improve HP beyond 1992 standard In South NMH
NMSHP02
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $183 in 1988$
UES: 917.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve heat pump to HSPF = 9.06 and SEER = 13.03 from LBL-REM's 1992 average
new unit efficiency. Cost assumes a 41 kBtu/hr capacity in the south and includes a 21%
Increase over the cost of a 35 kBtu/hr unit derived from EPRI TAG 1987 cost versus
capacity table.
Source: PEAR for energy savings, cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep
1990.
Preceding Measure: NMSHP01
Improve HP(2) in South NMH
NMSHP03
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $109 in 1988$
UES: 115 0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs). 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve heat pump to HSPF = 9.43 and SEER = 13 28. Cost assumes a 41 kBtu/hr
capacity in the south and includes a 21% increase over the cost of a 35 kBiu/hr unit
derived from EPRI TAG 1987 cost versus capacity table
Source: PEAR for energy savings, cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep
1990.
Preceding Measure: NMSHP02
Improve HP(3) In South NMH
NMSHP04
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $399 In 1988$
UES: 344.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve heat pump to HSPF = 9.93 and SEER = 15.14. Cost assumes a 41 kBtu/hr
capacity in the south and includes a 21% increase over the cost of a 35 kBtu/hr unit
derived from EPRI TAG 1987 cost versus capacity table.
Source: PEAR for energy savings, cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep
1990.
Preceding Measure: NMSHP03
162
-------
END USE: NSNE New single family homes w/o cooling, North
1990 UEO. 11809 kWh New single family houses with electric furnaces and no cooling in the North. Furnace
Lifetime (yrs): 30 efficiency is assumed to be 100%. UEC is from PEAR runs using baseline shell charac-
Fuel Type: electric teristics from NAHB 1987 data: R-29 ceiling, R-15 wall and floor, and double glazing.
House prototype is 2-story basement, 1856 sqft of floor area. Infiltration rate is 0.4 ACH.
Source: Koomeyetal. 1991 and LBL-REM.
Celling to R-60 In new SF homes w/ ER/-, North
NSNE04
new measure Improves ceiling insulation to R-60 in new SF Northern homes with electric resistance
measure active between 1990 and 2010 healing and no cooling.
Incremental Cost $148 in 1989$
UES: 137 5 kWh Source: Cost from Koomey, 1991 Energy savings from PEAR.
Lifetime (yrs). 30 Preceding Measure: NSNE02
% of stock applicable: 100%
END USE: NSNEC New SF electric furnace, CAC homes In North
1990 UEC: 12773 kWh New single family houses with electric furnaces and central air conditioners. Efficiency of
Lifetime (yrs): 30 the furnace is assumed to be 100%; CAC efficiency is 1990 new unit efficiency from
Fuel Type: electric REM (9.96 SEER). UECs for heating and cooling were obtained from PEAR runs using
baseline shell characteristics derived from NAHB 1987 data. Insulation levels are: R-29
ceiling, R-15 wall and floor, and double glazed windows. Infiltration rate is assumed to be
0.4 ACH. House prototype is a 2-story basement with 1856 sq ft of floor area.
Source: Koomeyetal. 1991 and LBL-REM.
163
-------
Switch elec furnace to HP In new SF homes, North
NSNEC01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $222 in 1989$
UES: 7297.6 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Switch the electric resistance heater and central air conditioner to a heat pump having
HSPF of 8.83 and SEER of 10.96. All homes with CAC and electric furnaces are
"switched" to heat pumps. Even though there is virtually no difference in the cost of a
standard heat pump and the cost of a CAC/electric heating system (EPRI, 1987), we
have added $100 to the cost of the measure to be conservative. The remaining $122 is
the incremental cost of the efficient HP over the 1990 standard new unit (7.24 HSPF,
9.86 SEER) cost. The efficient HP cost is from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Da-
tabase by Jim McMahon, revised September 1990.
Source: PEAR for energy savings, costs from EPRI 1987 and LBL's Energy Conserva-
tion Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
Triple glazed windows in new SF homes, North
NSNEC02
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $223 in 1989$
UES: 707.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
Source: Costs from Koomey, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: NSNEC01
Improve HP In North single-family
NSNEC03
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $190 in 1989$
UES: 430.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve the heat pump efficiency to HSPF 9.5 and SEER 13.3 from HSPF 8.83, SEER
10.96.
Source: PEAR for energy savings, cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep
1990.
Preceding Measure: NSNEC02
164
-------
Wall to R-19 In new SF homes, North
NSNEC04
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $186 in 1989$ Source: Cost from Koomey, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
UES: 256.7 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 30 Preceding Measure: NSNEC03
% of stock applicable: 100%
Floor to R-30 In new SF homes, North
NSNEC06
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $223 in 1989$
UES: 191.9 kWh
Lifetime (yrs). 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
Ceiling to R-30 In new SF homes, North
NSNEC07
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $19 in 1989$ Source: Cost from Koomey, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
UES: 12.0 kWh s
Lifetime (yrs): 30 Preceding Measure: NSNEC05
% of stock applicable: 100%
Source: Cost from Koomey, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: NSNEC05
165
-------
END USE: NSNER New SF etectrtc furnace homes with room AC, North
1990 UEC: 12108 kWh New single family houses with electric furnaces and room air conditioners in the North.
Lifetime (yrs): 30 Efficiency of the furnace is assumed to be 100%; RAC efficiency is 9.0 EER (REM 1990
Fuei Type: electric new unit average). UECs for heating and (central) cooling were obtained from PEAR runs
using baseline shell characteristics derived from NAHB 1987 data. Insulation levels are:
R-29 ceiling, R-15 wall and floor, and double glazed windows. The baseline RAC UEC is
assumed to be 31% of the calculated UEC for central AC. This figure is from a compila-
tion of utility data in the Northern region (RCG/Hagler, Bailly, 1990). For cost of RAC im-
provement measures, an average of 1.5 room AC units per house was assumed. The
number of room AC units per house was derived from RECS 87 data for our southern re-
gion (Census regions were reaggregated and weighted by housing starts) Infiltration rate
is assumed to be 0.4 ACH.
Source: Koomey et al. 1991 and LBL-REM
ER/RAC, North
Measure includes increasing wall insulation to R-19 and floor to R-30, plus triple glazed
windows in homes built prior to 1995.
Source: Costs from Koomey, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: none
Shell Improvement In new SF homes w/
NSNER01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 1995
Incremental Cost. $631 in 1989$
UES: 3231.4 KWh
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
166
-------
Shell Improvement In new SF homes w/ ER/RAC, North
NSNER02
new measure
measure active between 1995 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $1095 In 1989$
UES: 4638.7 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
Measure Includes Increasing wall insulation to R-19 and floor to R-30, plus superwindows
In homes built after 1995. Superwindows are double-paned with 2 transparent, low-E
films suspended In between the panes. Shading coefficient of the window is 0.52, R-
value In the middle is 8.1 and the overall R-value is 5.5. Their transmissivity is 62%. The
energy savings were calculated using percentage changes in heating and cooling loads
from the RESFEN 1.0 computer program (LBL, 1991). Current costs are now $5 per sq
ft of window area. Costs are assumed to drop to $2.50 per sq ft in 1995, based on per-
sonal communication with Darlush Arasteh (LBL staff scientist), 1991. Southwall Techno-
logies provided window characteristics and RESFEN provided the energy savings for su-
perwindows.
Source: Costs from Koomey, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: NSNER01
Wall to R-27, ceil to R-49 In new SF homes, North
NSNER03
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $1355 in 1989$
UES: 1725.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improves ceiling Insulation to R-49 and wall insulation to R-27 in new SF Northern
homes with electric resistance heating and room AC cooling.
Source: Cost from Koomey, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: NSNER02
Celling to R-60 In new SF homes w/ ER/RAC, North
NSNER04
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $148 in 1989$
UES: 139.2 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improves ceiling insulation to R-60 in new SF Northern homes with electric resistance
heating and room AC cooling.
Source: Cost from Koomey, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: NSNER02
167
-------
END USE: NSNGC New SF non-electrlcally heated homes w/ CAC, North
1990 UEO. 1042 kWh Cooling In new single family houses with non-electric heating and central air conditioners.
Lifetime (yrs): 30 CAC efficiency Is 1990 new unit efficiency from REM (9.96 SEER). UEC for cooling was
Fuel Type: electric obtained from PEAR run using baseline shell characteristics derived from NAHB 1987
data. Insulation levels are: R-28 ceiling, R-14 wall, R-12 floor, and 1.74 window layers.
Infiltration rate is assumed to be 0.4 ACH. Prototype is a 2-story basement home with
2177 sq ft of floor area.
Source: Koomey et al. 1991 and LBL-REM.
Improve CAC to 1992 std In NSF non-elec homes, Nth
NSNGC01 Improve average new unit CAC efficiency to 10.5 SEER in new single lamily gas heated
new measure homes in the North. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the average new
measure active between 1990 and 2010 unit efficiency in 1992, after the standard is operative. It is higher than the standard (10 0
Incremental Cost $43 in 1989$ SEER), reflecting the above-standard units that are bought.
UES: 54.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12 Source: Energy savings from PEAR. Cost from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation
% of stock applicable: 100% Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
Improve CAC In North NSF non-elec homes wI CAC
NSNGC02
new measure Improve the central air conditioner efficiency to 13.3 SEER,
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $264 In 1989$ Source: PEAR for energy savings, cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep
UES: 208.0 kWh 1990-
Lifetime (yrs): 12 Preceding Measure: NSNGC01
% of stock applicable: 100%
168
-------
Improve CAC(2) In North NSF non-elec homes w/ CAC
NSNGC03
new measure Improve the central air conditioner efficiency to 14.87 SEER from 13.3 SEER,
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $250 In 1989$ Source: PEAR for energy savings, cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database. Sep
UES\ 82.0 kWh 1990-
Lifetime (yrs): 12 Preceding Measure: NSNGC02
% of stock applicable: 100%
END USE: NSNGR New SF non-electrlcalJy heated homes wI RAC, North
1990 UEC: 323 kWh Cooling in new single family houses with non-electric heating and room air conditioners.
Lifetime (yrs): 30 Baseline RAC efficiency is 9.0 EER (REM 1990 new unit average). UEC for cooling is as-
Fue/Type: electric sumed to be 31% of the calculated CAC UEC (from regional utility data compiled by
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, 1990). For cost calculations, an average of 1.5 room AC units per
house is assumed (from RECS 87 regional data). Insulation levels are: R-28 ceiling, R-
14 wall, R-12 floor, and 1.74 window layers. Infiltration rate is assumed to be 0.4 ACH.
Prototype is 2-story basement home with 2177 sq ft of floor area.
Source: Koomey et al. 1991 and LBL-REM.
Increase condenser rows in RAC In NSF non-elec, N
NSNGR01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $15 in 1989$
UES: 14.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100%
Increase condenser rows In room AC units In new SF Northern homes with gas/other
heating and room AC cooling. Efficiency Is Improved to 9.42 EER.
Source: Cost from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database, revised Sep 1990.
Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: none
169
-------
Variable speed RAC, NSF non-elec, North (>2000)
NSNGR02
new measure
measure active between 2000 and 2010
Incremental Cost $83 in 1989$
UES: 46.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 15
% of stock applicable: 100%
Variable speed RAC Is assumed to be available after 2000. For homes with gas/other
heating and room AC cooling.
Source: Cost and energy savings from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database,
revised Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: NSNGR01
Increase condenser area of RAC, NSF non-elec, Nth
NSNGR03
new measure
measure active between 2000 and 2010
Incremental Cost $26 in 1989$
UES: 12.0 KWh
Lifetime (yrs): 15
% of stock applicable: 100%
Increase condenser area of room AC units in new SF Northern homes built after 2000
with gas/other heating and room AC cooling. Efficiency is improved to 9 88 EER.
Source: Cost from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database, revised Sep 1990
Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: NSNGR02
END USE: NSNHP New single family homes w heat pumps, North
1990 UEO. 7873 kWh New single family houses with heat pumps in the North. Heat pump efficiency is 9.86
Lifetime (yrs): 30 SEER, 7.24 HSPF (1990 new unit, from REM). UEC is from PEAR runs using baseline
Fuel Type: electric shell characteristics from NAHB 1987 data: R-28 ceiling, R-14 wall, R-13 floor, and 1.87
window layers. House prototype Is 2-story basementwith 2222 sqft of floor area.
Infiltration rate Is 0.4 ACH.
Source: Koomey et al. 1991 and LBL-REM.
170
-------
Improve HP to 1992 standard In North SF homes
NSNHP01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $71 in 1989$
UES: 242.9 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve average new unit HP efficiency to 7.46 HSPF, 10.5 SEER In new single family
homes in the North. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the average new
unit efficiency In 1992, after the standard is operative. It is higher than the standard,
reflecting the above-standard units that are bought.
Source: Energy savings from PEAR. Cost from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation
Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
Triple glazed windows in new SF homes w/HP, North
NSNHP02
new measure Install triple glazed windows in new SF homes in the north with heat pumps,
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $311 in 1989$ Source: Costs from Koomey, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
UES: 1188.4 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14 Preceding Measure: NNHP01
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve HP beyond 1992 standard in North SF homes
NSNHP03 Improve heat pump to HSPF = 9.5 and SEER = 13.3 from LBL-REM's 1992 average new
new measure unjt efficiency,
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $241 in 1989$ Source: PEAR for energy savings, cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep
UES: 1379.1 kWh 1990<
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100% Preceding Measure: NSNHP02
171
-------
Wall to R-19 In new SF homes w/ HP, North
NSNHP04
new measure Increase wall Insulation to R-19 In new single family heat pump homes In the North,
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $267 In 1989$ Source: Cost from Koomey, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
UES: 334.8 KWh 1 a
Lifetime (yrs): 30 Preceding Measure: NSNHP03
% of stock applicable: 100%
R-30 floor In new SF homes w/ HP, N (<'95)
NSNHP05
new measure Increase floor insulation to R-30 in new SF homes built before 1995 with heat pumps in
measure active between 1990 and 1995 north-
Incremental Cost. $311 in 1989$
UES: 261.1 KWh Source: Cost from Koomey, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Lifetime (yrs): 30 Preceding Measure: NSNHP04
% of stock applicable: 100%
R-30 celling In new SF homes w/ HP, N(<*95)
NSNHP06
new measure Increase ceiling Insulation to R-30 in new SF homes built before 1995 In the north with
measure active between 1990 and 1995 heat Pumps.
Incremental Cost $44 In 1989$
LIES'. 28.5 kWh Source: Cost from Koomey, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Lifetime (yrs): 30 Preceding Measure: NSNHP05
% of stock applicable: 100%
172
-------
Superwlndows In NSF HP homes, N (post-95)
NSNHP07 Superwlndows In homes built after 1995. Superwindows are double-paned with 2 tran-
new measure sparent, low-E films suspended in between the panes. Shading coefficient of the window
measure active between 1995 and 2010 is 0.52, R-value in the middle is 8.1 and the overall R-value is 5.5. Their transmissivity is
Incremental Cost $556 in 1989$ 62%. The energy savings were calculated using percentage changes in heating and cool-
UES: 654.6 kWh Ing loads from the RESFEN 1.0 computer program (LBL, 1991). Current costs are now
Lifetime (yrs): 30 $5 per sq ft of window area over triple glazing. Costs are assumed to drop to $2.50 per
% of stock applicable: 100% sq ft over triple in 1995, based on personal communication with Dariush Arasteh (LBL
staff scientist), 1991. Southwall Technologies provided window characteristics and RES-
FEN provided the energy savings for superwindows.
Source: Costs from Koomey, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR. RESFEN for superwin-
dow savings.
Preceding Measure: NSNHP05
R-30 floor In new SF homes wI HP, N (>'95)
NSNHP08
new measure r.30 floor in homes built after 1995.
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $311 In 1989$ Source: Cost from Koomey, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
UES: 225.5 KWh
Lifetime (yrs): 30 Preceding Measure: NSNHP07
% of stock applicable: 100%
R-30 celling In new SF homes wI HP, N(>'95)
NSNHP09
new measure R.30 ceiling in homes built after 1995.
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $44 in 1989$ Source: Cost from Koomey, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
UES: 24.6 KWh
Lifetime (yrs): 30 Preceding Measure: NSNHP08
% of stock applicable: 100%
173
-------
END USE: NSSE New single family homes w/o cooling, South
1990 UEC: 9114 kWh New single family houses with electric furnaces and no cooling in the South. Furnace
Lifetime (yrs): 30 efficiency is assumed to be 100%. UEC Is from PEAR runs using baseline shell charac-
Fuel Type: electric teristics from NAHB 1987 data: R-28 ceiling, R-10 wall, R-3.8 to 2ft foundation, and 1.51
window layers. House prototype is 1-story slab with 1894 sqft of floor area. Infiltration
rate is 0.62 ACH (from NAHB 87).
Source: Koomey et al. 1991 and LBL-REM.
Shell Improvement In new SF homes w/ ER/-, South
NSSE01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $1061 in 1989$
UES: 5424.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
Measure includes increasing wall insulation to R-19 and floor to R-5 (2 ft deep), plus tri-
ple glazed windows and 0.4 ACH infiltration rate in homes built prior to 1995.
Source: Costs from Koomey, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR
Preceding Measure: none
Ceiling to R-30 In new SF homes wI ER/-, South
NSSE02
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $57 In 1989$
UES: 70.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improves ceiling Insulation to R-30 in new SF Southern homes with electric resistance
heating and no cooling.
Source: Cost from Koomey, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: NSSE01
174
-------
Superwlndows In NSF homes w/ ER/-, South(post-'95)
NSSE03 Superwlndows In homes built after 1995. Superwlndows are double-paned with 2 tran-
new measure sparent, low-E films suspended in between the panes. Shading coefficient of the window
measure active between 1995 and 2010 Is 0.52, R-value In the middle is 8.1 and the overall R-value is 5.5. Their transmissivity is
Incremental Cost $473 in 1989$ 62%. The energy savings were calculated using percentage changes in heating and cool-
UES: 521.0 kWh ing loads from the RESFEN 1.0 computer program (LBL, 1991). Current costs are now
Lifetime (yrs): 30 $5 per sq ft of window area. Costs are assumed to drop to $2.50 per sq ft in 1995, based
% of stock applicable: 100% on personal communication with Dariush Arasteh (LBL staff scientist), 1991. Southwall
Technologies provided window characteristics and RESFEN provided the energy savings
for superwindows.
Source: Costs from Koomey, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: NSSE02
Celling to R-38 In new SF homes w/ ER/-, South
NSSE04
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $322 in 1989$
UES: 205.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improves ceiling insulation to R-38 in new SF Southern homes with electric resistance
heating and no cooling.
Source: Cost from Koomey, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: NSSE03
END USE: NSSEC New SF electric furnace, CAC homes In South
1990 UEO. 12697 KWh New single family houses with electric furnaces and central air conditioners. Efficiency of
Lifetime (yrs): 30 the furnace Is assumed to be 100%; CAC efficiency is 1990 new unit efficiency from
Fuel Type: electric REM (9.96 SEER). UECs for heating and cooling were obtained from PEAR runs using
baseline shell characteristics derived from NAHB 1987 data. Insulation levels are: R-28
ceiling, R-10 wall, R-3.8 to 2ft foundation, 1.51 window layers, and 0.62 ACH. House pro-
totype Is a 1-story slab with 1894 sq ft of floor area.
Source: Koomey et al. 1991 and LBL-REM.
175
-------
Switch elec furnace to HP In new SF homes, South
NSSEC01 Switch the electric resistance heater and central air conditioner to a heat pump having
new measure HSPF of 9.06 and SEER of 13.3, All homes with CAC and electric furnaces are
measure active between 1990 and 2010 "switched" to heat pumps. Even though there is virtually no difference in the cost of a
Incremental Cost. $322 In 1989$ standard heat pump and the cost of a CAC/electric heating system (EPRI, 1987), we
UES: 6456.1 kWh have added $100 to the cost of the measure to be conservative. The remaining $222 is
Lifetime (yrs): 14 the incremental cost of the efficient HP above the 1990 average new unit (7.24 HSPF,
% of stock applicable: 100% 9.86 SEER) cost. The efficient HP cost Is from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Da-
tabase by Jim McMahon, revised September 1990.
Source: PEAR for energy savings, costs from EPRI 1987 and LBL's Energy Conserva-
tion Database, Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
Improved shell In new SF homes w/ ER/CAC, South
NSSEC02 Measure includes spectrally selective windows, 0.4 ACH infiltration rate and R-5, 2 ft
new measure foundation insulation in new SF homes in the South with ER heating and CAC. Spectrally
measure active between 1990 and 2010 selective windows cost the same as double pane, low E, argon filled windows, have the
Incremental Cost: $682 in 1989$ same U value but a shading coefficient of 0.5, according to LBL staff scientist Dariush
UES: 2909.9 kWh Arasteh. Energy savings for the spectrally selective windows were determined as a frac-
Lifetime (yrs): 30 tion of the double to triple pane savings using RESFEN 1.0.
% of stock applicable: 100%
Source: Costs from Koomey, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: NSSEC01
176
-------
Wall to R-19 In new SF homes, South
NSSEC03
new measure Increase wall Insulation to R-19 in new single family homes with ER/CAC in the south,
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $379 in 1989$ Source: Cost from Koomey, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
UES: 428.9 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 30 Preceding Measure: NSSEC02
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve HP In South new SF ER/CAC homes
NSSEC04 Improve the heat pump efficiency to HSPF 9.5 and SEER 13.3 from HSPF 9,5, 8EER
new measure 13 3
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $90 in 1989$ Source: PEAR for energy savings, cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep
UES: 108.1 kWh 1990
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100% Preceding Measure: NSSEC03
END USE: NSSER New SF electric furnace homes with room AC, South
1990 UEC: 10333 kWh New single family houses with electric furnaces and room air conditioners in the South.
Lifetime (yrs): 30 Prototype Is 1-story slab w/ 1894 sq ft. Furnace efficiency is assumed to be 100%; RAC
Fuel Type: electric efficiency is 9.0 EER (REM 1990 new unit average). UECs for heating and (central) cool-
ing were obtained from PEAR runs using baseline shell characteristics derived from
NAHB 1987 data. Insulation levels are: R-28 celling, R-10 wail, R-3.8 to 2ft foundation,
0.62 ACH, and 1.51 window layers. The baseline RAC UEC Is assumed to be 34% of the
calculated UEC for central AC (from a compilation of utility data in the Southern region
(RCG/Hagler, Bailly, 1990)). For cost of RAC improvement measures, an average of 1.2
room AC units per house was assumed. The number of room AC units per house was
derived from RECS 87 data for our southern region (Census regions were reaggregated
and weighted by housing starts).
Source: Koomey et al. 1991 and LBL-REM.
177
-------
Shell Improvement In new SF homes wIER/RAC, South
NSSER01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $1061 In 1989$
UES: 5623.9 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
Measure Includes Increasing wall Insulation to R-19 and floor to R-30, plus triple glazed
windows and reducing Infiltration rate to 0.4 ACH.
Source: Costs from Koomey, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: none
Increase condenser rows of RAC In elec NSF, South
NSSER02
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $12 in 1989$
UES: 45.4 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 15
% of stock applicable: 100%
Increase condenser rows of all room AC units in new single family homes in the south
with RAC. This measure improves efficiency to 9.42 EER from the 1990 standard
efficiency of 9.0 EER.
Source: Cost from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database, revised September
1990. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: NSSER01
Celling to R-30 In NSF ER/RAC homes, Sth (pre-'95)
NSSER03
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $57 in 1989$
UES: 72.9 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improves ceiling insulation to R-30 in new SF Southern homes built prior to 1995 with
electric resistance heating and room AC cooling.
Source: Cost from Koomey, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: NSSER02
178
-------
Shell Improvement In NSF ER/RAC homes, Sth (>1995)
NSSER04 Measure includes Increasing celling Insulation to R-30 plus superwindows In homes built
new measure after 1995. Superwindows are double-paned with 2 transparent, low-E films suspended
measure active between 1995 and 2010 in between the panes. Shading coefficient of the window is 0.52, R-value in the middle is
Incremental Cost $530 in 1989$ 8.1 and the overall R-value is 5.5. Their transmissivity is 62%. The energy savings were
UES: 1151.6 kWh calculated using percentage changes in heating and cooling loads from the RESFEN 1.0
Lifetime (yrs): 30 computer program (LBL, 1991). Current costs are now $5 per sq ft of window area. Costs
% of stock applicable: 100% are assumed to drop to $2.50 per sq ft in 1995, based on personal communication with
Dariush Arasteh (LBL staff scientist), 1991. Southwall Technologies provided window
characteristics and RESFEN provided the energy savings for superwindows.
Source: Costs from Koomey et a), 1991b. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: NSSER02
Celling to R-38 in new SF homes w/ ER/RAC, South
NSSER05
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost: $322 in 1989$
UES\ 219.4 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improves ceiling insulation to R-38 in new SF Southern homes with electric resistance
heating and room AC cooling.
Source: Cost from Koomey, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: NSSER03 (before 1995); NSSER04 (after 1995).
Variable speed RAC In south NSF homes (post-2000)
NSSER06
new measure
measure active between 2000 and 2010
Incremental Cost $67 in 1989$
UES: 59.4 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 15
% of stock applicable: 100%
Variable speed room AC are expected to be available in 2000. This measure does not
change the efficiency, but decreases consumption. Energy savings and cost are from
LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database, revised September 1990.
Source: Cost & energy savings from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database,
revised September 1990.
Preceding Measure: NSSER05
179
-------
Increase condenser area of RAC In elec NSF, South
NSSER07
new measure
measure active between 2000 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $20 in 1989$
UES: 59.4 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 15
% of stock applicable: 100%
Increase condenser area of all room AC units in new single family homes in the south
with RAC. This measure improves efficiency to 9.88 EER from the variable speed RAC
efficiency of 9.0 EER.
Source: Cost from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database, revised September
1990. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: NSSER06
END USE: NSSGC New SF non-electrically heated homes w/ CAC, South
1990 UEC: 3576 kWh Cooling in new single family houses with non-electric heating and central air conditioners
Lifetime (yrs). 30 CAC efficiency is 1990 new unit efficiency from REM (9.96 SEER) UECs for cooling was
Fuel Type: electric obtained from PEAR run using baseline shell characteristics derived from NAHB 1987
data. Insulation levels are: R-25 ceiling, R-12 wall, R-1.9 to 2ft foundation, 1.68 window
layers, and 0.63 ACH. House prototype is a 1-story slab with 2071 sq ft ol floor area.
Source: Koomey et al. 1991 and LBL-REM.
Improve CAC to 1992 std In NSF non-elec homes, Sth
NSSGC01 Improve average new unit CAC efficiency to 10.5 SEER in new single family gas heated
new measure homes in the South. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the average new
measure active between 1990 and 2010 unit efficiency In 1992, after the standard is operative. It is higher than the standard (10.0
Incremental Cost $50 in 1989$ SEER), reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. Cost assumes a 41 kBtu/hr
UES: 169.0 kWh capacity and is increased over LBL's Conservation database 35kBtu cost by a factor of
Lifetime (yrs): 12 17%. Factor was derived from EPRI TAG 1987 cost versus capacity curve.
% of stock applicable: 100%
Source: Energy savings from PEAR. Cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database,
Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: none
180
-------
Spectrally selective windows, NSF non-elec, South
NSSGC02
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $311 in 1989$
UES: 1813.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
Measure places spectrally selective windows in new SF homes in the South with gas
heating and CAC. Spectrally selective windows cost the same as double pane, low E,
argon filled windows, have the same U value but a shading coefficient of 0.5, according
to LBL staff scientist Dariush Arasteh. Energy savings for the spectrally selective win-
dows were determined as a fraction of the double to triple pane savings using RESFEN
1.0.
Source: Cost from Koomey, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: NSSGC01
Improve CAC in South new SF non-elec homes w/ CAC
NSSGC03 Improve the central air conditioner efficiency to 13.3 SEER Cost assumes a 41 kBtu/hr
new measure unj( capacity,
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $309 in 1989$ Source: PEAR for energy savings, cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep
UES: 336.0 kWh 1990.
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100% Preceding Measure: NSSGC02
Improve CAC(2) in NSF non-elec homes w/ CAC, South
NSSGC04 Improve the central air conditioner efficiency to 14.87 SEER from 13.3 SEER. Cost as-
new measure sumes a 41 kBtu/hr capacity,
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $293 In 1989$ Source: PEAR for energy savings, cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep
UES: 133.0 kWh 1990#
Lifetime (yrs): 12
% of stock applicable: 100% Preceding Measure: NSSGC03
181
-------
END USE: NSSGR New SF non-electrlcally heated homes w/ RAC, South
1990 UEC: 1216 kWh Cooling in new single family houses with non-electric heating and room air conditioners.
Lifetime (yrs): 30 RAC efficiency is 9.0 EER (REM 1990 new unit average). UEC for cooling is assumed to
Fuel Type: electric be 34% of the calculated CAC UEC (from regional utility data compiled by RCG/Hagler,
Bailly, 1990). For cost calculations, an average of 1.2 room AC units per house is as-
sumed (from RECS 87 regional data). Insulation levels are: R-25 ceiling, R-12 wall, R-
1.9 to 2ft foundation, and 1.68 window layers, and 0.63 ACH. House prototype is a 1 -
story slab with 2071 sq ft of floor area.
Source• Koomey et al. 1991 and LBL-REM.
Increase condenser rows In RAC, NSF non-elec, Sth
NSSGR01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost: $12 in 1989$
UES: 54.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 15
% of stock applicable: 100%
Increase condenser rows in room AC units in new SF Southern homes with gas/other
heating and room AC cooling. Efficiency is improved to 9 42 EER.
Source: Cost from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database, revised Sep 1990.
Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: none
Increase condenser area of RAC, NSF non-elec, Sth
NSSGR02
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2000
Incremental Cost $87 In 1989$
UES: 54.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 15
% of stock applicable: 100%
Increase condenser area of room AC units in new SF Southern homes built before 2000
with gas/other heating and room AC cooling. Efficiency Is improved to 9.88 EER.
Source: Cost from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database, revised Sep 1990.
Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: NSSGR01
182
-------
Variable speed RAC, NSF non-elec, South (>2000)
NSSGR03
new measure
measure active between 2000 and 2010
Incremental Cost: $67 in 1989$
UES: 173.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 15
% of stock applicable: 100%
Variable speed RAC Is assumed to be available after 2000. For homes with gas/other
heating and room AC cooling.
Source: Cost and energy savings from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database,
revised Sep 1990.
Preceding Measure: NSSGR02
Increase condenser area of RAC, non-elec NSF, Sth
NSSGR04
new measure
measure active between 2000 and 2010
Incremental Cost $20 in 1989$
UES. 46.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs). 15
% of stock applicable: 100%
Increase condenser area of room AC units in new SF Southern homes built after 2000
with gas/other heating and room AC cooling Efficiency is improved to 9.88 EER
Source: Cost from LBL's Appliance Energy Conservation Database, revised Sep 1990.
Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: NSSGR03
END USE: NSSHP New single family homes w heat pumps, South
1990 UEC: 6634 kWh New single family houses with heat pumps in the South. Heat pump efficiency is 9.86
Lifetime (yrs): 30 SEER, 7.24 HSPF (1990 new unit, from REM). UEC is from PEAR runs using baseline
Fuel Type: electric shell characteristics from NAHB 1987 data: R-25 ceiling, R-11 wall, R-1.8 to 2ft founda-
tion, 1.69 window layers, and 0.63 ACH Infiltration rate. House prototype is 1-story slab
with 1823 sqft of floor area.
Source: Koomey et al. 1991 and LBL-REM.
183
-------
Improve HP to 1992 standard In South
NSSHP01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $86 in 1989$
UES: 285.4 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Source: PEAR for energy savings, cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep
1990.
Preceding Measure: none
SF homes
Improve average new unit HP efficiency to 7.46 HSPF, 10.5 SEER In new single family
homes In the South. This efficiency represents LBL-REM's prediction of the average new
unit efficiency in 1992, after the standard is operative. It is higher than the standard,
reflecting the above-standard units that are bought. Cost assumes a 41 kBtu unit capaci-
ty, derived from EPRI TAG 1987 design cooling loads for southeastern cities. A 17% cost
increase over the 35 kBtu capacity unit was derived from EPRI TAG cost vs. peak output
curves and applied to the cost in LBL's Conservation Database.
Improve HP beyond 1992 standard In South SF homes
NSSHP02
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $183 in 1989$
UES: 1122.1 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Improve heat pump to HSPF = 9.06 and SEER = 13 03 from LBL-REM's 1992 average
new unit efficiency. Cost assumes a 41 kBtu/hr unit capacity.
Source: PEAR for energy savings, cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep
1990.
Preceding Measure: NSSHP01
Improved shell in new SF homes w/ HP, South
NSSHP03
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $711 in 1989$
UES: 2397.8 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 30
% of stock applicable: 100%
Measure Includes spectrally selective windows, 0.4 ACH infiltration rate and R-5, 2 ft
foundation Insulation in new SF homes in the South with ER heating and CAC. Spectrally
selective windows cost the same as double pane, low E, argon filled windows, have the
same U value but a shading coefficient of 0.5, according to LBL staff scientist Dariush
Arasteh. Energy savings for the spectrally selective windows were determined as a frac-
tion of the double to triple pane savings using RESFEN 1.0.
Source: Costs from Koomey, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR.
Preceding Measure: NSSHP02
184
-------
Improve HP In South new SF HP homes
NSSHP04
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2Q10
incremental Cost $109 In 1989$
UES: 104.1 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 14
% of stock applicable: 100%
Wall to R-19 In new SF homes w/ HP, South
NSSHP05
new measure Increase wall insulation to R-19 in new single family heat pump homes in the South
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost $328 in 1989$ Source: Cost from Koomey, 1991. Energy savings from PEAR
UES' 210 4 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 30 Preceding Measure: NSSHP04
% o/ sfock applicable: 100%
END USE: REF Refrigerator
1990 UEC: 893 kWh We model the entire refrigerator stock as top mount automatic defrost, which accounts
Lifetime (yrs): 19 for 73% of the stock (LBL-REM). The baseline UEC is the 1990 standard for top mount
Fuel Type: electric AD refrigerators, from LBL-REM. Cost and energy savings for the measures assume a
unit without CFCs. Actual REM 1990 new unit UEC (a weighted average over all models
sold) is 927.8 kWh, or 4% higher.
Source: LBL-REM
Improve heat pump to HSPF = 9.5 and SEER = 13.3. Cost assumes a 41 kBtu/unit capa-
city.
Source: PEAR for energy savings, cost from LBL's Energy Conservation Database, Sep
1990.
Preceding Measure: NSSHP03
185
-------
Improve refrigerator to 1993 standard
REF01
new measure
measure active between 1990 and 2010
Incremental Cost. $49 in 1987$
UES: 203.2 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 19
% of stock applicable: 100%
1993 standard Includes enhanced heat transfer, foam door, 5.05 EER compressor, 2"
door insulation, efficient fans, 372.7" side and 3.0" back Insulation. Assumes the unit has
no CFCs. Cost assumes a 1.7 retail markup factor (from LBL-MIM).
Source: US DOE Nov 1989
Preceding Measure: none
Evacuated Panels for refrigerator (post 1995)
REF02
new measure Evacuated powder filled panels, assumed to be available after 1995.
measure active between 1995 and 2010
Incremental Cost: $57 in 1987$ Source: US DOE Nov 1989
UES: 113 0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs). 19 Preceding Measure: REF01 (1993 standard)
% of stock applicable: 100%
Two-Compressor System for refrigerator (post 1995)
REF03
new measure
measure active between 1995 and 2010
Incremental Cost $85 in 1987$
UES: 69.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 19
% of stock applicable: 100%
Source: US DOE Nov 1989
Preceding Measure: REF02 (evac panels)
186
-------
Recycle refrigerator condenser heat (post-2000)
REF12 Energy savings are based on saving the electricity use of anti-sweat heaters, which ac-
new measure count for 11% of the baseline energy use {947 kWh), or about 100 kWh, by recycling
measure active between 2000 and 2010 condenser heat. The cost is an estimate of the cost of adding thin tubing to carry the re-
Incremental Cost $40 in 1989$ cycled heat around the perimeter of the refrigerator. Costs and savings are not yet avail-
UES: 100.0 kWh able for this measure, which is assumed to become commercially available by the year
Lifetime (yrs): 19 2000.
% of stock applicable: 100%
Source: US DOE Nov 1989 and conversations with Ike Turiel of LBL's Appliance Stan-
dards Group
Preceding Measure: REF03
Raise refrig compressor EER to 5.3 (post 2000)
REF13
new measure
measure active between 2000 and 2010
Incremental Cost $9 in 1987$
UES: 18.0 kWh
Lifetime (yrs): 19
% of stock applicable: 100%
The compressor accounts for 75% of baseline energy use, and is estimated to account
for 70% of the more efficient refrigerator's consumption. An improvement of 0.25/5 05
EER, or 5%, in the compressor will save 5% of 70% of the previous measure's UEC This
amounts to an energy savings of about 18 kWh. The incremental cost represents the
cost of making the same improvement in a refrigerator with CFCs, from USDOE 1989.
The costs should be approximately the same for a refrigerator without CFCs (Ike Turiel).
The manufacturer cost has been multiplied by a retail cost factor of 1.7 from LBL-MIM.
Source: US DOE Nov 1989 and conversations with Ike Turiel of LBL's Appliance Stan-
dards Group, May 1991.
Preceding Measure: REF12
187
-------
APPENDIX 4: END-USE ENERGY IN FROZEN EFFICIENCY CASE
This appendix contains the detailed breakdown of end-use energy in the frozen
efficiency case, for 1990, 2000, and 2010, taken from ACCESS. All numbers are in
TWh/year.
189
-------
FROZEN EFFICIENCY CONSUMPTION IN 1990
Other
Refrigeration
ENDUSE
CATEGORY CODE ENERGY
Lighting
LTG 100.11
total 100.11
BWTV 1.73
CD-E 45.89
CTV 18.01
ERNG 62.32
MISE 52.80
total 180.74
FRZR 37.23
REF 132.02
total 169.24
Space Conditioning
EANE 9.49
EANEC 11.32
EANER 16.2 9
EANGC 0.89
EANGR 1.46
EANHP 9.00
EASE 3.98
EASEC 7.09
EASER 2.65
EASGC 1.92
EASGR 0.57
EASHP 1.93
EMNE 0.59
EMNEC 0.67
EMNER 0.82
EMNGC 0.52
EMNGR 0.22
EMNHP 0.13
EMSE 0.98
EMSEC 1.71
EMSER 1.98
EMSGC 0.71
EMSGR 0.82
EMSHP 0.15
ESNE 13.44
ESNEC 15.23
ESNER 13.39
ESNGC 9.54
ESNGR 3.82
ESNHP 10.40
ESSE 6.27
ESSEC 21.28
ESSER 9.18
ESSGC 25.4 5
ESSGR 9.11
ESSHP 18.82
total 231.81
Water Heating
EWH 14 6.18
total 146.18
Total for all enduses: 828.091 TWh
190
-------
FROZEN EFFICIENCY CONSUMPTION
IN 2000
ENDUSE
CATEGORY
Lighting
Other
Refrigeration
Space Conditioning
NASE
0 .28
NASEC
1.33
CODE
ENERGY
NASER
0.19
NASGC
0.51
NASGR
0.02
LTG
114.28
NASHP
0.40
total
114 .28
NMNE
0.11
NMNEC
0.21
BWTV
1.97
NMNER
0 .23
CD-E
54.94
NMNGC
0 .12
CTV
20.55
NMNGR
0.04
ERNG
77.92
NMSE
0.99
MISE
60.27
NMSEC
3.30
total
215.65
NMSER
2 .02
NMSGC
0.71
FRZR
28.33
NMSGR
0.24
REF
127.72
NMSHP
0 .18
total
156.05
NSNE
5.62
NSNEC
5 .52
EANE
8 .71
NSNER
1.88
EANEC
10.33
NSNGC
2.29
EANER
14.92
NSNGR
0 .21
EANGC
0 .70
NSNHP
9.32
EANGR
1.16
NSSE
2.98
EANHP
7 .70
NSSEC
10 .01
EASE
3.65
NSSER
1.74
EASEC
6.22
NSSGC
4.79
EASER
2.39
NSSGR
0 .53
EASGC
1.52
NSSHP
11.39
EASGR
0.45
total
276.23
EASHP
1.60
Water Heating
EMNE
0.42
EWH
164.50
EMNEC
0.48
total
164.50
EMNER
0.59
EMNGC
0.33
Total for all
enduses: 926.
.710 TWh
EMNGR
0.14
EMNHP
0.08
EMSE
0.71
EMSEC
1.18
EMSER
1.40
EMSGC
0.44
EMSGR
0.51
EMSHP
0.10
ESNE
12.45
ESNEC
13.99
ESNER
12.35
ESNGC
7 . 64
ESNGR
2.94
ESNHP
8.96
ESSE
5.80
ESSEC
18 .85
ESSER
8 .29
ESSGC
20 .37
ESSGR
6.99
ESSHP
15.77
NANE
2.86
NANEC
4.88
NANER
0.53
NANGC
0.21
NANGR
0.12
NANHP
0.34
191
-------
FROZEN EFFICIENCY CONSUMPTION IN
2010
ENDUSE
CATEGORY
Lighting
Other
Refrigeration
Space Conditioning
NASE
0.53
NASEC
2.54
CODE
ENERGY
NASER
0.37
NASGC
0 . 97
NASGR
0 .03
LTG
124 .21
NASHP
0.77
total
124 .21
NMNE
0.2 2
NMNEC
0.42
BWTV
2.15
NMNER
0.46
CD-E
61.25
NMNGC
0.24
CTV
22.34
NMNGR
0.08
ERNG
83.13
NMSE
2 .00
MISE
65.50
NMSEC
6.67
total
234.37
NMSER
4.08
NMSGC
1 . 44
FRZR
21.24
NMSGR
0.49
REF
120.98
NMSHP
0.36
total
142.22
NSNE
10.20
NSNEC
10.01
EANE
7 . 84
NSNER
3.40
EANEC
9.30
NSNGC
4.15
EANER
13.43
NSNGR
0.39
EANGC
0.63
NSNHP
16. 90
EANGR
1.04
NSSE
5.61
EANHP
6.93
NSSEC
18.85
EASE
3.26
NSSER
3.28
EASEC
5.57
NSSGC
9.01
EASER
2.14
NSSGR
1.00
EASGC
1.36
NSSHP
21.43
EASGR
0.40
total
322.31
EASHP
1.44
Water Heating
EMNE
0.31
EWH
184.53
EMNEC
0.34
total
184.53
EMNER
0.42
EMNGC
0.24
Total for all enduses: 1007.627
TWh
EMNGR
0.10
EMNHP
0.06
EMSE
0.51
EMS EC
0.85
EHSER
1.01
EMSGC
0.32
EMSGR
0.37
EMS HP
0.07
ESNE
11.34
ESNEC
12 .75
ESNER
11.26
ESNGC
6.96
ESNGR
2.68
ESNHP
8.16
ESSE
5.27
ESSEC
17 .11
ESSER
7.52
ESSGC
18.49
ESSGR
6.35
ESSHP
14.31
NANE
5.21
NANEC
8.90
NANER
0. 96
NANGC
0.38
NANGR
0 .21
NANHP
0.62
192
-------
APPENDIX 5: CONSERVATION SUPPLY CURVES BY END-USE
CATEGORY
This appendix contains the supply curves and measure tables by end-use category,
from which the grand supply curves (Figures 5 and 6) are created. The end uses are:
Space conditioning
Refrigeration
Water heating
Lighting
Other
As before, the CCE represents technology cost—no program costs are included.
Applicable stock represents the number of appliances or building shells to which the
measure can be applied from 1990 to the end of the analysis period.
193
-------
1QJ7 Jul 1 1991
Year 2010 MTP for Space Conditioning
15 H
Discount rate: 7.0 %
Forecast year 2010
Start year 1990
Baseline energy consumption (TWh)
for year 2010 = 322.309
156
12 -
O)
1983 Residential Price at
LL1
"O
Hectrtdty - 7.60 centa/KWh
6 "
36.
1718 19 22
31% of
BaseGne
Use
20
40 60
Energy Savings (TWh)
80
100
120
A supply curve of conserved electricity for the United States residential
sector. Each step represents a conservation measure (or a package of measur
es). The width of the step indicates the nationwide electricity savings fro
m the measure and the height of the measure indicates the cost of conserve
d electricity.
194
-------
Year 2010 MTP for Space Conditioning
Label
Measure
Code
Measure
Name
Incr.
Cost
1989$/unit
Energy
Savings
kWh/unit
CCE
cents/kWh
Energy Savings
Measure Cumulative
TWh TWh
Applicable
Stock
1(P
1
NSNEC01
Switch elec furnace to HP in new SF homes, North
222
7298
0.3
5.72
5.72
784
2
NSSEC01
Switch elec furnace to HP In new SF homes, South
322
6456
06
9 58
15 30
1484
3
ESNEC01
Switch elec furn to HP In existing North SF
822
11853
08
7.83
23 13
661
4
ESNHP02
Improve ceiling insulation In ESF HP homes, North
7
72
0.8
0.06
23 19
838
5
ESNER01
Improve shell In ESF ER/RAC homes, North
274
2374
09
1.44
24.63
605
6
ESNHP03
Improve HP in ESF HP homes, North
151
1598
1.1
1 34
25 97
838
7
ESNHP01
Improve HP to 92 std in ESF HP homes, North
71
719
1.1
0.60
26.57
838
8
EANHP02
Improve HP beyond 92 std in EMF HP homes, North
104
1028
1.2
1.19
27 76
1162
9
ESSHP02
Improve ceiling insulation in ESF HP homes, South
5
31
1.3
0.06
27.82
1865
10
NSSGC02
Spectrally selective windows, NSF non-elec, South
311
1813
1.4
4.57
32.39
2519
11
NSSER01
Shell improvement in new SF homes w/ ER/RAC, South
1061
5624
1 5
1 79
34.18
318
12
EMNHP02
Improve HP beyond 1992 standard in North EMH
159
1150
1 6
0.01
34 19
9
13
NSNER01
Shell improvement in new SF homes w/ ER/RAC, North
631
3231
1 6
0 25
34 44
78
14
NSSE01
Shell improvement in new SF homes w/ ER/-, South
1061
5424
1 6
3 34
37 78
616
15
ESNE01
Improve shell in ESF ER/- homes, North
754
3583
1 7
2 22
40 00
619
16
ESSEC01
Switch elec furn to HP in existing South SF
869
5805
1.7
8.69
48 68
1496
17
NSSHP02
Improve HP beyond 1992 standard in South SF homes
183
1122
1.9
3.62
52 31
3230
18
NSSEC02
Improved shell In new SF homes w/ ER/CAC, South
682
2910
1 9
4.32
56 63
1484
19
NANHP02
Improve HP beyond 92 std in NMF HP homes, North
104
623
1.9
0 11
56 73
171
20
NSNER02
Shell improvement in new SF homes w/ ER/RAC, North
1095
4639
1.9
0.94
57 68
203
21
ESSHP03
Improve HP In ESF HP homes, South
292
1693
2.0
3.16
60 83
1865
22
NSNHP03
Improve HP beyond 1992 standard in North SF homes
241
1379
2.0
2.96
63.79
2147
23
ESSER01
Improve shell in ESF ER/RAC homes, South
444
1757
2.0
1.42
65.21
809
24
ESSE01
Improve shell in ESF ER/- homes, South
451
1712
2.1
1.10
66 31
642
25
EMSHP02
Improve HP beyond 1992 standard in South EMH
192
981
2.2
0 01
66 33
13
26
NSNHP01
Improve HP to 1992 standard in North SF homes
71
243
2 4
0 52
66.85
2147
27
NMSHP02
Improve HP beyond 1992 standard in South NMH
192
917
24
0.06
66 91
71
28
NSSHP03
Improved shell In new SF homes w/ HP, South
711
2398
24
7.75
74 66
3230
29
NSSGR01
Increase condenser rows In RAC, NSF non-elec, Sth
12
54
24
0.04
74.70
819
30
EMSHP01
Improve HP to 92 std in EMH HP homes, South
55
251
25
0 00
74 71
13
-------
10 37 Jut I
Year 2010 MTP for Space Conditioning
Label
Measure
Code
Measure
Name
Incr.
Cost
1989$/unit
Energy
Savings
kWh/unit
CCE
certs/kWh
Energy Savings
Measure Cumulative
TWh TWh
Applicable
Stock
U?
31
NSNEC02
Triple glazed windows In new SF homes, North
223
707
2.6
0.55
75 26
784
32
EASHP02
Improve HP beyond 92 std In EMF HP homes, South
104
462
26
0 25
75 51
548
33
ESNEC02
Improve shell in ESF ER/CAC homes, North
274
842
2.6
0.56
76 07
661
34
NMSHP01
Improve HP to 92 std in NMH HP homes, South
57
239
27
0.02
76 09
71
35
ESNHP04
Improve shell in ESF HP homes, North
121
353
2.8
0.30
76 38
838
36
NSSER02
Increase condenser rows of RAC in elec NSF, South
12
45
2.9
0.01
76 40
318
37
NMSGR01
Improve RAC in NMH non-elec homes, Sth
10
41
2.9
0.02
76 42
529
38
NMSER01
Improve RAC In NMH elec htd homes, Sth
10
41
2.9
0.03
76.45
670
39
EANHP01
Improve HP to 92 std in EMF HP homes, North
49
190
29
0 22
76 67
1162
40
NSNHP02
Triple glazed windows In new SF homes w/HP, North
311
1188
3.0
2.55
79 22
2147
41
EMSER01
Improve RAC in EMH elec htd homes, Sth
10
40
30
0 01
79 22
151
42
ESSHP01
Improve HP to 92 std in ESF HP homes, South
86
321
3 1
0 60
79 82
1865
43
EMSGR01
Improve RAC in EMH non-elec homes, Sth
10
38
3 1
0.02
79 84
429
44
ESNHP05
Improve HP in ESF HP homes. North
90
305
34
0.26
80 09
838
45
NSSHP01
Improve HP to 1992 standard in South SF homes
86
285
34
0 92
81 02
3230
46
ESSER02
Improve room AC in ESF homes, South
15
47
35
0 04
81.05
809
47
ESNEC03
Switch to improved HP in North ESF homes
90
285
36
0.19
81 24
661
48
ESSGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in ESF non-elec homes, Sth
50
171
3.7
0 95
82 19
5562
49
NSSER07
Increase condenser area of RAC In elec NSF, South
20
59
3.7
0.01
82 20
149
50
NSSER04
Shell improvement in NSF ER/RAC homes, Sth (>1995)
530
1152
37
0 27
82 47
233
51
NSSGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std In NSF non-elec homes, Sth
50
169
3.7
0.43
82 90
2519
52
EANHP03
Improve HP(2) in EMF HP homes, North
62
179
3.9
0.21
83.10
1162
53
ESNER02
Improve window, ceil & wall In ESF homes, North
1354
2718
40
1.64
84.75
605
54
ESSHP04
Improve shell in ESF HP homes, South
304
593
4.2
1.11
85 85
1865
55
NSSGR03
Variable speed RAC, NSF non-elec, South (>2000)
67
173
4.3
0.07
85 92
384
56
EMNHP01
Improve HP to 92 std in EMH HP homes, North
93
238
4.5
0.00
85 92
9
57
NMSGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in new non-elec MH, South
50
140
4.5
0.07
86.00
529
58
NMSEC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in new elec htd MH, South
50
140
4.5
0.12
8611
846
59
EMSEC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std In EMH elec htd homes, Sth
50
136
4.6
0 01
8613
101
60
ESSEC02
Improve shell in ESF ER/CAC homes, South
444
776
4.6
1.16
87 29
1496
-------
10 37 Jul I
Year 2010 MTP for Space Conditioning
Label
Measure
Code
Measure
Name
Incr.
Cost
1989$/unit
Energy
Savings
kWh/unit
CCE
cents/kWh
Energy Savings
Measure Cumulative
TWh TWh
Applicable
Stock
id3
61
NANHP01
Improve HP to 92 std In NMF HP homes, North
49
119
4.7
0.02
87.31
171
62
ESNE02
Improve window, ceil & wall in ESF homes, North
859
1469
4.7
0 91
88.22
619
63
NSSGR04
Increase condenser area of RAC, non-elec NSF, Sth
20
46
4.8
0.02
88 24
384
64
EMSGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in EMH non-elec homes, Sth
50
130
4.8
0.02
88.25
126
65
EASHP01
Improve HP to 92 std in EMF HP homes, South
49
115
4.9
0.06
88 32
548
66
NASHP02
Improve HP beyond 92 std in NMF HP homes, South
104
244
4.9
0.14
88.45
564
67
NSNEC03
Improve HP In North single-family
190
430
5.0
0 34
88.79
784
68
ESNHP06
Improve ceiling in ESF HP homes, North
3
5
5.1
0.00
88 80
838
69
NMSGR02
Improve RAC(2) In NMH non-elec homes, Sth(post2000
56
132
5.3
0.04
88.83
267
70
NMSER02
Improve RAC(2) in NMH elec htd homes, Sth(post2000
56
132
53
0.04
88 88
338
71
EMSER02
Improve RAC(2) in EMH elec htd homes, Sth(post2000
56
129
5.4
0 01
88.88
58
72
EMSGR02
Improve RAC(2) In EMH non-elec homes, Sth(post2000
56
123
5.7
0.02
88 90
165
73
EASGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in EMF non-elec homes, Sth
28
61
5.7
0.07
88 97
1152
74
EASEC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in EMF elec htd homes, Sth
28
61
5.7
0 08
89 05
1324
75
EMNHP03
Improve HP(2) in North EMH
95
185
5.8
0 00
89.06
9
76
NSNEC04
Wall to R-19 in new SF homes, North
186
257
59
0.20
89 26
784
77
ESSGC02
Improve CAC in South ESF non-elec homes w/ CAC
309
664
5.9
3.69
92.95
5562
78
NSSER03
Ceiling to R-30 in NSF ER/RAC homes, Sth (pre-'95)
57
73
63
0.02
92 97
318
79
NSNER03
Wall to R-27, ceil to R-49 in new SF homes, North
1355
1725
64
0 48
93.46
281
80
NSNHP04
Wall to R-19 in new SF homes w/ HP, North
267
335
65
0.72
94 18
2147
81
EMNER01
Improve RAC In EMH elec htd homes, Nth
10
19
6.5
0.00
94.18
37
82
NSSE02
Ceiling to R-30 in new SF homes w/ ERA, South
57
70
66
0 04
94 22
616
83
NANHP03
Improve HP(2) in NMF HP homes, North
62
106
67
0 02
94 24
171
84
NMNER01
Improve RAC in NMH elec htd homes, Nth
10
18
6.7
0.00
94 24
46
85
NMNGR01
Improve RAC in NMH non-elec htd homes, Nth
10
18
6.7
0.00
94 24
206
86
NSNHP07
Superwindows in NSF HP homes, N (post-95)
556
655
6.9
1 02
95.26
1551
87
EMNGR01
Improve RAC in EMH non-elec homes, Nth
10
17
7.1
0 00
95.26
256
88
ESNER03
R-30 floor in ESF ER/RAC homes, North
1297
1482
7.1
0.33
95.59
224
89
NASGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in NMF non-elec homes, Sth
28
49
7.1
0 05
95 64
1023
90
NASEC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in NMF elec htd homes, Sth
28
49
7.1
0.07
95 71
1405
-------
10 37 Jul 1
Year 2010 MTP for Space Conditioning
Label
Measure
Code
Measure
Name
Incr.
Cost
1989$/umt
Energy
Savings
kWh/unit
CCE
cents/kWh
Energy Savings
Measure Cumulative
TWh TWh
Applicable
Stock
up
91
ESNE03
R-30 lloor in ESF ER/- homes, North
1297
1471
7.1
091
96.62
619
92
NSSEC03
Wall to R-19 In new SF homes, South
379
429
7.2
0.64
97.26
1484
93
NMSGC02
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std in NMH non-elec homes,
309
537
7.3
0.28
97.55
529
94
NMSEC02
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std in NMH elec htd homes,
309
537
73
0 45
98 00
846
95
NSSE03
Superwindows in NSF homes w/ ER/-, South(post-'95)
473
521
7.4
0 24
98 24
452
96
EASER01
Improve RAC In EMF elec htd homes, Sth
10
16
7.4
0 01
98 25
629
97
EASGR01
Improve RAC in EMF non-elec homes, Sth
10
16
7.4
0.02
98.26
1103
98
EMSEC02
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std in EMH elec htd homes,
309
525
74
0.05
98 32
101
99
ESSER03
Improve ceiling In ESF ER/RAC homes, South
410
443
7.5
0 36
98.67
809
100
EASGC03
Variable speed CAC compressor, EMF g/o homes, Sth
105
176
7.5
0.02
98.70
135
101
EASEC03
Variable speed CAC compressor, EMF elec homes, Sth
105
176
7.5
0 03
98 73
155
102
ESNE04
Improve ceiling in ESF homes, North
14
15
7.6
0.01
98.74
619
103
ESSEC03
Switch to Improved HP in South ESF homes
109
162
7.7
0.24
98.98
1496
104
EMSGC02
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std in EMH non-elec homes,
309
501
7.8
0 06
99 04
126
105
EMNEC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in EMH elec htd homes, Nth
43
69
7.9
0 00
99 04
27
106
NASHP01
Improve HP to 92 std in NMF HP homes, South
49
70
80
0 04
99 08
564
107
ESSE02
Improve ceiling in ESF ER/- homes, South
403
409
8.0
0.26
99.35
642
108
NMNEC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in new elec htd MH, North
43
67
8.1
0 00
99 35
38
109
NMNGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in new non-elec MH, North
43
67
8.1
0.01
99 36
183
110
EMNGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 sld in EMH non-elec homes, Nth
43
64
8.5
0 01
99 37
192
111
NSNER04
Ceiling to R-60 in new SF homes w/ ER/RAC, North
148
139
8.6
0.04
99 41
281
112
NSNE04
Ceiling to R-60 in new SF homes w/ ER/-, North
148
138
8.7
0.12
99 53
864
113
EASGC02
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std in EMF non-elec homes,
169
234
9.1
030
9983
1287
114
EASEC02
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std in EMF elec htd homes,
169
234
9 1
0.35
100.18
1479
115
NASGR01
Improve RAC in NMF non-elec homes, Sth
10
13
9.2
0 00
100.18
99
116
NASER01
Improve RAC in NMF elec htd homes, Sth
10
13
9.2
0.00
100.18
318
117
NASGC03
Variable speed CAC compressor, NMF g/o homes, Sth
105
141
9.4
0.07
100.25
485
118
NASEC03
Variable speed CAC compressor, NMF elec homes, Sth
105
141
9.4
0.09
100.34
666
119
NSNEC06
Floor to R-30 in new SF homes, North
223
192
9.4
0.15
100.49
784
120
ESSEC04
Switch to Improved HP in South ESF homes
330
399
9.4
0.60
101.09
1496
-------
to 37 Jul I IS
lO
lO
Year 2010 MTP for Space Conditioning
Label
Measure
Code
Measure
Name
Incr.
Cost
1989$/unit
Energy
Savings
kWh/unit
CCE
cents/kWh
Energy Savings
Measure Cumulative
TWh TWh
Applicable
Stock
1(P
121
NSSEC04
Improve HP In South new SF ER/CAC homes
90
108
9.5
0 16
101.25
1484
122
ESSHP05
Improve ceiling in ESF HP homes, South
2
2
95
0.00
101.26
1865
123
NSNHP05
R-30 floor In new SF homes w/ HP, N (<*95)
311
261
9.7
0.16
101.41
596
124
ESNEC04
Improve ceiling insulation in ESF homes, North
480
393
99
0.26
101 67
661
125
NSNGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in NSF non-elec homes, Nth
43
54
10.0
0 22
101 89
3982
126
EANHP04
Improve HP(3) in EMF HP homes, North
228
254
10.2
0.30
102 18
1162
127
EMSHP03
Improve HP(2) in South EMH
114
127
10.3
0.00
102 18
13
128
ESNGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in ESF non-elec homes, Nth
43
52
104
0 36
102.54
6925
129
ESNHP07
Improve ceiling in ESF HP homes, Norlh
555
425
10.6
0 36
102.90
838
130
NSNHP08
R-30 floor In new SF homes w/ HP, N (>'95)
311
226
11.2
0.48
103.38
2147
131
NMSHP03
Improve HP(2) in South NMH
114
115
11.3
0.01
103 39
71
132
NASGC02
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std In NMF non-elec homes,
169
187
11.4
0.10
103.49
538
133
NASEC02
Improve CAC beyond 1992 std In NMF elec htd homes,
169
187
11.4
0.14
103.63
738
134
EASHP03
Improve HP(2) in EMF HP homes, South
62
62
11.4
0.03
103.66
548
135
NSSGC03
Improve CAC in South new SF non-elec homes w/ CAC
309
336
11 6
0 85
104 51
2519
136
EMNER02
Improve RAC(2) in EMH elec htd homes, Nth(post2000
56
59
11.8
0.00
104.51
14
137
NSSER05
Ceiling to R-38 in new SF homes w/ ER/RAC, South
322
219
11.9
0 07
104.58
318
138
NSSHP04
Improve HP in South new SF HP homes
109
104
11.9
0.34
104 92
3230
139
EMNHP04
Improve HP(3) in North EMH
347
327
12.1
0.00
104.92
9
140
ESNER04
Improve windows in ESF homes, North
316
210
122
0.13
105.05
605
141
ESNE05
Improve windows in ESF homes, North
316
209
122
0.13
105.18
619
142
NSSER06
Variable speed RAC in south NSF homes (post-2000)
67
59
12.4
0.01
105.18
149
143
NSNEC07
Ceiling to R-30 in new SF homes, North
19
12
12.5
0.01
105 19
784
144
NSNHP06
R-30 ceiling In new SF homes w/ HP, N(<"95)
44
29
12.6
0.02
105.21
596
145
NSSHP05
Wall to R-19 in new SF homes w/ HP, South
328
210
12 6
0.68
105.89
3230
146
NSSE04
Ceiling to R-38 in new SF homes w/ ER/-, South
322
205
12.7
0 13
106 02
616
147
ESSER04
Improve windows in ESF ER/RAC homes, South
425
269
12.8
0 22
106.23
809
148
EMSHP04
Improve HP(3) in South EMH
419
360
133
0.00
106.24
13
149
ESSE03
Improve windows in ESF ER/- homes, South
425
259
133
0.17
106.41
642
150
EASER02
Improve RAC(2) in EMF elec htd homes, Sth(post2000
56
53
133
0 00
106 41
74
-------
JO 37 Jill I
Year 2010 MTP for Space Conditioning
Label
Measure
Code
Measure
Name
Incr.
Cost
1989$/unit
Energy
Savings
kWh/unit
CCE
cents/kWh
Energy Savings
Measure Cumulative
TWh TWh
Applicable
Stock
103
151
EASGR02
Improve RAC(2) in EMF non-elec homes, Slh(post2000
56
53
13.3
0.01
106.42
129
152
ESSER05
Improve wall in ESF ER/RAC homes, South
325
197
134
0 16
10657
809
153
NSNGR01
Increase condenser rows in RAC in NSF non-elec, N
15
14
135
0 02
106 59
1202
154
ESSE04
Improve wall in ESF ER/- homes, South
325
191
13.8
0.12
106.71
642
155
NMSHP04
Improve HP(3) in South NMH
419
344
139
0 02
106 74
71
156
ESSGC03
Improve CAC(2) in ESF non-elec homes w/ CAC, South
293
263
140
1.46
108 20
5562
157
EANEC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in EMF elec htd homes, Nth
27
23
14.6
0 02
108.22
765
158
EANGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std In EMF elec htd homes, Nth
27
23
14.6
0.03
108.25
1421
159
ESNHP08
Improve windows in ESF HP homes, North
298
165
14 6
0.14
108.39
838
160
NSNHP09
R-30 ceiling in new SF homes w/ HP, N(>'95)
44
25
14.6
0.05
108 44
2147
161
ESNEC05
Improve window & wall In ESF homes, North
646
355
14.8
0 23
108 68
661
162
EASHP04
Improve HP(3) in EMF HP homes, South
228
164
158
0 09
108.77
548
163
NANGC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in NMF elec htd homes, Nth
27
21
160
0 02
108 79
919
164
NANEC01
Improve CAC to 1992 std in NMF elec htd homes, Nth
27
21
16.0
0 03
10881
1239
165
NSNGC02
Improve CAC In North NSF non-elec homes w/ CAC
264
208
160
0 83
109 64
3982
166
NANHP04
Improve HP(3) in NMF HP homes, North
228
161
16.1
0.03
109 67
171
167
ESNGC02
Improve CAC in North ESF non-elec homes w/ CAC
264
201
16.5
1.39
111.06
6925
168
NASGR02
Improve RAC(2) in NMF non-elec homes, Sth(post2000
56
42
166
0 00
111 06
47
169
NASER02
Improve RAC(2) in NMF elec htd homes, Sth(post2000
56
42
166
0.01
111.07
151
170
ESSEC05
Improve ceiling insulation in ESF homes, South
403
187
17.5
0 28
111.35
1496
171
NSSGR02
Increase condenser area of RAC, NSF non-elec, Sth
87
54
177
0 02
111 37
435
172
NSNGR02
Variable speed RAC, NSF non-elec, North (>2000)
83
46
19.8
0.02
111 40
539
173
ESSHP06
Improve windows in ESF HP homes, South
360
135
21.6
0.25
111 65
1865
174
NSNGR03
Increase condenser area of RAC, NSF non-elec, Nth
26
12
23 8
0.01
111 65
539
175
NASHP03
Improve HP(2) in NMF HP homes, South
62
26
26 9
0.01
111 67
564
176
NSSGC04
Improve CAC(2) in NSF non-elec homes w/ CAC, South
293
133
27 8
0 34
11200
2519
177
NSNGC03
Improve CAC(2) in North NSF non-elec homes w/ CAC
250
82
38 4
0.33
11233
3982
-------
10.44 Jul 1 1091
Year 2010 MTP for Refrigeration
15 H
i i i i ¦ ¦
Discount rate: 7.0 %
Forecast year 2010
Start year 1990
Baseline energy consumption (TWh)
for year 2010= 14????
9 "
6 "
3 -
O H
1989 Residential Price at
Electriaty - 7.60 cents/kWh
&
39% of
Baseline
Use
l
I
J
T
20
40
60
80
Energy Savings (TWh)
A supply curve of conserved electricity for the United States residential
sector. Each step represents a conservation measure (or a package of measur
es). The width of the step indicates the nationwide electricity savings fro
m the measure and the height of the measure indicates the cost of conserve
d electricity.
201
-------
Year 2010 MTP for Refrigeration
Label
Measure
Code
Measure
Name
Incr.
Cost
1989$/unit
Energy
Savings
kWh/unit
CCE
centsZk Wh
Energy Savings
Measure Cumulative
TWh TWh
Applicable
Stock
1(P
1
REF01
Improve refrigerator to 1993 standard
53
203
25
27.52
27 52
135449
2
FRZR01
Improve freezer to 1993 DOE standard
37
100
3.4
3 42
30 94
34248
3
FRZR03
5.3 EER compressor for freezer (post-2000)
10
25
38
0.47
31.41
18705
4
REF12
Recycle refrigerator condenser heat (post-2000)
40
100
39
6 81
38 22
68137
5
FRZR02
Evacuated panels for freezer (post 1995)
74
132
5.2
3.35
41 58
25402
6
REF02
Evacuated Panels for refrigerator (post 1995)
62
113
54
11 80
53 37
104387
7
REF13
Raise refrig compressor EER to 5.3 (post 2000)
10
18
55
1 23
54.60
68137
8
FRZR04
Freezer condenser gas heat
31
50
58
0 94
55.53
18705
9
REF03
Two-Compressor System for refrigerator (post 1995)
93
69
13.0
7 20
62 74
104387
-------
13 41 Jun 26 1091
Year 2010 MTP for Water Heating
T
T
t 1 ' r
9 -
6 -
3 *
o
Discount rate: 7.0 %
Forecast year 2010
Start year 1990
Baseline energy consumption (TWh)
(or year 2010= 184.526
10
HO
1989 Residential Price of
Bactridty — 7.60 cantsAWh
a
r
60% of
Baseline
Use
T
T
T
r
120
20
40 60 80
Energy Savings (TWh)
100
A supply curve of conserved electricity for the United States residential
sector. Each step represents a conservation measure (or a package of measur
es). The width of the step indicates the nationwide electricity savings fro
m the measure and the height of the measure indicates the cost of conserve
d electricity.
203
-------
Year 2010 MTP for Water Heating
Incr.
Energy
Energy Savings
Applicable
Label
Measure
Code
Measure
Name
Cost
1989$/unit
Savings
kWh/unit
CCE
cents/kWh
Measure
TWh
Cumulative
TWh
Stock
1 cP
1
EWH01
Improve clotheswasher to 1994 standard
1
45
0.2
2.14
2.14
47969
2
EWH02
Reduce hot water consumption
50
873
0.8
41.88
44 02
47969
3
EWH03
Improve dishwasher to 1994 standard
8
45
2.1
2.16
46.18
47969
4
EWH04
Reduce standby losses
120
425
3.4
20.39
66 56
47969
5
EWH08
Replace electric water heater with gas
1380
3539
4.7
16 61
83.17
4693
6
EWH07
Horizontal axis clotheswasher w/ EWH (1995-2000)
137
285
5.5
1.38
84 55
4855
7
EWH10
Horizontal axis clotheswasher w/ EWH(post-2000)
137
285
5.5
3.55
88.11
12473
8
EWH08
Heat pump water heater (post-2000)
504
1076
5.6
18 41
106.51
17106
9
EWH05
Heat pump water heater (1995-2000)
504
1076
5.6
4 64
111 16
4315
10
EWH06
Horizontal axis clotheswasher w/ HPWH (1995-2000)
116
143
9.2
0.26
111.41
1798
11
EWH09
Horizontal axis clotheswasher w/HPWH(post-2000)
116
143
9.2
1.98
113.39
13898
-------
1234 Jul 1 1991
Year 2010 MTP for Lighting
I1-
9 -
6 -
3 -
O H
T
i i i 1 1 1
Discount rate: 7.0 %
Forecast year. 2010
Start year 1990
Baseline energy consumption (TWh)
for year 2010= 124.206
->—r
1 1 1—i '—r
1989 Residential Price of
Bectridty — 7.60 centa/KWh
47% of
Baseline
Use
I
I
I
—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—n—i—i
20 40 60
Energy Savings (TWh)
80
100
A supply curve of conserved electricity for the United States residential
sector. Each step represents a conservation measure (or a package of measur
es). The width of the step indicates the nationwide electricity savings fro
m the measure and the height of the measure indicates the cost of conserve
d electricity.
205
-------
Label
Yea
Measure Measure
Code Name
r 2010 MTP lor Lighting
Incr. Energy
Cost Savings CCE
1989$/unit kWh/unit cents/kWh
Energy Savings
Measure Cumulative
TWh TWh
Applicable
Stock
itP
1
2
3
LTG01 Timer & Photocell (outdoor)
LTG02 Compact Fluorescent Lamps
LTG03 Compact Fluorescent Fixtures
27 151 2.0
102 342 3 3
263 293 9.9
17.69 17.69
40.07 57.77
34.33 92.10
117175
117175
117175
-------
12.-31 Jul 1 1991
Year 2010 MTP for Other
i 1 i • i
Discount rate: 7.0 %
Forecast yean 2010
Start year 1990
Baseline energy consumption (TWh)
for year 2010 = 234.365
1 1 1 f
9 *
6 -
3 *
O H
14
12
1989 Residential Price of
Electricity - 7.60 centa/KWh
9
6
11
10
34% Of
Baseline
Use
I
20
40 60 80
Energy Savings (TWh)
100
120
A supply curve of conserved electricity for the United States residential
sector. Each step represents a conservation measure (or a package of measur
es). The width of the step indicates the nationwide electncity savings fro
m the measure and the height of the measure indicates the cost of conserve
d electricity.
207
-------
J
:>
o
Year 2010 MTP for Other
Label
Measure
Code
Measure
Name
Incr.
Cost
1989$/uni\
Energy
Savings
kWh/unit
CCE
cents/kWh
Energy Savings
Measure Cumulative
TWh TWh
Applicable
Stock
1(P
1
MISE03
Improve dishwasher motor to 1994 standard
4
23
1.9
1 23
1.23
52729
2
CTV01
Efficient color TV set
8
34
3.0
3.71
4 94
108973
3
CD-E01
Improve clothes dryer to 1994 NAECA standard
22
73
3.1
5 08
10 02
69599
4
MISE02
Upgrade furnace fan efficiency
48
150
3.5
5 27
15 29
35153
5
CD-E02
Heat pump dryer
230
525
4.5
12.63
27 93
24068
6
BWTV01
Efficient black and white TV set
1
3
4.9
0.11
28 03
43355
7
MISE07
Horiz axis clthswshr w/EWH (motor svgs) 1995-2000
32
65
56
0.66
28 70
10263
8
MISE05
Horiz axis clthswshr w/EWH (motor svgs) post-2000
32
65
5.6
1.64
30 33
25315
9
CD-E03
Switch electric clothesdryer to gas
480
807
6 1
20 22
50 55
25056
10
ERNG02
Switch from electric to gas range
590
944
62
18 29
68 84
19384
11
ERNG01
Induction cooktop and improved oven (post-1995)
171
250
6.8
11.78
80 62
47110
12
MISE04
Horiz axis clthswshr w/HPWH (motor svgs) 1995-2000
53
65
9.3
0 25
80.86
3801
13
MISE06
Horiz axis clthswshr w/HPWH (motor svgs) post-2000
53
65
9.3
1.82
82 69
28209
14
MISE01
Improve miscellaneous appliance motor efficiency
190
190
110
22.26
104 95
117175
-------
APPENDIX 6: DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF LIGHTING ANALYSIS
This appendix contains documented spreadsheets used to create the lighting baseline
and the lighting efficiency measures. Indoor lights are assumed on from 3-5 hours per
day, and outdoor lights from 6-12 hours/day. Measures considered are: 1) Timer and
Photocell to control outdoor lights; 2) Compact Fluorescent screw-in lamps where
applicable without fixture change. Where CFLs do not fit, energy-efficient incandescents
(indoors) and halogen reflector lamps (outdoors) are installed; 3) Compact Fluorescent
Fixture replacement for the remaining incandescents, indoors and outdoors.
209
-------
LIGHTING BASE CASE ASSUf^TIONS
BASE CASE - Large SF (>2400 sq ft)
11.4 t of total
Number
of Lamps
Type
Watt/
Lamp
Hrs/
Day
Fraction/
Year
UEC
kWh
Cost
(1990S)
Re lamp
L i f e
(yrs)
Interior
3
5
4
Inc
Inc
Inc
100
75
60
5
5
3
0.85
0.85
0.9
4 65
582
237
52.25
S3.75
$3.00
0.55
0.55
0.91
Exterior
1
1
1
Inc
Inc
Inc
60
75
150
6
6
6
1
1
1
131
164
329
$0.75
$7.99
$7.99
0.46
0.46
0.46
Total
15
1908
$25.73
0.63
Base Case
i - Medium SF
(incl.
duplex)
38.8% of
total
Interior
2
3
2
Inc
Inc
Inc
100
75
60
5
5
4
0.85
0.85
0.95
310
349
166
$1.50
$2.25
$1.50
0.55
0.55
0.68
Exterior
1
1
Inc
Inc
60
75
6
6
1
1
131
164
$0.75
$7.99
0.46
0.46
Total
9
1121
$13.99
0.56
Base Case
: - Small SF,
Mobile
Home
19.2 % of
total
Interior
1
2
2
Inc
Inc
Inc
100
75
60
5
5
4
0.85
0.85
0.95
155
233
166
50.75
$1.50
$1.50
0.55
0.55
0.68
Exterior
1
Inc
60
6
1
131
SO.75
0.46
Total
e
686
$4.50
0.58
Base Case
- Apt
(2 or
more units, no duplexes)
27.6 *
Interior
3
3
Inc
Inc
75
60
4
4
0.85
0.9
279
237
52.25
$2.25
0.68
0.68
Exterior
1
Inc
60
12
1
263
$0.75
0.23
Total
7
779
$5.25
0.62
BASE CASE
WEIGHTED AVERAGE
10S6
$11.45
0.59
DEFINITION OF TERMS AND ASSUMPTIONS
1. % of total (population) values are from RECS1987 and are used to determine the weighted average cost,
UEC and re lamp life.
2. Cost assumes $0.75 per incandescent lamp. In the base case, all lamps are assumed to be
incandescent ('Inc').
3. Relamp life is equal to the rated lamp life (1000 hrs for mcandescencs) divided by the number of hours
of use per year.
4. Fraction/yr indicates the fraction of the year that the lamp is used. Vacation periods lower the fraction
for interior lights, but we assume that exterior lights will be used even during vacation periods.
5. Saturations and hours of use are from the following utilities' residential appliance saturation surveys-
Philadelphia Electric, Utah Power, Detroit Edison, Public Service Co. of Colorado, Cincinnati Gas and
Electric, West Penn Power, Public Service Indiana, and lowa-Ilinois Gas and Electric.
6. Lifetimes and wattages are from various manufacturers' catalogs.
210
-------
ASSUMPTIONS FOR FIRST LIGHTING CONSERVATION MEASURE (LTG01)
Timer and Photocell for Exterior Lights
Number
Type
Watt/
Hrs/
Fraction/
UEC
Cost
Relamp
of Lamps
Lamp
Day
Year
kWh
(1990S)
Ll fe
(yrs)
LTG01 -
Large
Single Family
Interior
3
Inc
100
5
0.85
4 65
0.55
5
Inc
75
5
0.85
582
0.55
4
Inc
60
3
0.9
237
0.91
Exterior
1
Inc
60
3
1
66
0.91
1
Inc
75
3
1
8 2
1.83
1
Inc
150
3
1
164
1.83
Timer £ Pcell
S100
X
0.35 sat
S35.00
Total
15
1596
$35 .00
0.84
LTG01 - 1
Medium
Single Family
Interior
2
Inc
100
5
0.85
310
0.55
3
Inc
75
5
0.85
349
0.55
2
Inc
60
4
0.95
166
0.68
Exterior
1
Inc
60
3
1
66
0.91
1
Inc
75
3
1
82
1.83
Timer I Pcell
$100
X
0.35 sat
$35.00
Total
9
974
$35.00
0.76
LTG01 - :
Smal 1
SF, Mobile Home
Interior
1
Inc
100
5
0.85
155
0.55
2
Inc
75
5
0.85
233
0.55
2
Inc
60
4
0.95
166
0.68
Exterior
1
Inc
60
3
1
66
0. 91
Timer i Pcell
S100
X
0.35 sat
$35.00
Total
6
620
$35.00
0.65
LTG01 - ,
Apartment
Interior
0
Inc
100
4
0.85
0
0.68
3
Inc
75
4
0.85
279
0.68
3
Inc
60
4
0.9
237
0.68
Exterior
1
Inc
60
6
1
131
0.46
Timer ( 1
Peel 1
$100 x 0.5 sat x
0.25
shared
$12.50
Total
7
647
$12.50
0.65
LTG01 WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
905
$28.79
0.72
UNIT ENERGY SAVINGS tkWh)
151
ENERGY SAVINGS
(S)
$13.14
UNIT ADDED COST
S28.79
NOTES:
1. This measure decreases the average hours outdoor lights are on in single family i mobile homes from
6 hours (basecase) to 3 hours. We assume 35% leave the lights on more than 3 hours/day and do not already
have a timer.
2. In the apartment building basecase, we assume that SOt of all units leave exterior lights on more
than 6 hours/day. In this measure, we reduce the hours of operation of those lamps from 12 to 6 hours/day.
Each timer and photocell is assumed to be shared by an average of four apartment units.
1. Saturations are from utility residential appliance saturation surveys (see basecase).
Cost data are from Grainger's General Catalog, No.377, 1990
211
-------
ASSUMPTIONS FOR SECOND LIGHTING CONSERVATION MEASURE (LTG02)
'Compact Fluoresceins (CF) where possible without fixture
change; energy saving incandescent] elsewhere. These
Include krypton lamps indoors (IncES) and halogen
lamps outdoors (Hal).
Number
Type
Watt/
Hrs/
Fraction/
UEC
Cost
Relamj
of Lamps
Lamp
Day
Year
kWh
(1990$)
Life
(yrs)
LTG02 - Large Single Family
Interior
2.1
IncES
95
5
0.85
309
51.73
0.55
2.5
IncES
70
5
0.85
271
$2.06
0.55
1.6
IncES
55
3
0.9
87
$1.32
0.91
0.9
CF
29
5
0.85
40
$27.09
5.48
2.5
CF
22
5
0.85
85
$68.85
4.93
2.4
CF
17
3
0.9
40
$33.60
9.13
834
Exterior
0.5
IncES
55
3
1
30
$0.41
0.91
0.5
CF
17
3
1
9
$7.00
9.13
0.5
CF
22
3
1
12
$13.77
9.13
0.5
Hal
45
3
1
25
$5.63
1.83
1
Hal
65
3
1
71
$11.26
1.83
Total
15
981
$172.73
3.70
LTG02 - Medium Single Family
Interior
1.4
IncES
95
5
0.85
206
$1.16
0.55
1.5
IncES
70
5
0.85
163
$1.24
0.55
0.8
IncES
55
4
0.9
58
$0.66
0.68
0.6
CF
29
5
0.85
27
$18.06
5.48
1.5
CF
22
5
0.85
51
$41.31
4 .93
1.2
CF
17
4
0.95
28
$16.80
6.84
106
Exterior
0.5
IncES
55
3
1
30
$0.41
0.91
0.5
CF
17
3
1
9
$7.00
9.13
0.5
CF
22
3
1
12
$13.77
9.13
0.5
Hal
45
3
1
25
$5.63
1.83
Total
9
610
5102.98
3 .50
LTG02 - Small SF.
Mobile
Home
Interior
0.7
IncES
95
5
0.85
103
$0.58
0.55
1
IncES
70
5
0.85
109
$0.83
0.55
0.8
IncES
55
4
0.9
58
$0.66
0.68
0.3
CF
29
5
0.85
13
$9.03
5.48
1
CF
22
5
0.85
34
$27.S4
4.93
1.2
CF
17
4
0.95
28
$16.80
6.84
76
Exterior
0.75
IncES
55
3
1
45
$0.62
0.91
0.25
CF
17
3
1
5
$3.50
9.13
Total
6
395
$57.49
3.20
LTG02 - Apartment
Interior
1.5
IncES
70
4
0.85
130
51.24
0.68
1.2
IncES
55
4
0.9
87
$0.99
0.68
1.5
CF
22
4
0.85
41
541.31
6.84
1.8
CF
17
4
0.9
40
$25.20
6.84
Exterior
0.75
IncES
55
6
1
90
$0.62
0.46
0.25
CF
17
6
1
9
S3.50
4.56
Total
7
398
S 70.63
3.70
212
-------
LTG02 WEIGHTED AVERAGE
563 S95.36
3.53
UNIT ENERGY SAVINGS (kWh)
ENERGY SAVINGS (5)
UNIT ADDED COST
342
S29.73
$83.92
Annualized unit added cost = $83.92 * CRF = $83.92 * 0.329 » $27.61
Net present value (incremental) = ($27.61 - $20.48) * 15 = $107
NOTES:
1. Because existing lamps can be retrofit by one of two lamp types, "number of lamps" may not be an integer.
2. Of interior lights, 30% of 100H fixtures, 50% of 75 W and 60% of 60W are retrofit. Of exterior lights,
50% of large and medium single family and 25% of small SF/mobile homes and apartments are retrofit.
3. The "unit added cost" is equal to the weighted average cost minus the basecase weighted average cost.
4. The annualized unit cost of the measure is equal to the unit added cost times the capital recovery
factor (D.R. - 7% and lifetime - 3.53 years).
5. The cost of the measure relative to the basecase (net present value) is equal to the difference between
the annualized unit added costs of this measure and the basecase, times the lifetime of the lighting
enduse (15 years).
6. Cost data are from Energy Federation Inc catalog, Massachusetts, March 1990.
7. Lifetimes and wattages are from various manufacturers' catalogs.
8. Saturations were estimated by LBL Principal Research Associate Barbara Atkinson.
9. Unit energy savings assumes that LTG01 precedes this measure.
213
-------
ASSUMPTIONS FOR THIRD LIGHTING CONSERVATION MEASURE (LTG03)
•Compact Fluorescent Fixtures (CF fix) retrofit for remaining
incandescents that could not accept screw-in fluorescents.
Number Type
of Lamps
Watt/
Lamp
Hrs/
Day
Fract ion/
Year
UEC
kWh
Fixture
Cost
(1990S)
Lamp
Cost
(1990S)
Relamp
Life
(yrs)
LTG03 - Large Single Family
Interior
2.1
Cf
fix
29
5
0.85
94
$174.76
$63.21
5.48
2.5
CF
fix
22
5
0.85
8S
$208.05
$68.85
5.48
1.6
CF
fix
17
3
0.9
27
5133.15
$22.40
9.13
0.9
CF
29
5
0.85
40
$27.09
S. 48
2.5
CF
22
5
0.85
85
$68.85
4.93
2.4
CF
17
3
0.9
40
$33.60
9.13
Exterior
0.5
CF
fix
17
3
1
9
$41.61
$7.00
9.13
O.S
CF
17
3
1
9
$7.00
9.13
0.5
CF
22
3
1
12
$13.77
9.13
0.5
CF
fix
22
3
1
12
$41.61
$13.77
9.13
1
Hal
65
3
1
71
$1.83
1.83
Total
15
486
S599.18
$327.37
6.60
LTG03 - Medium Single
Family
Interior
1.4
CF
fix
29
5
0.85
63
$116.51
$42.14
5.48
1.5
CF
fix
22
5
0.85
51
$124.83
$41.31
5.48
0.8
CF
fix
17
4
0.9
18
$66.58
$11.20
6.84
0.6
CF
29
5
0.85
27
$18.06
5.48
1.5
CF
22
5
0.85
51
$41.31
4.93
1.2
CF
17
4
0.95
28
$16.80
6.84
Exterior
0.5
CF
fix
17
3
1
9
$41.61
$7.00
9.13
0.5
CF
17
3
1
9
$7.00
9.13
0.5
CF
22
3
1
12
$13.77
9.13
0.5
CF
fix
22
3
1
12
$41.61
$13.77
9.13
Total
9
281
$391.13
$212.36
6.50
LTG03 - Small SF,
Mobile Home
Interior
0.7
CF
fix
29
5
0.85
31
$58.25
$21.07
5.48
1
CF
fix
22
5
0.85
34
$83.22
$27.54
5.48
0.8
CF
fix
17
4
0.95
19
$66.58
$11.20
6.84
0.3
CF
29
5
0.85
13
$9.03
5.48
1
CF
22
5
0.85
34
$27.54
4 .93
1.2
CF
17
4
0.95
28
$16.80
6.84
Exterior
0.75
CF
fix
17
3
1
14
$62 .42
$10.SO
9.13
0.25
CF
17
3
1
5
$3.50
9.13
Total
6
179
$270.47
$127.18
6.45
LTG03 - Apartment
Interior
0
CF
fix
29
5
0.85
0
$0.00
$0.00
5.48
1.5
CF
fix
22
5
0.85
51
$124.83
$41.31
5.48
1.2
CF
fix
17
4
0.95
28
$99.86
S16.80
6.84
0
CF
29
5
0.85
0
$0.00
0.00
1.5
CF
22
5
0.85
51
$41.31
6.84
1.8
CF
17
4
0 9
40
525.20
6.84
214
-------
Exterior
0.75 CF fix 17 6 1 28 S62.42 S10.50 4.56
0.25 CF 17 6 1 9 S3.50 4 .56
Total 7 208 S287.ll S138.62 6.23
LTG03 WEIGHTED AVERAGE 271 S369.21 S192.21 6.43
UNIT ENERGY SAVINGS 2 93
ENERGY SAVINGS (S) $25.4 5
UNIT ADDED COST S369.21 S108.30
Annualized unit added cost = $108.30 * CRF « $108.30 * 0 198 - $21.44
Net present value (incremental) - ($21.44 - S27.61) * 15 = -$92.55 + $369.21 » $276.66
NOTES:
1. The "unit added cost" of the lamps ($108.30) is equal to the weighted average cost minus the unit added
cost of the preceeding measure, LTG02.
2. The annualized unit cost of the lamps is equal to the unit added cost times the capital recovery factor
(D.R. «¦ 7* and lifetime - 6.43 years). The fixture cost is a one-time cost of $369.21.
3. The net cost of this measure over LTG02 (net present value) is equal to
annualized unit added lamp costs of the two measures times the lifetime of
plus the cost of the fixtures.
4. Cost data are from Energy Federation Inc catalog, Massuachusetts, March 1990 and Real Goods' Alternative
Energy Sourcebook catalog, CA, 1990.
the difference between the
the lighting enduse (15 years),
215
-------
APPENDIX 7: PEAR BATCH INPUT FILES
This appendix shows the space conditioning prototype input assumptions as they
appear in the input files to the batch version of PEAR (EAP 1987)
217
-------
PEAR BATCH FILES FOR NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
A. NORTH ELECTRIC FURNACE
> RUN = USN-ER CITY = CHICAGO , FOUND-TYP = BASMNT,
N-WINDOW =4 6.4, S-WINDOW =4 6.4,
W—WINDOW = 4 6.4, E-WINDOW = 46.4,
CEIL-R = 29, WALL-R = 15, INFILT= 0.4,
ROOF-COLOR = DARK, WALL-COLOR = DARK, WALL-MASS = NONE,
FLOOR-R = 15, WIND-SASH = WOOD, GLASS-TYP = REG,
MOV-INS = NONE, HTG-EQP = ER, HTG-EFF = 100, SETBACK = YES,
CLG-EQP = AC, CLG-EFF = 9.96, WIND-LAYS = 2
PROTO= 2S, AREA=1856, FOUND-R = NONE
PERIM = 128.7, WALLAREA = 1930.7
B. NORTH GAS/OTHER HEATED
> RUN = USN-GAS CITY = CHICAGO FOUND-TYP = BASMT,
N-WINDOW =54.425, S-WINDOW =54.425,
W-WINDOW = 54.425, E-WINDOW = 54.425,
CEIL-R = 28, WALL-R = 14, INFILT= 0.56,
ROOF-COLOR = DARK, WALL-COLOR = DARK, WALL-MASS = NONE,
FLOOR-R = 12, WIND-SASH = WOOD, GLASS-TYP = REG,
MOV-INS = NONE, HTG-EQP = GFUR, HTG-EFF = 80, SETBACK = YES,
CLG-EQP = AC, CLG-EFF = 9.96,
PROTO= 2S, AREA-2177, FOUND-R=NONE
PERIM = 132, WALLAREA = 1979.5
$
? WIND-LAYS
% SETBASE
* 0.26 1
* 0.74 2
C. NORTH HEAT PUMP
> RUN = USN-HP CITY = CHICAGO , FOUND-TYP = BASMNT,
N-WINDOW =55.55, S-WINDOW =55.55,
W-WINDOW = 55.55, E-WINDOW = 55.55,
CEIL-R = 28, WALL-R = 14, INFILT= 0.4,
ROOF-COLOR = DARK, WALL-COLOR = DARK, WALL-MASS = NONE,
FLOOR-R = 13, WIND-SASH = WOOD, GLASS-TYP = REG,
MOV-INS = NONE, HTG-EQP = HP, HTG-EFF = 7.24
CLG-EQP = HP, CLG-EFF = 9.8 6
PROTO= 2S, AREA=2222, FOUND-R = NONE
PERIM = 133.4, WALLAREA = 1999.9
$
? WIND-LAYS
% setbase
* 0.87 2
* 0.13 1
E. SOUTH HEAT PUMP
> RUN = USS-HP CITY = CHARLESTO FOUND-TYP = SLAB,
N-WINDOW =45.575, S-WINDOW =45.575,
W-WINDOW = 45.575, E-WINDOW = 45.575,
CEIL-R = 25, WALL-R = 11, INFILT= 0.63,
ROOF-COLOR = DARK, WALL-COLOR = DARK, WALL-MASS = NONE,
FLOOR-R = 0, WIND-SASH = WOOD, GLASS-TYP = REG,
MOV-INS = NONE, HTG-EQP = HP, HTG-EFF = 7.24
CLG-EQP = HP, CLG-EFF = 9.86,
218
-------
PROTO= IS, AREA=1823
PERIM = 186.6, WALLAREA = 1280.9
SETBASE
0.198
0.112
0.442
0.248
WIND-LAYS
1
1
2
2
FOUND-R
NONE
R5-2
NONE
R5-2
F. SOUTH ELECTRIC FURNACE
> RUN = USS-ER CITY = CHARLESTO FOUND-TYP = SLAB,
N—WINDOW =47.35, S-WINDOW =47.35,
W-WINDOW ¦= 47.35, E-WINDOW ¦= 47.35,
CEIL—R = 28, WALL-R = 10, INFILT= 0.62,
ROOF-COLOR = DARK, WALL-COLOR = DARK, WALL-MASS = NONE,
FLOOR-R = 0, WIND-SASH = WOOD, GLASS-TYP = REG,
MOV-INS = NONE, HTG-EQP
CLG-EQP = AC, CLG-EFF =
PROTO= IS, AREA=1894
PERIM = 186.6, WALLAREA
$
? WIND-LAYS
% SETBASE
* 0.12 1
*0.37 1
*0.12 2
* 0.39 2
= ER, HTG-EFF
9.96,
= 1999.9
FOUND-R
NONE
R5-2
NONE
R5-2
= 100, SETBACK = YES,
SOUTH GAS/OTHER HEATED
RUN = USS-GAS CITY = CHARLESTO FOUND-TYP = SLAB,
w-WINDOW =51.775, S-WINDOW =51.775,
W-WINDOW = 51.775, E-WINDOW = 51.775,
CEIL—R = 25, WALL-R = 14, INFILT= 0.56,
ROOF-COLOR = DARK, WALL-COLOR = DARK, WALL-MASS = NONE,
FLOOR-R = 0, WIND-SASH - WOOD, GLASS-TYP = REG,
MOV—INS = NONE, HTG-EQP = GFUR, HTG-EFF = 80, SETBACK =
CLG-EQP = AC, CLG-EFF = 9.96,
PROTO= IS, AREA°2071
PERIM ° 186.6, WALLAREA = 1365.2
$
? WIND-LAYS FOUND-R
% SETBASE
* 0.198 1 NONE
*0.122 1 R5-2
* 0.422 2 NONE
* 0.258 2 R5-2
YES,
219
-------
PEAR BATCH FILES FOR EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
A. NORTH ELECTRIC FURNACE
> RUN = NRTH-E CITY = CHICAGO , FOUND—TYP = BASMNT,
N—WINDOW =39.55, S-WINDOW =39.55,
W—WINDOW = 39.55, E-WINDOW = 39.55,
CEIL—R =20.84 , WALL-R = 4.68, INFILT= 0.54,
ROOF-COLOR = DARK, WALL-COLOR = DARK, WALL-MASS = NONE,
FLOOR-R «= 11, WIND-SASH = WOOD, GLASS-TYP ¦= REG,
MOV-INS = NONE, HTG-EQP = ER, HTG-EFF = 100, SETBACK = YES,
CLG-EQP = AC, CLG-EFF = 9.96,
PROTO= IS, AREA=1582, FOUND—R=NONE
PERIM = 168, WALLAREA = 1344
$
? WIND-LAYS
% baseline
* .241 1
* .759 2
B. SOUTH ELECTRIC FURNACE
> RUN = STH-E CITY = CHARLESTO , FOUND—TYP = SLAB,
N—WINDOW =36.75, S-WINDOW =36.75,
W—WINDOW = 36.75, E-WINDOW = 36.75,
CEIL—R = 18, WALL-R = 3.94, INFILT= 0.71,
ROOF-COLOR «=¦ DARK, WALL-COLOR = DARK, WALL-MASS = NONE,
FLOOR-R = 0, WIND-SASH = WOOD, GLASS-TYP = REG,
MOV—INS = NONE, HTG-EQP = ER, HTG-EFF = 100, SETBACK = YES,
CLG-EQP = AC, CLG-EFF = 9.96,
PROTO~ IS, AREA=1470
PERIM = 162, WALLAREA = 1296
$
? FOUND-R WIND-LAYS
%
baseline
*
.3337
NONE
1
*
.3703
NONE
2
*
.1403
R5-2
1
*
. 1557
R5-2
2
C. NORTH HEAT PUMP
> RUN = NTH-HP CITY = CHICAGO , FOUND-TYP «= BASMNT,
N—WINDOW =46.325, S-WINDOW =46.325,
W—WINDOW = 46.325, E-WINDOW = 46.325,
CEIL—R = 23.98, WALL-R = 6.83, INFILT= 0.45,
ROOF-COLOR = DARK, WALL-COLOR = DARK, WALL-MASS = NONE,
FLOOR-R = 11, WIND-SASH = WOOD, GLASS-TYP = REG,
MOV—INS = NONE, HTG-EQP = HP, HTG-EFF =7.24
CLG-EQP = HP, CLG-EFF = 9.86,
PROTO= IS, AREA=1853
PERIM = 182, WALLAREA = 1456
FOUND-R=NONE
$
? WIND-LAYS
% baseline
* .281 1
* .719 2
D. SOUTH HEAT PUMP
> RUN = STH-HP CITY
= CHARLESTO , FOUND-TYP = SLAB,
220
-------
2
N-WINDOW =44.6, S—WINDOW =44.6,
W-WINDOW = 4 4.6, E-WINDOW = 44.6,
CEIL-R = 21.53, WALL-R = 6.22, INFILT= 0.7,
ROOF-COLOR = DARK, WALL-COLOR = DARK, WALL-MASS = NONE,
'LOOR-R = 0, WIND-SASH = WOOD, GLASS-TYP = REG,
MOV-INS = NONE, HTG-EQP = HP, HTG-EFF = 7.2 4
CLG-EQP = AC, CLG-EFF = 9.86,
PROTO= IS, AREA=1784
PERIM = 179, WALLAREA = 1432
? FOUND-R WIND-LAYS
% baseline
* .2928 NONE 1
* .3712 NONE 2
* .1482 R5-2 1
* .1878 R5-2 2
E. NORTH GAS/OTHER HEATED
> RUN = NTH-G CITY = CHICAGO , FOUND-TYP = BASMNT,
N-WINDOW =38.75, S-WINDOW =38.75,
W-WINDOW = 38.75, E-WINDOW = 38.75,
CEIL-R = 21.13, WALL-R = 2.06, INFILT= 0.62,
ROOF-COLOR = DARK, WALL-COLOR = DARK, WALL-MASS = NONE,
FLOOR-R = 11, WIND-SASH = WOOD, GLASS-TYP = REG,
MOV—INS = NONE, HTG-EQP = GFUR, HTG-EFF = 82, SETBACK = YES,
CLG-EQP - AC, CLG-EFF = 9.96,
PROTO= IS, AREA=1550
PERIM = 166, WALLAREA •= 1328
FOUND-R = NONE
$
? WIND-LAYS
baseline
" .21 1
* .79 2
F. SOUTH GAS/OTHER HEATED
> RUN = STH-G CITY = CHARLESTO , FOUND-TYP = SLAB,
N-WINDOW =36.675, S-WINDOW =36.675,
W-WINDOW = 36.675, E-WINDOW = 36.675,
CEIL-R - 17.39, WALL-R = 2.12, INFILT= 0.72,
ROOF-COLOR = DARK, WALL-COLOR = DARK, WALL-MASS = NONE,
FLOOR-R = 0, WIND-SASH = WOOD, GLASS-TYP = REG,
MOV-INS = NONE, HTG-EQP = ER, HTG-EFF = 100, SETBACK = YES,
CLG-EQP = AC, CLG-EFF = 9.96,
PROTO= IS, AREA=1467
PERIM = 162, WALLAREA = 1296
$
? FOUND-R WIND-LAYS
%
baseline
*
.4712
NONE
1
*
.3718
NONE
2
*
.0878
R5-2
1
*
.0692
R5-2
2
221
-------
PEAR BATCH FILES FOR NEW MOBILE HOMES
A. NORTH ELECTRIC FURNACE AND HEAT PUMP
> RUN = NMH-NG CITY = CINCINNAT FOUND-TYP = CRAWL,
N-WINDOW =29.88, S-WINDOW =29.88,
W-WINDOW = 29.88, E-WINDOW = 29.88,
CEIL-R = 26, WALL-R = 18, INFILT= 0.36,
ROOF-COLOR = DARK, WALL-COLOR = DARK, WALL-MASS = NONE,
FLOOR-R = 14, WIND-SASH = ALUM, GLASS-TYP = REG,
MOV-INS = NONE, HTG-EQP = ER, HTG-EFF = 100, SETBACK = YES,
CLG-EQP = AC, CLG-EFF = 9.96,
PROTO= IS, AREA=1195
PERIM = 147.6, WALLAREA = 1180.7, WIND-LAYS=2
? HTG-EQP
# HP HP
HTG-EFF
7.24
CLG-EQP
HP
CLG-EFF
9.86
B. SOUTH ELECTRIC FURNACE
> RUN = NMH-S CITY = CHARLESTO FOUND-TYP = CRAWL,
N-WINDOW =29.88, S-WINDOW =29.88,
W-WINDOW = 29.88, E-WINDOW = 29.88,
CEIL-R = 20, WALL-R = 12, INFILT= 0.45,
ROOF-COLOR = DARK, WALL-COLOR = DARK, WALL-MASS = NONE,
FLOOR-R = 10, WIND-SASH = ALUM, GLASS-TYP = REG,
MOV-INS = NONE, HTG-EQP
CLG-EQP = AC, CLG-EFF =
PROTO= IS, AREA=1195
PERIM = 147.6, WALLAREA
$
? WIND-LAYS
% SETBASE
* 0.26 2
*0.74 1
*» ER, HTG-EFF
9.96,
= 1180.7
100, SETBACK = YES,
C. SOUTH HEAT PUMP
> RUN = NMH-S HP CITY = CHARLESTO FOUND-TYP = CRAWL,
N-WINDOW =29.88, S-WINDOW =29.88,
W-WINDOW = 29.88, E-WINDOW = 29.88,
CEIL-R = 20, WALL-R = 12, INFILT= 0.45,
ROOF-COLOR = DARK, WALL-COLOR = DARK, WALL-MASS = NONE,
FLOOR-R ~ 10, WIND-SASH
MOV-INS = NONE, HTG-EQP
CLG-EQP = HP, CLG-EFF =
PROTO= IS, AREA=1195
PERIM = 147.6, WALLAREA
$
? WIND-LAYS
% SETBASE
* 0.26 2
*0.74 1
ALUM, GLASS-TYP = REG,
HP, HTG-EFF = 7.24
.86,
1180.7
222
-------
PEAR BATCH FILES FOR EXISTING MOBILE HOMES
A. NORTH ELECTRIC FURNACE
> RUN = EMH-NG CITY = CINCINNAT FOUND-TYP = CRAWL,
N-WINDOW =25.62, S-WINDOW =25.62,
W-WINDOW ¦= 25.62, E-WINDOW = 25.62,
CEIL-R = 14.2, WALL-R = 10.8, INFILT= 0.45,
ROOF-COLOR = DARK, WALL-COLOR = DARK, WALL-MASS = NONE,
FLOOR-R = 10.8, WIND-SASH = ALUM, GLASS-TYP = REG,
MOV-INS = NONE, HTG-EQP = ER, HTG-EFF = 100, SETBACK = YES,
CLG-EQP = AC, CLG-EFF = 9.96,
PROTO= IS, AREA=1025
PERIM = 133.4, WALLAREA = 1067.3, WIND-LAYS=2
B. NORTH HEAT PUMP
> RUN = EMH-NHP CITY = CINCINNAT FOUND-TYP = CRAWL,
N-WINDOW =20, S-WINDOW =20,
W-WINDOW = 20, E-WINDOW = 20,
CEIL-R = 14.2, WALL-R = 10.8, INFILT= 0.45,
ROOF-COLOR = DARK, WALL-COLOR = DARK, WALL-MASS ¦= NONE,
FLOOR-R = 10.8, WIND-SASH = ALUM, GLASS-TYP = REG,
MOV-INS = NONE, HTG-EQP = HP, HTG-EFF = 7.24
CLG-EQP = HP, CLG-EFF - 9.86,
PROTO= IS, AREA=800
PERIM = 157.3, WALLAREA = 1258.7, WIND-LAYS=2
NORTH GAS/OTHER HEATED
RUN - EMH-NO CITY = CINCINNAT FOUND-TYP - CRAWL,
N-WINDOW =20.1, S-WINDOW =20.1,
W-WINDOW = 20.1, E-WINDOW = 20.1,
CEIL-R = 14.2, WALL-R = 10.8, INFILT= 0.45,
ROOF-COLOR = DARK, WALL-COLOR = DARK, WALL-MASS = NONE,
FLOOR-R = 10.8, WIND-SASH = ALUM, GLASS-TYP = REG,
MOV-INS = NONE, HTG-EQP = GFUR, HTG-EFF = 80, SETBACK = YES,
CLG-EQP = AC, CLG-EFF = 9.96,
PROTO= IS, AREA=804
PERIM = 158, WALLAREA = 1264, WIND-LAYS=2
D. SOUTH ELECTRIC FURNACE
> RUN = EMH-S CITY = CHARLESTO FOUND-TYP = CRAWL,
N-WINDOW =23.5, S-WINDOW =23.5,
W-WINDOW = 23.5, E-WINDOW = 23.5,
CEIL-R = 10.8, WALL-R = 10.8, INFILT= 0.56,
ROOF-COLOR = DARK, WALL-COLOR = DARK, WALL-MASS = NONE,
FLOOR-R = 6.8, WIND-SASH = ALUM, GLASS-TYP = REG,
MOV-INS = NONE, HTG-EQP = ER, HTG-EFF = 100, SETBACK = YES,
CLG-EQP = AC, CLG-EFF = 9.96,
PROTO= IS, AREA=940
PERIM = 170.6, WALLAREA = 1364.8, WIND-LAYS= 1
E. SOUTH HEAT PUMP
> RUN = NMH-SHP CITY = CHARLESTO FOUND-TYP = CRAWL,
•'-WINDOW =2 6.0, S-WINDOW =26.0,
WINDOW = 2 6.0, E-WINDOW = 26.0,
>_£IL-R = 10.8, WALL-R = 10.8, INFILT= 0.56,
ROOF-COLOR = DARK, WALL-COLOR = DARK, WALL-MASS = NONE,
223
-------
FLOOR-R = 6.8, WIND-SASH = ALUM, GLASS-TYP = REG,
MOV-INS = NONE, HTG-EQP = HP, HTG-EFF = 7.24
CLG-EQP = HP, CLG-EFF = 9.86,
PROTO= IS, AREA=1040
PERIM = 134., WALLAREA = 1072., WIND-LAYS= 1
F. SOUTH GAS/OTHER HEATED
> RUN = NMH-SO CITY = CHARLESTO FOUND-TYP = CRAWL,
N-WINDOW =21.18, S—WINDOW =21.18,
W—WINDOW = 21.18, E—WINDOW = 21.18,
CEIL-R = 10.8, WALL-R = 10.8, INFILT= 0.56,
ROOF-COLOR = DARK, WALL-COLOR = DARK, WALL-MASS = NONE,
FLOOR-R = 6.8, WIND-SASH = ALUM, GLASS-TYP = REG,
MOV-INS = NONE, HTG-EQP = ER, HTG-EFF = 100, SETBACK = YES,
CLG-EQP = AC, CLG-EFF = 9.96,
PROTO= IS, AREA=847
PERIM = 156, WALLAREA = 1248, WIND-LAYS= 1
224
-------
APPENDIX 8: CCE PATHS FOR SPACE CONDITIONING
This appendix shows detail on calculating the cost of conserved energy and energy
savings for space conditioning measures. The last page of this appendix contains the
detailed description of the ceiling and window options for existing buildings.
225
-------
CCE PATH for
NEW SINGLE FAMILY -- ELECTRIC FURNACES
HTG kWh CLG kWh UES kwh Delta S CCE c/kwh
A. NORTH (Chicago, IL)
CASE1: ER with CAC
baseline
11809.4
963.9
switch to HP 12: 8.83 HSPF, 10.96 SEER
4566.50
909.21
7297.6
222.00
0.3
triple glazing
3880.03
888.65
707.0
222.72
2.5
switch to HP 14: 9.5 HSPF, 13.3 SEER
3606.39
732.30
430.0
190.00
5.1
wall to R-19
3360.62
721.34
256.7
18S.60
5.8
branch (pre-95)
floor to R-30
3179.96
710.11
191.9
222.72
9.4
celling to R-30
3168.85
709.25
12.0
18.56
12.5
branch (post-95)
superwindows
2901.02
637.89
543.1
464.0
6.9
floor to R-30
2745.06
627.97
165.9
222.72
10.8
ceiling to R-30
2735.47
627.21
10.4
18.56
14.4
CASE2: ER, no clg
baseline
11809.37
branch (pre-95)
triple glazing + wall to R-19 + floor to R-30 (<9S)
8594.47
3214.90
631.04
1.6
branch (post-95)
superwindows + wall to R-19 + floor to R-30 (>95)
7222.19
4587.18
1095.04
1.9
celling to R-49 + wall to R-27
4702.01
2520.18
1540.48
4.9
celling to R-60
4564.50
137.51
148.48
8.7
CASE3: ER w/ RAC
baseline
11809.4
298.81
triple glazing + wall to R-19 + floor to R-30 (<95)
8594.47
282.32
3231.4
631.04
1.6
superwindows + wall R-19 + floor R-30 (>95)
7222.19
247.24
4 638.7
1095.04
1.9
ceiling R-49 + wall R-27
5506.78
237.67
1725.0
1354.88
6.3
celling to R-60
5369.27
236.01
139.2
148.48
8.6
(no RAC efficiency improvement measures are cost-effective in
the north)
.
B. SOUTH (Charleston, SC)
CASEI: ER with CAC
baseline
9114.35
3582.97
switch to HP S3: 9.06 HSPF, 13.03 SEER
3434.91
2806.28
6456.1
322.00
0.6
0.4 ACH, spec.sel.windows + R-5,2ft fndn
2257.69
1073.62
2909.88
681.84
1.9
wall to R-19
1889.92
1012.46
428.9
378.80
7.1
switch to HP#4: 9.5 HSPF, 13.3 SEER
1802.38
991.91
108.1
90.00
9.5
switch to HP»5: 9.93 HSPF, 15.14 SEER
1724.33
948.95
121.0
330.00
31.2
CASE2:ER with RAC
baseline
9114.4
1218.2
R5-2ft fndn + triple glazing + 0.4 ACH + wall R-19
3690.3
1018.3
5623.9
1061
1.5
RACI1: Increase condenser rows (9.42 EER)
3690.3
973
45.4
12
2.9
branch: ceiling to R-30 (pre-95)
3620.5
969.8
72.9
57
6.3
celling to R-30 + superwindows (post-1995)
3099.1
412.6
1151.6
530
3.7
ceiling to R-38 (post-1995)
2893.9
398.3
219.4
322
11.8
var speed RAC (post-2000)
2893.9
339
59.4
67
12.3
Incr. condenser area (post-2000)
2893.9
323
15.8
20
14.2
CASE 3 ER with no cooling
baseline
9114.4
0.4 ACH, 3 glazing, R-19 wall, R-5,2ft foundation
3690.3
5424
1061
1.6
celling to R-30
3620.5
70
57
6.6
superwindows (post-1995)
3099.1
521
473
7.3
celling to R-38
2893.9
205
322
12 6
226
-------
CCE PATH for
NEW SINGLE FAMILY -- GAS FURNACES AND HEAT PUMPS
HTG kWh
CLG kWh
UES kWh
Delta S
CCE c/ki
A. NORTH HEAT PUMP fChicago, IL)
baseline
6825.15
1047.46
improve Co 1992 std: 7.46 HSPF, 10.5
6623.87
1005.83
242.9
71
3.3
triple glazing
5474.41
966.94
1188.4
311
2.1
improve HP 13: 9.5 HSPF, 13.3 SEER
4298.85
763.37
1379.1
241.00
2.0
R-19 wall
3978.94
748.44
334 .8
266.64
6.4
branch (pre-95)
floor to R-30 (pre-95)
3732.93
733.37
261.1
311.08
9.6
ceiling to R-30 (pre-95)
3706.55
731.21
28.5
44.44
12.5
branch (post-95)
superwindows
3442.34
630.45
654.6
555.50
6.8
floor to R-30
3229.50
617.75
225.5
311.08
11.1
ceiling to R-30
3206.68
615.94
24 .6
44 .44
14.5
ceiling to R-38
3138.75
610.75
73.1
155.54
17.1
B. SOUTH HEAT PUMP (Charleston, SO
baseline
322S.4
3408.4
improve to 1992 std: 7.46 HSPF, 10.5
3130.3
3218.2
285.4
85.91
3.4
improve HP 12: 9.06 HSPF, 13.03 SEER
2577.5
2648.9
1122.1
182.71
1.9
0.4 ACH ~ spec.sel.windows + R5-2ft fndn
1795.4
1033.2
2397.8
710.97
2.4
improve HP 13: 9.5 HSPF, 13.3 SEER
1712.2
1012
104.1
108.90
12.0
wall to R-19
1532.9
981.1
210.4
328.14
17.8
D. NORTH GAS FURNACE (Chicago, IL)
CASE1: with CAC
baseline
1042
AC to 1992 std: 10.5 SEER
988
54
43
10.1
~ 12: 13.3 SEER
780
208
264
10.2
13: 14.87 SEER
698
82
250
38.2
CASE2: with RAC
baseline
323
RACI1: Incr condenser rows (9.42 EER)
309
14
15
11.4
RACI2: Increase condenser area (9.88 EER)
294
14
109
83.1
post 2000:
RACI3: (from RACtl) variable speed(>2000)
262
46
83
19.7
RACI4: Increase condenser area (9.88 EER)
250
12
26
22.9
C. SOUTH GAS FURNACE (Charleston, SO
CASE1: with CAC
baseline
3576
AC to 1992 std: 10.5 SEER
3407
169
50
3.7
spectrally selective windows
1594
1813
311
1.4
AC 12: 13.3 SEER
1258
336
309
11.6
AC 13: 14.87 SEER
1125
133
293
27.7
AC 14: 15.23 SEER
1099
27
82
38.8
CASE2: with RAC
baseline
1216
RACI1: Incr condenser rows (9.42 EER)
1162
54
12
2.4
RACI2: Increase condenser area (9.88 EER)
1108
54
87
17.7
post 2000:
RACI3: (from RACtl) variable speed(>2000)
989
173
67
4.2
RACI4: Increase condenser area (9.88 EER)
942
46
20
4 . 9
227
-------
CCE PATH for
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY — ELECTRIC FURNACES
HTG kWh CLG kWK UES kWh Delta S CCE c/kWh
A NORTH (Chicago, IL)
Case 1: with central air conditioning
base 1ine
18310.5
985.0
switch to HP i 3: 9.06 HSPF, 13.03 SEER
6639.1
803.7
11852.7
822.00
0.8
ACH to 0.41 + R-6.1S walls, ceil opt ions It 2,St6
5811.1
789.4
842.2
273.52
2.6
switch to HPI4: 9.5 HSPF, 13.3 SEER
5542.0
773.4
285.2
90.00
3.6
celling options St6
5174.4
748.2
392.8
480.27
9.9
R-8.43 wall ~ window op.l
4836.6
731.6
354 .5
645.91
14.7
celling option 7
4754.7
726.1
87 .3
213.45
19.7
Case 2: with room air conditioning
.
baseline
18310.5
305.3
ACH to 0.41 + R-6.1S wall + celling options lt2
1S942.2
299.9
2374
274
0.9
R-8.43 wall + ceil options 3,5,6t7 + wind op.l
13243.0
280.9
2718.2
1354.0
4.0
R-30 floor
11772.4
269.2
1482.2
1297.2
7.1
window options 2t3
210.2
315.S
12.1
Case 3: no cooling
baseline
18310.5
ACH to 0.41 + R-6.15 wall + ceil options l,2,5t6
3583
754
1.7
R-8.43 wall + ceil option 7 + window option 1
1469
859
4.7
R-30 floor
1471
1297
7.1
celling option 3
IS
14
7.6
window options 2t3
209
315
12.2
B. SOUTH (Charleston, SC)
Case 1: with central air conditioning
baseline
8200.8
3235.5
switch to HPI3: 9.06 HSPF, 13.03 SEER
3090.6
2540.7
5805
822.00
1.6
ACH to 0.46 + walls to R-6.4S + cell to R-21.81
244S.S
2409.6
776.2
444 .39
4.6
switch to HPI4: 9.S HSPF, 13.3 SEER
2332.3
2360.7
162.2
90.00
6.3
switch to HP 15: 9.93 HSPF, 15.14 SEER
2231.3
2073.8
387.9
330.00
9.7
ceiling to R-31.2
2090.7
2027.5
186.8
402.60
17.4
window option 1
2001.7
2007.6
108.9
425.29
31.5
Case 2: with room air conditioning
baseline
8200.8
1100.1
ACH to 0.46 + wall to R-6.45 + ceil to R-21.52
6S00.4
1043.9
1756.6
444.39
2.0
RACI1: Increase condenser rows (9.42 EER)
6S00.4
997.4
46.5
15.00
3.5
ceil to R-21.81 + ceil to R-31.2 (branches)
6080.3
974.6
442.9
409.65
7.45
window option 1
5821.4
96S.0
268.5
425.29
12.77
wall to R-8.29
5630.4
959.5
196.5
325.00
13.33
ceil to R-36.9 (branch)
5548.1
952.3
89.5
178.94
16.12
Case 3: no cooling
baseline
8201
ACH to 0,46 ~ wall to R-6.45 + ceil to R-21.81
6489
1711.7
451
2.1
ceil to R-31.2 (branch)
6080
408.8
403
7.9
window option 1
5821
258.9
425
13.2
wall to R-8.29
5630
191.0
325
13.7
ceil to R-36.9 (branch)
5548
82.3
179
17.5
228
-------
CCE PATH for
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY — HEAT PUMPS
HTG kWh
CLG kWh
UES kWh
Delta $
CCE ~/kWI
A. NORTH (Chicago, IL)
baseline
8721.7
1024 .8
switch to '92std: 7.46 HSPF, 10.5 SEER
8081.9
945.3
719.3
71
1 1
ceiling option 1
8014 .1
941.4
71.6
7
0.8
switch to HP 12: 9.06 HSPF, 13.03 SEER
6598.8
758.6
1598.1
151
1.1
ACH to 0.42 + walls to R-8.49
6253.4
751.0
353.0
121
2.8
switch to HP#3: 9.5 HSPF, 13.3 SEER
5963.8
735.7
304 .9
90
3.4
ceiling option 2
5959.2
735. S
4.8
3
5.2
ceiling options 6(7
5558.0
711.6
425.1
555
10.5
window option 1
5399.9
704.3
165.4
298
14.5
B. SOUTH (Charleston, SO
baseline
4121
3552
switch to '92std: 7.46 HSPF, 10.5 SEER
3999
3352
320.5
86
3.1
ceilings option 1
3975
3346
30.8
5
1.8
switch to HP 13: 9.5 HSPF, 13.3 SEER
2986
2641
1693.2
292
2.0
ACH to 0.48 + walls to R-7.95
2493
2542
593.0
304
4 1
ceilings to R-22.54
2492
2541
1.7
2
10.5
window optlonl
2383
2515
135.1
360
21.5
229
-------
DESCRIPTION OF CEILING AND WINDOW OPTIONS FOR EXISTING SINGLE FAM-
ILY HOMES
1. CEILING OPTIONS
1. Add R-19 to all non-insulated ceilings, including existing partially insulated ceil-
ings. Raises average ceiling R-value to R-20.6.
2. Add R-30 to all non-insulated ceilings, including existing partially insulated ceil-
ings. Raises average ceiling R-value to R-32.1.
3. Add R-49 to all non-insulated ceilings, including existing partially insulated ceil-
ings. Raises average ceiling R-value to R-51.4.
4. Add R-60 to all non-insulated ceilings, including existing partially insulated ceil-
ings. Raises average ceiling R-value to R-62.4.
5. Add R-11 to all insulated ceilings, not including
Raises average ceiling R-value to R-14.4.
6. Add R-19 to all insulated ceilings, not including
Raises average ceiling R-value to R-20.6.
7. Add R-30 to all insulated ceilings, not including
Raises average ceiling R-value to R-32.1.
8. Add R-49 to all insulated ceilings, not including
Raises average ceiling R-value to R-51.4.
2. WINDOW OPTIONS
1. Add single-glazed storm windows (external or internal) to single-glazed windows
on all homes. Includes homes with a mixture of window types.
2. Replace all single-glazed windows with double-glazed, low-e units. Includes the
replacement of single-glazed windows in homes with a mixture of window types.
3. Replace all single-glazed windows with double-glazed, low-e, argon-filled units.
Includes the replacement of single-glazed windows in homes with a mixture of win-
dow types.
—existing double-glazed window branch:
4. Replace all double-glazed windows with double-glazed, low-e units. Includes the
replacement of double-glazed windows in homes with a mixture of window types.
5. Replace all double-glazed windows with double-glazed, low-e, argon-filled units.
Includes the replacement of double-glazed windows in homes with a mixture of win-
dow types.
partially
partially
partially
partially
insulated
insulated
insulated
insulated
ceilings,
ceilings,
ceilings,
ceilings.
230
-------
APPENDIX 9: UTILITY RASSs USED IN FUEL SWITCHING ANALYSIS
This appendix shows which utility residential appliance saturation surveys (RASSs)
were used to estimate the fuel switching potential summarized in Table 14. We calculated
residential-customer-weighted saturations from the utility RASSs. Many of the RASSs are
confidential, so we do not include saturations for individual utilities here.
231
-------
UTILITY RASSes USED FOR ESTIMATES OF FUEL SWITCHING POTENTIAL
Utility
Customer
Water
Range
Drye
Pop' n
Heater
Note: X indicates utility data was included
for the particular enduse.
Alabama Power
956146
X
X
X
Arizona Public Service Co
473121
X
X
X
Baltimore Gas l Electric
89S881
X
X
X
Bonneville Power Administration
2960000
X
X
X
Central Hudson GsE
263SOO
X
X
X
Central Maine
426049
X
X
X
Cincinnati G4E
553307
X
X
X
Detroit Edison
1700732
X
X
X
Florida Power & Light (Miami)
2419770
X
X
X
Florida Power Corp. (Petersburg)
946389
X
X
X
Georgia Power
1251473
X
X
X
Houston Power
1192386
X
X
X
Illinois Power
535721
X
X
Iowa-Illinois GSE
244146
X
X
X
Long Island Lighting Co.
2820012
X
X
X
New England Power Service (MA)
1067567
X
X
X
New York State ESG
621500
X
X
X
Niagara Mohawk
1690000
X
X
X
Northeast Utilities (CT)
902000
X
X
X
Northeast Otilities (MA)
173000
X
X
X
Northern States (Minn)
1069079
X
X
X
Oklahoma G£E
548003
X
X
X
Orange & Rockland Utilities (NY)
208266
X
X
X
Pacific GfiE
3800000
X
X
X
Pacific Power/ Utah Power (CA)
26805
X
X
X
Pacific Power/ Utah Power (ID)
7108
X
X
X
Pacific Power/ Utah Power (MT)
23583
X
X
X
Pacific Power/ Utah Power (OR)
343001
X
X
X
Pacific Power/ Utah Power (HA)
85284
X
X
X
Pacific Power/ Utah Power (WY)
81146
X
X
X
Pennsylvania Power £ Light
889873
X
X
X
Philadelphia Electric
1297080
X
X
X
Portland General Electric (OR)
484293
X
X
X
Public Serv. EtG (NJ) Elec cust
213100
X
X
X
Public Serv. EtG (NJ) Gas cust
186200
X
X
X
Public Service Co. Colorado
944673
X
X
X
Public Service E&G (NJ), Comb.E&G1434400
X
X
X
Public Service Indiana
499432
X
X
X
Puget Power
618000
X
X
Rochester Gas i Electric
289188
X
X
X
Sacramento Municipal Utility-
328534
X
X
X
Salt River Project (AZ)
473776
X
X
X
San Diego GSE
919000
X
X
X
Seattle City Light
278724
X
X
X
Sierra Pacific Power Co.
185947
X
X
X
So. California Edison
3200000
X
X
X
Tampa Electric
398817
X
X
X
Tennessee Valley Authority
2800000
X
X
Texas Utilities
1342907
X
X
X
Union Electric (MO)
951154
X
X
Utah Power
465344
X
X
X
Virginia Power
1566400
X
X
X
West Penn Power (PA)
536700
X
X
X
Wisconsin Electric Power Co
766387
X
X
TOTAL POP'N
49,354,904
232
-------
APPENDIX 10: ACCESS LOGIC
This appendix summarizes the logic the supply curve program uses to calculate the
frozen efficiency baseline and the energy savings in the technical potential case.
233
-------
ACCESS Program: Description of Logic
1. Introduction
The ACCESS supply curve program runs on a Sun-4 mainframe computer and uses the Informix relational
rijHahasp- management system to store, analyze and process data. UNIX batch files run a series of Informix
programs which create data files for the SAS-operated graphics programs. The graphics programs create
supply curves of conserved energy. The user of ACCESS may create new data files, alter existing files,
specify the parameters of the supply curve forecast (e.g., the forecast time period, the fuel price forecast,
the type of fuel analyzed, etc.).
The logical framework behind the supply curve program is described below.
2. Definition of Terminology
In order to analyze energy savings potential in the residential sector, the sector's net energy use must be
disaggregated into appliance types and/or services provided. For this purpose, we define various enduses.
An enduse can be either an appliance which provides a service (such as a refrigerator, freezer, clothes
dryer, etc.), or it can be the service itself (e.g., space conditioning). One space conditioning enduse might
be modeled as a single-family home in the North with electric resistance heating and no cooling. Another
enduse might represent all homes built after 1990 in the South with heat pumps. The strategy of employing
many enduses to model a complex energy use such as space conditioning allows us to choose the most
appropriate conservation measures for each situation.
Once we have divided energy consumption into enduses, we can apply energy saving devices, or measures
to them. A measure is a device that can be applied to a certain fraction of the total enduse stock at a certain
cost and resulting in a certain amount of energy savings. We call this fraction of the enduse stock the eligi-
ble fraction. A measure might be as simple as wrapping a blanket around a water heater, or as complex as
a multi-component improvement in the building envelope plus improvements to the efficiency of the heat-
ing and cooling equipment
The measures are ranked in order of their cost-effectiveness using the cost of conserved energy (CCE). The
calculation of CCE is described in the main text. Once we have determined the most cost-effective
sequence
-------
the mechanical lifetime of the equipment.
For the space conditioning enduse, which we have modeled as various prototype homes due to the inter-
dependent nature of house location, envelope type, and heating and cooling requirements, we have
assumed that all existing homes (homes built prior to 1990) can be retrofit by 2010. New homes (those
homes built between 1990 and 2010) receive space conditioning improvements (over the way they would
otherwise have been built) at the ume of construction.
In order to find the aggregate energy savings or use for the residential sector, we need to know the number
of units within each enduse in any year. This number is called the stock. The efficiency of the stock, as
well as the number of units, changes over ume, due to old units retiring as they reach the end of their life-
time, and to units being added (e.g., a second refrigerator in an existing home, or a refrigerator required for
a new home). The stock forecast is from LBL-REM.
The analysis of energy conservation potential is based on a technical potential!best available technology
scenario. This scenario estimates the maximum possible savings that could be achieved if the most
efficient conservation technologies were deployed in all eligible households. The level of service provided
remains constant or is improved.
A summary of definitions of terms used in this section follows.
~ Enduse An appliance providing a service (such as a refrigerator) or the service itself (for example,
space conditioning).
~ Measure An energy saving device which is applied to an enduse.
~ Baseline UEC Energy consumption if no efficiency measures are employed.
~ Frozen efficiency baseline A forecast that assumes all appliances (or enduses) existing in 1990
remain at the 1990 stock-weighted average efficiency until they retire and are replaced with new
units having the average efficiency of new units bought in 1990. All units added after 1990 also have
the efficiency of 1990 new units.
~ Existing home A home that exists in 1990 (i.e., that was built prior to 1990).
~ New home A home that was built between 1990 and 2010.
~ Stock The number of units that comprise an enduse in any given year.
~ Additional units The number of units in each year that exceeds the number of units in 1990, that is,
the number of units added to the 1990 stock. Examples of additional units are: a second refrigerator
in an existing home, a refrigerator required for a new home, etc. Note that additional units do not
include replacements of existing 1990 units.
~ Technical potential scenario This scenario estimates the maximum possible savings that could be
achieved if the most efficient conservation technologies were deployed in all eligible households.
The level of service provided remains constant or is improved.
3. The Supply Curve Methodology
3.1. Energy Savings in the Forecast Year (2010)
The first step in determining the energy savings resulting from a conservation measure is to assess the
number of units (N) that are eligible for that measure. We assume that measures will be implemented only
at the time at which the 1990 existing units would naturally reure. We use a constant absolute rate of reure-
ment that depends on the lifetime of the appliance: each year the total number of 1990 stock that retires is
simply (1/lifetime) times the number of 1990 units. Conservation measures are applied to additional units
(units that are in addition to replacements of 1990 units) at the time they are added.
For space conditioning retrofits, we assume that all physically eligible homes will be retrofit by the year
2010 in the Technical Potential scenario.
We have created three types of enduses to account for the different energy uses in homes: new home space
conditioning, existing home space conditioning, and appliances in existing and new homes. Appliances in
new homes and in existing homes are treated idenucally.
235
-------
3.1.1. Number of units eligible for a measure
Two types of constraints affect the number of units in an enduse that are eligible for a measure: physical
and chronological. Physical constraints reflect the physical barriers to implementing a particular measure,
such as whether some fraction of the stock has already implemented the measure, or whether there is gas
service in the home (for fuel-swiiching measures), etc. The physical constraint for each measure is input
by the user. Chronological constraints shorten the amount of the total forecast time period in which the
measure may be applied. Such constraints depend upon two factors: (1) the lifetime of the enduse and (2)
the year in which the measure becomes commercially available.
The formulae used by ACCESS to calculate the number of units (N) eligible for a measure follows. There
are three enduse types: new home space conditioning, existing home space conditioning, and appliances.
Within each enduse type, we must evaluate different cases, such as whether the measure is commercially
available in the beginning year of the forecast or whether it becomes available in a subsequent year, and we
must compare the enduse lifetime to the number of years in which the measure could possibly be applied to
stock units. Only chronological constraints will be evaluated in this section; the physical constraints will
be addressed subsequently.
3.1.1.1. New Home Space Conditioning
(1) Measure is available in 1990
If the measure is aleady available in 1990, then all homes butlt between 1990 and 2010 will be eligi-
ble to receive the measure.
^m»I = Jloc*2010
(2) Measure is available sometime after 1990
If the measure becomes commercially available sometime after 1990 (in year y), then only the homes
built between year y and year 2010 wdl be eligible for the measure (since we assume that new home
measures can be implemented only at the time of construction).
W«w2= stocky- stock,
3.1.L2. Space Conditioning in 1990 Existing Homes Still Existing in 2010
For existing homes, we have only considered measures that are commercially available in 1990, therefore
Note: The stock of "existing" homes (i.e., those homes that existed in 1990) decreases over time due to
retirement. The homes that replace them are included in the new home space conditioning stock.
3.1.L3. Appliances
We assume a constant absolute retirement rate of ((1/L) times the number of 1990 units per year ), where
L is the lifetime of the appliance. We apply conservation measures to units existing in 1990 only at the ume
at which they are retired and a new replacement is bought. There is no "early retirement''. We apply con-
servation measures to additional units (the number of units in each year that exceeds the number of units in
1990) as they are introduced into the stock. The forecast of additions is from LBL-REM. The ume period,
T, of the analysis is 20 years in this particular case (i.e., 1990 to 2010). The calculation of the number of
units, N, to which a measure is applied, follows.
(1) Measure is commercially available in 1990
If the measure is commercially available in 1990, there are two possible situations that can occur by the
year 2010. If the lifetime is less than the forecast penod, then all 1990 exisung units will have retired by
2010. If the lifetime is longer than the forecast penod, then only a fraction of the 1990 stock will have been
replaced, as described below.
(la) Lifetime <=forecast time period (L <= T)
236
-------
If the lifetime of the enduse is less than or equal to the time period of the forecast, all 1990
units will have retired. Therefore, all units existing in 2010 are eligible for this measure.
Nappll - Stock 2010
(lb) Lifetime > forecast time period (L > T)
If the lifetime of the enduse is greater than the time period of the forecast, only a fraction of
the 1990 units will have retired. However, all units that have been added to the stock since
1990 (additions) are eligible. Thus, the number of units eligible for the measure is equal to the
number of units that have retired plus the number of additions.
T
Nappll = ( Stockmo - stock I990 ) + stock I990 * —
(2) Measure is commercially available after 1990
If the measure is only available after 1990 (in year y), we must make some modifications to the above
equations in order to account for the shortened period of possible implementation.
(2a) Lifetime > (2010 - y)
If the lifetime of the enduse is greater than the time period between the year the measure
becomes commercially available (year y) and 2010, then only a fraction of the units existing in
year y will have retired. The number of units eligible for this measure is thus the number of
units that have retired, plus the number of units that have been added between the years y and
2010.
Nappl2 = (StOCkmo ~ StOCky ) + Stock, *
(2b) Lifetime <= (2010 - y)
If the lifetime of the enduse is less than or equal to the ume period between the year the meas-
ure becomes commercially available (year y) and 2010, then all of the units existing in year y
will have reared. Therefore the number of units eligible for this measure is the total number of
units in 2010.
Ngppli ~ Stock 2010
3.1.2. Calculation of the Frozen Efficiency Baseline
The frozen efficiency forecast of energy consumption in 2010 is the total residential energy consumption
predicted if no efficiency measures are taken. The forecast assumes that all appliances existing in 1990
will remain at the 1990 stock-weighted average efficiency until they retire and are replaced with units hav-
ing the average efficiency of 1990 new units. We assume a constant rate of replacement that is dependent
upon the lifetime of the appliance. All units added after 1990 also have the average efficiency of 1990 new
units.
For space conditioning enduses, the energy consumption of existing homes is the product of the number of
1990 stock homes still existing (a program input from LBL-REM) and the baseline UEC. The energy use
of homes built after 1990 is simply the product of the number of new homes and the new home baseline
UEC.
The energy use of each enduse is made up of three parts: (1) energy use of units added since 1990, (2)
energy use of the fraction of 1990 stock that has not been replaced by 2010, and (3) energy use of the frac-
tion of 1990 stock that has been replaced. The lifetime of the enduse determines how many units have
been replaced, and so we look at two cases:
(1) Lifetime <= 20
Ail 1990 stock units have been replaced, thus
Energy (£) = stock 2010 * uec new
237
-------
(2) Lifetime > 20
Only a portion of the 1990 stock will have been replaced.
Energy (E) = Ex + E2 + Ei
where E(l) = consumption of units added since 1990, or
Ei = (stockjoio ~ slock J990) * uecjiew ,
and E(2) = consumption of 1990 stock that has not been replaced
. , . (L-20) .
E2 = stock ]990 * -—-—- * uecex ,
I*
and E(3) = consumption of 1990 stock that has been replaced
20
£3 = stock 1990 * — * uec new
L*
where
L = lifetime of the enduse
uec_ex = unit energyconsumption of existing 1990 units
uec_new = unit energy consumption of a new unit in 1990.
3.1 J. Calculation of Energy Savings
The energy savings for each measure is calculated independently of the frozen efficiency baseline, then
summed over all the measures and subtracted from the baseline. The energy savings for each measure is
equal to the number of units (N) that are candidates for a measure when time constraints are taken into con-
sideration (as determined in the previous section) times the user-input physical constraint on the number of
units that are eligible for the measure (aplbl.stock), times the amount of energy the measure saves over the
preceding measure. The latter is called the unit energy savings (UES). Thus, the energy savings is calcu-
lated with the following equation:
Savings =N*aplbl_stock? UES
The physical constraint (aplbl_stock) is a required input for each measure. The physical constraints apply
to existing homes in 1990. New homes are likely to present different physical constraints to appliances that
are placed in them than existing homes would, but we have not accounted for the possible difference (apart
from in the space conditioning enduses, where new homes and existing homes are separate enduses, and
thus have inherently different characteristics).
For appliance and existing home space conditioning enduses, the baseline level of unit energy consumption
(UEC) Is the average UEC of units bought in 1990. Unit energy savings (UES) for the first measure of
each enduse is catanlafful from this new unit baseline UEC. Savings that would occur naturally due to turn-
over are accounted for in ihe frozen efficiency baseline. We therefore avoid double-counting the naturally-
occurring savings doe to turnover.
238
------- |