ENERGY STAR Market and Industry Scoping Report Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps



ENERGY STAR
ENERGY STAR Market & Industry Scoping Report
Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
December 2011
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) consistently looks for new opportunities to expand
ENERGY STAR to new product categories that will deliver significant benefits to consumers and the
environment in the form of energy and dollar savings plus greenhouse gas reductions. A key step in
this evaluation is the development of a scoping report that provides a snapshot of the product market,
energy use, and savings potential associated with an ENERGY STAR program for the scoped product
type. EPA uses scoping findings to prioritize product specification development work. While scoping
reports are drafted primarily for internal evaluation purposes, and are not intended to be exhaustive but
rather a guidepost for the ENERGY STAR program, EPA makes the reports available with the interest
of benefiting other efficiency programs evaluating similar opportunities. For more information about the
ENERGY STAR specification development process, go to: www.enerqvstar.gov/productdevelopment.
1. Product & Technology Overview
Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners (PTACs) are air conditioning units intended for mounting through
the wall that have a wall sleeve and a separate unencased combination of heating and cooling
assemblies. A PTAC includes refrigeration components, separable outdoor louvers, forced ventilation,
and a heating system that may utilize hot water, steam, or electric resistance.1 A Packaged Terminal
Heat Pump (PTHP) (also known as a heat pump PTAC) is a type of PTAC that uses a reverse cycle
refrigeration system for heating and includes a supplementary heat source. These supplementary heat
sources can include hot water, steam, or electric resistance.2
According to the Department of Energy's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) Technical Support
Document, the following are:
1.	product features common to most or all PTACs/PTHPs, and
2.	key components that manufacturers could employ to derive further energy efficiency gains from
PTACs/PTHPs
Product Features3
•	Direct Expansion Cooling System with Optional Supplemental Heat PTACs/PTHPs employ a
Direct Expansion (DX) cooling system. The primary components of a Direct Expansion (DX)
Cooling System include a compressor, evaporator coil and condenser coil.
•	Energy Management Capability Some new models include the capability to integrate into
commercial energy management systems to provide remote management capability. These
systems typically include capability that automatically limits HVAC energy consumption in
unoccupied rooms.
1From the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6311(10)(A)
2From the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6311(10)(B)
3 From DOE, "Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Energy Conservation Standard Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Technical
Support Document, Market and Technical Analysis" at
http://www1.eere.enerav.gov/buildinas/appliance standards/commercial/ptacs pthps tsd.html
ENERGY STAR Market & Industry Scoping Report: PTAC/PTHP
Page 1 of 23

-------
o Motion and Temperature Sensing Many PTACs/PTHPs include temperature and motion
sensing capability in order to preserve user comfort and limit energy use.
o Remote Unit Operation Optional digital energy management interfaces allow for operation
and control from a central energy management system. According to DOE, "an operations
manager or energy management system can turn off or digitally set the temperature of the
PTAC or PTHP units not in use to conserve energy. This control strategy is commonly found
in hotels and motels."
o Energy Management Software Some new models (including Amana's) are sold with wireless
energy management software. These systems include an in-room wireless thermostat that
can be controlled by a single controller within a building through the use of proprietary
software systems.
o Separate Energy Management Kits For some models, an energy management kit is sold
separately, which can include an upgraded LED display to replace the knob-based controls
on older units and upgrade the units to be compatible with the energy management systems
and software described above.
Opportunities for Improved Energy Efficiency4
• Compressor Most PTAC/PTHP units employ a rotary compressor. However, other options
include scroll compressors and scroll or rotary compressors with variable speed capability.
o Rotary Compressors Rotary compressors are currently found in the majority of PTAC
and PTHP models because of their small size and high efficiency. The high efficiency of
the rotary compressor can be attributed to its ability to simultaneously take in and
compress refrigerant.
o Scroll Compressors According to the Department of Energy (DOE), a more efficient
alternative to rotary compressors are scroll compressors. Scroll compressors are slightly
larger and more costly than rotary compressors. Scroll compressors are mainly used in
automotive applications and certain residential AC systems
o Variable-Speed Capability Variable-speed-capable compressors were also identified by
DOE as an opportunity for increased energy efficiency. The variable-speed function is
electronically controlled, which allows the compressor output to vary to meet demand.
• Heat Exchanger A key method for reducing energy consumption in PTACs/PTHPs is to either
increase the surface area of a conventional heat exchanger using additional cooling loops
and/or to leverage advanced heat exchanger technologies including microgroove or
microchannel heat exchangers.
o MicroChannel Heat Exchangers MicroChannel heat exchangers employ several small
channels to conduct refrigerant. Heat exchangers employing this design enable greater
heat transfer per unit without allowing pressure to drop as far as in conventional heat
exchangers. While conventional PTACs do not require condensate removal,
microchannel heat exchangers used in PTHP applications do. This requirement for
microchanel PTHPs to include condensate removal for efficient operation, may
potentially limit the use of this technology in PTHP applications,
o Microgroove Heat Exchangers Recent R&D efforts have also focused on a higher
efficiency variation of conventional heat exchanger technology. These microgroove heat
exchangers are characterized by smaller diameter copper tubes in a staggered
arrangement. These copper tubes also include a "microgrooved" internal treatment to
4 See Footnote 3
ENERGY STAR Market & Industry Scoping Report: PTAC/PTHP
Page 2 of 23

-------
enhance heat transfer. According to the International Copper Association, these
enhancements increase energy efficiency and durability while using less tube and fin
material and less refrigerant. Both microchannel and microgroove heat exchanger
technologies enable increased energy performance and/or smaller/lighter heat
exchangers with equivalent performance to conventional designs.5
o Expanding Surface Areas of Conventional Heat Exchangers Greater heat exchange
area improves the efficiency of the refrigeration cycle. However, increasing the face area
of the condenser coil can increase overall system size and add cost to the system,
o Building Additional Cooling Loops into Heat Exchangers Manufacturers can design
multiple and/or subcooling loops into a PTAC/PTHP's heat exchanger, which can
enhance efficiency and system capacity.
• Fan Design and Thermal Bridging Airflow leakage and efficiency can be addressed by
employing more efficient fan blade design, more effective insulation and sealants.
o Fan Design Fan performance can be improved by modifying the fan diameter, shape
and/or axis, as well as by adding additional fans to the unit itself. For example dual-fan
PTACs or PTHPs allow manufacturers to include multiple fan blade types. In addition,
multiple-fan units can also perform efficiently under diverse heating and cooling
conditions.
o Thermal Bridging Insulation and sealants can reduce the energy consumption of a PTAC
and PTHP unit by reducing unnecessary heat transfer. More specifically, insulation,
which often is made of rubber padding and extruded polystyrene, can curtail heat
transfer between the condenser and evaporator assemblies.
• Heat Pipes Employing heat pipes in the design of a heat exchanger helps to improve the energy
performance of the heat exchanger by eliminating the need for more energy-intensive pre-
cooling.
• Corrosion Protection Weatherization of PTACs/PTHPs reduces the level of weather-related
corrosion that can negatively impact the energy performance of the cooling system. More
specifically, certain material coatings, including polyester powder coat paint, can assist in
decreasing corrosion from water, salt and scratches, thereby enhancing energy performance.
Energy performance can also be enhanced by substituting 1) polymers for steel in the
production of wall sleeves (which also reduces operating noise) and 2) stainless steel for copper
in the design of outdoor coils.
• Smart Grid Capability Based on feedback EPA received from stakeholders during the room air
conditioner specification development and revision process, EPA should consider PTACs/PTHP
smart grid capability requirements. These requirements include secure bi-directional
communications capability for purposes of both energy management and smart gird capability.
This capability could either be (1) optional, with compliant products indicated on the Qualified
Products List (QPL), or (2) mandatory, if supported by the PTAC/PTHP market.
5 For more information, please see http://www.microgroove.net/.
ENERGY STAR Market & Industry Scoping Report: PTAC/PTHP
Page 3 of 23

-------
2. Market Assessment
As of 2005, the following companies comprised 100% of the standard-size market in PTACs and
PTHPs6:
PTAC/PTHP Product Manufacturers
• General Electric
• Carrier Corporation
• Amana (Goodman Manufacturing)
• Trane (American Standard)
• McQuay International
• Friedrich Corporation
• Fedders Corporation
• Sanyo Fischer Corporation
• LG Electronics
PTAC/PTHP Product Manufacturers with AHRI-Certified Products7
. Eair LLC
• Friedrich
• General Electric
• Goodman Manufacturing
• Gree Electric Appliances Inc. of Zhuhai
• Heat Controller, Inc.
• LG Electronics
• McQuay International
• Sanyo Commercial Solutions
PTAC/PTHP Shipments and Sales
As of 2002, annual PTAC and PTHP sales were approximately 400,000, according to the Census
Bureau and BSRIA. The volume of shipments from the Census Bureau's Current Industrial Reports:
Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and Warm Air Heating Equipment, and BSRIA in the U.S. Market for
Residential and Specialty Air Conditioning: Packaged Terminal Air Conditioning differs by less than
40,000 units. More up-to-date market data from AHRI or others could further scope the market size as
well as provide insight to shipment-weighted efficiencies.
Sales are largely driven by hotel and motel demand. Hotel/motel owners purchase units directly from
manufacturers and distributors, either by regional or national affiliation. Multiple replacement models
are purchased to keep on-hand should an existing PTAC malfunction. This practice keeps rooms
available for business. Replacement and renovation of hotel rooms accounts for 50% of sales, newly
constructed hotels account for 40%, with the remainder being installed in multi-family dwellings, nursing
homes, and other small buildings. Shipment data from 2003 is shown below in Figure 1 and the
corresponding market share of PTACs and PTHPs by heating option is shown in Figure 2.
6 From DOE Market and Technology Assessment TSD
7 From the AHRI Directory, 21 March 2011
ENERGY STAR Market & Industry Scoping Report: PTAC/PTHP
Page 4 of 23

-------
Figure 1: PTAC/PTHP Actual and Projected Unit Shipments
500 -I	

¦ 1


I 1
n


1995
* — Proje
Conditior
1996 1997
ction. Data taken frorr
ling, (Dec. 2003).
1998 1999
l BSRIA, U.S. Mark
2000 2001
et for Residential an
2002 2003*
d Specialty Air Com
2004* 2005*
ditioning: Packede 1
2006* 2007*
'erminal Air
Figure 2: Percentage of PTACs/PTHPs of Units Shipped
PTHP
44%
2002 Shipments = 390,000
PTAC - Cooling Only
PTAC -w/Heat
50%
Data taken from BSRIA, U.S. Market for Residential and Specialty Air Conditioning: Packede Terminal Air Conditioning, (Dec. 2003).
ENERGY STAR Market & Industry Scoping Report: PTAC/PTHP
Page 5 of 23

-------
In 2008, the US market for PTACs was approximately $143 million.8 As of an assessment undertaken
in 2003, total sales were anticipated to grow 2.5% per year until 2008.9 Without including the costs of
installation, a standard PTAC costs approximately $575, while a PTHP costs $650. Incremental costs
for more efficient units are approximately $75. According to RS Means, total costs of installation of a
10
unit in a newly constructed building costs $1,150 to $1,400 per unit.
Utility Incentives for Energy Efficient PTACs/PTHPs
Dozens of public and investor-owned electric utilities across all regions of the United States offer
purchase incentives for PTACs and PTHPs. Incentives for PTACs/PTHPs are typically offered through
standard-offer HVAC or commercial programs that favor units under 65,000 btu/hr (~5 tons). Sample
incentives are detailed in the table below:
Table 1: Sample Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners (PTACs) Incentive Levels
Utility
Qualifying Unit
Size (BTU/hr)
Minimum EER
Incentive
JEA (formerly Jacksonville11
Electric Authority)
8,000 or less
11.8
$50/ton12
8,000-10,500
11.4
10,500-13,500
10.7
13,500 or more
10.0
Pacific Gas and Electric13
7,000 or less
11.29
$100/unit
7,000-15,000
10.27
15,000 or more
9.25
Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA)14
8,000 or less
11.8
$20/ton
8,000-10,500
11.4
10,500-13,500
10.7
13,500 or more
10.0
Salt River Project (SRP)15
8,000 or less
11.8
$50/ton
8,000-10,500
11.4
10,500-13,500
10.7
13,500 or more
10.0
Consolidated Edison16
All Sizes
13.1 - (0.213 x(Btu/h/1000)
$50/ton
Commonwealth Edison17
All Sizes
13.08 - (0.2556*Btu/h/1000)
$50/ton
Duke Energy18
All Sizes
12.8 - (0.213*Btu/h/1000)
$10/unit
Southern California
Edison19
24,000 or less
10.9 - (0.213*Btu/h/1000)
$100/unit
8	According to 2008 US Census Current Industrial Reports for Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment data
9	BSRIA, US Market for Residential and Specialty Air Conditioning: Packaged Terminal Air Conditioning (2003)
10	R.S. Means, 2003 Residential Cost Data
11	See http://www.jea.com/community/conservcenter/business/heating_measures.asp
121 Ton = 12,000 btu/hr
13	See http://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/mybusiness/energysavingsrebates/incentivesbyindustry/hvac_catalog_final.pdf
14	See http://www.energyright.com/commercial/forms/StandardRebateApplication-HVAC.PDF
15	See http://www.srpnet.com/energy/powerwise/business/standardrebate.aspx
16	See http://www.conedci.com/HVAC.aspx
17	See https://www.comed.com/Documents/BusinessSavings_Programs/HVACApp.pdf
18	See http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/NC_HVAC.pdf
19	See http://asset.sce.com/Documents/Business%20-%20Energy%20Management%20Solutions/100721_Hospitality.pdf
ENERGY STAR Market & Industry Scoping Report: PTAC/PTHP
Page 6 of 23

-------
Table 2: Sample Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps (PTHPs) Incentive Levels
Utility
Qualifying Unit
Size (BTU/hr)
Minimum EER (COP if
Specified)
Incentive
JEA (formerly Jacksonville
Electric Authority)
8,000 or less
11.8 (3.3)
$50/ton
8,000-10,500
11.4 (3.2)
10,500-13,500
10.7 (3.1)
13,500 or more
10.0 (3.0)
Pacific Gas and Electric
7,000 or less
11.29
$100/unit
7,000-15,000
10.27
15,000 or more
9.25
Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA)
8,000 or less
11.8 (3.3)
$20/ton
8,000-10,500
11.4 (3.2)
10,500-13,500
10.7 (3.1)
13,500 or more
10.0 (3.0)
Salt River Project (SRP)
8,000 or less
11.8
$50/ton
8,000-10,500
11.4
10,500-13,500
10.7
13,500 or more
10.0
Consolidated Edison
All Sizes
13.1 -(.213* Cap(kBTU/h /1000)
$50/ton
Commonwealth Edison
All Sizes
13.08-(.2556* Cap(kBTU/h /1000)
$50/ton
Southern California Edison
24,000 or less
10.8-(.213* Cap(kBTU/h/1000)
$100/unit
3. Energy Efficiency Assessment
Available Test Procedures
• ANSI/AHRI 310/380-2004 (formerly ARI 310/380-2004^ CSA C744-04This is the most up-to-
date test method published by the Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI)
and the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) on PTAC/PTHPs. The 2004 test method was
the result of a joint effort of AHRI and CSA to combine AHRI 310-90 (for PTACs) and AHRI 380-
90 (for PTHPs). Using this standard, PTACs/PTHPs can be tested at standard rating conditions
(and are tested by AHRI in its Certification Program) to derive the following efficiency metrics:
Table 3: Metrics Derived from ANSI/AHRI 310/380-2004
Product Type
AHRI Certified Ratings
PTACs
•	Cooling Capacity, Btu/h
•	Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER), Btu/W.h
•	Heating Capacity, Btu/h
PTHPs
•	Cooling Capacity, Btu/h
•	Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) , Btu/W.h
•	High-Temperature Heating Capacity, Btu/h
•	High-Temperature Coefficient of Performance (COP), W/W
•	Low-Temperature Heating Capacity, Btu/h
•	Low-Temperature Coefficient of Performance (COP), W/W
ENERGY STAR Market & Industry Scoping Report: PTAC/PTHP
Page 7 of 23

-------
Available Products and Efficiency Thresholds
PTACs and PTHPs are regulated by the Department of Energy under the Energy Policy and
Conservation act of 1974. In 2008, the Department of Energy amended these standards to increase the
efficiency baselines for both PTACs and PTHPs. In this rulemaking, DOE classified the PTAC and
PTHP products into standard and non-standard sized equipment. It is important to note for this analysis
that though AHRI does not distinguish between standard and non-standard size equipment in its
directory of certified products, manufacturers claim that all the units listed in the AHRI directory are
standard size units. Furthermore, most standard size PTACs for sale in the US are listed in the
directory, and manufacturers consider the directory to cover the range of available efficiencies. There
was no analogous directory for non-standard size PTACs readily available. Anecdotally, standard size
units are about 85% of the market, including all new construction. Non-standard size units are used
only in the replacement market.
PTAC Efficiency Standards
Through an October 2008 rulemaking, DOE amended PTAC minimum standards. Table 4 shows the
current standards for PTACs and the standards that will take effect in 201220
Table 4: Federal Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) for PTACs
Cooling Capacity (BTU/h)
Minimum Standards for
Standard Size
( Effective October 2012)
Minimum Standards
for Non-Standard Size
(Effective October 2010)
<7,000
EER = 11.7
EER = 9.4
7,000-15,000
EER = 13.8 - (0.3*Cap
(kBTU/h))
EER = 10.9-(0.213*(Cap
(kBTU/h))
>15,000
EER = 9.3
EER = 7.7
20 Standard size is defined by DOE as "PTAC or PTHP equipment with wall sleeve dimensions having an external wall opening greater than or
equal to 16 inches high or greater than or equal to 42 inches wide, and a cross-sectional area greater than or equal to 670 square inches."
Nonstandard-size is defined by DOE as "PTAC or PTHP equipment with existing wall sleeve dimensions having an external wall opening of
less than 16 inches high or less than 42 inches wide, and a cross-sectional area less than 670 square inches." See PTAC/PTHP Final Rule at
http://www1 .eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/ptac_pthp_final_rule_fr.pdf for more information.
ENERGY STAR Market & Industry Scoping Report: PTAC/PTHP
Page 8 of 23

-------
Figure 3 illustrates the EER of AHRI-certified PTACs as compared to the federal standards
promulgated in 2008 for standard size units. The figure also includes the federal standards promulgated
in 2008 for non-standard size units.
Figure 3: Federal Minimum Energy Performance Standards for PTACs (EER)
Minimum PTAC Performance Standards
14
13
12
11
10
8
7
6
5
4
5,000	10,000	15.000	20.000
Cooling Capacity (BTU/hr)
Product Availability and Potential ENERGY STAR Levels
This section contains an analysis of ENERGY STAR criteria set at 10% and 25% better than the 2012
MEPS for standard size and 2010 MEPS for non-standard size units for EER and COP.
Figure 4 shows where the AHRI products fall as compared to the federal minimum standards and the
suggested ENERGY STAR PTAC criteria for standard size. The figure also includes the federal
minimum standards and the suggested ENERGY STAR PTAC criteria for non-standard size units.
-MEPS - Standard Size (Effective
2012)
-MEPS - Nonstandard Size
AHRI-Certified PTACs
ENERGY STAR Market & Industry Scoping Report: PTAC/PTHP
Page 9 of 23

-------
Figure 4: Federal Minimum Energy Performance Standards and
Recommended ENERGY STAR Levels for PTACs (EER)
16.0
14.0
12.0
m 10.0
UJ
8.0
6.0
4.0
Minimum PTAC Performance Standards
5,000
10,000	15,000
Cooling Capacity (BTU/hr)
20,000
	ENERGY STAR (MEPS+25%) -
Standard Size
—ENERGY STAR (MEPS+25%) -
Nonstandard Size
	ENERGY STAR (MEPS+10%) -
Standard Size
	ENERGY STAR (MEPS+10%) -
Nonstandard Size
MEPS - Standard Size (Effective
2012)
MEPS - Nonstandard Size
a AH Rl-Certified PTACs
Tables 4 and 5 list the number of models, by manufacturer, that would meet the two potential criteria for
standard size. As both tables make clear, the only current AHRI-certified models that would meet an
ENERGY STAR level of 10% above the federal standard for standard-size units are manufactured by
General Electric under its Zoneline brand. No models are currently available at the 25% level.
Table 4: PTAC Models Compared to Proposed ENERGY STAR (MEPS+10% at Standard Size)
OEM
Eair
Friedrich
GE
Goodman
Gree
Heat
Controller
LG
McQuay
Total No. of
AHRI-Certified
Models
20
29
26
37
47
20
12
59
Number that
Meet Proposed
EER
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
Table 5: PTAC Models Compared to Proposed ENERGY STAR (MEPS+25% at Standard Size)
OEM
Eair
Friedrich
GE
Goodman
Gree
Heat
Controller
LG
McQuay
Total No. of
AHRI Models
20
29
26
37
47
20
12
59
Number that
Meet Proposed
EER
None
ENERGY STAR Market & Industry Scoping Report: PTAC/PTHP
Page 10 of 23

-------
PTHP Efficiency Standards
The amended minimum standards for PTHPs were also promulgated in October 2008. Table 5
describes current standards for PTHPs and the standards that go in effect in 2012 (EER and COP):
Table 6: Federal Energy Conservation Standards for PTHPs
Cooling
Capacity
(BTU/h)
Minimum Star
Standard Size (Effc
2012
dards for
ictive October
Minimum Standards for
Non-Standard Size
(Effective October 2010)
<7,000
EER
COP
EER
COP
11.9
3.3
9.3
2.7
7,000-
15,000
13.8-
(0.3*Cap(kBTU/h)
3.7-
(0.052*Cap
(kBTU/h)
10.9-
(0.213*Cap(kBTU/h)
10.8-
(0.213*Cap(kBTU/h)
>15,000
9.5
2.9
7.6
2.5
Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the EER and COP of AHRI-certified PTHPs, as compared to the federal
standards promulgated in 2008 for standard size units. The figures also include the federal standards
promulgated in 2008 for non-standard size units.
Figure 5: Federal Minimum Energy Performance Standards for PTHPs (
EER)
QL
111
LU
Minimum PTHP Efficiency Standards
-MEPS - Standard Size
(Effective 2012)
-MEPS - Nonstandard Size
AHRI Certified PTHPs
5000
10000	15000	20000
Cooling Capacity (BTU/hr)
ENERGY STAR Market & Industry Scoping Report: PTAC/PTHP	Page 11 of 23

-------
Figure 6: Federal Minimum Energy Performance Standards for PTHPs (COP)
4.5
4.0
3.5
Q.
o
o
3.0
2.5
2.0
Minimum PTHP Efficiency Standards
-MEPS- Standard Size (Effective
2012)
MEPS - Nonstandard Size
AHRI-Certified PTHPs
5000
10000	15000	20000
Heating Capacity (BTU/hr)
Product Availability and Potential ENERGY STAR Levels
This section contains an analysis of ENERGY STAR criteria set at 10% and 25% better than 2012
MEPS for standard size and 2010 MEPS for non-standard size units for EER and COP.
Figures 7 and 8 show where the AHRI products fall as compared to the relevant federal standards and
the recommended PTHP criteria for standard size units. The figure also includes the federal minimum
standards and the suggested ENERGY STAR PTHP criteria for non-standard size units. Tables 7 and 8
lists the number of models, by manufacturer, that would meet the two potential criteria for standard size
units.
ENERGY STAR Market & Industry Scoping Report: PTAC/PTHP
Page 12 of 23

-------
Figure 7: Federal Minimum Energy Performance Standards and
Proposed ENERGY STAR Levels for PTHPs (EER)
Minimum PTHP Efficiency Standards
-Proposed ENERGY STAR
(MEPS+25%)-Standard Size
-Proposed ENERGY STAR
(MEPS+25%) - Nonstandard
Size
-Proposed ENERGY STAR
(MEPS+10%)-Standard Size
-Proposed ENERGY STAR
(MEPS+10%)- Non-Standard
Size
-2012 MEPS - Standard Size
-2012 MEPS - Non-Standard
Size
-Current MEPS
AHRI Certified PTHPs
10000	15000	20000
Cooling Capacity (BTU/hr)
Figure 8: Federal Minimum Energy Performance Standards and
Proposed ENERGY STAR Levels for PTHPs (COP)
Minimum PTHP Efficiency Standards
5000
-ENERGY STAR (MEPS+25%) -
Standard Size
-ENERGY STAR (MEPS+25%) -
Nonstandard Size
-ENERGY STAR (MEPS+10%)-
Standard Size
-ENERGY STAR (MEPS+10%)-
Nonstandard Size
"MEPS - Standard Size (Effective
2012)
-MEPS - Nonstandard Size
AHRI-Certified PTHPs
10000	15000	20000
Heating Capacity (BTU/hr)
ENERGY STAR Market & Industry Scoping Report: PTAC/PTHP	Page 13 of 23

-------
As Table 7 below indicates, the only models the meet an ENERGY STAR level set 10% above the new
federal MEPS for EER are manufactured by General Electric under its Zoneline brand. No models
currently meet the 10% level for COP. Table 8 also shows that no models meet an ENERGY STAR
level of 25% above the federal MEPS for either EER or COP.
Table 7: PTHP Models Compared to Proposed ENERGY STAR (MEPS+10% - Standard Size)
OEM
Eair
Friedrich
GE
Goodman
Gree
Heat Controller
LG
McQuay
Sanyo
Total
Number of
AHRI-
Certified
Models
8
26
24
8
21
8
20
52
2
Number that
Meet
Proposed
EER Criteria
0
0
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number that
Meet
Proposed
COP Criteria
None
Table 8: PTHP
Models Compared to Proposed ENERGY STAR (MEPS+25% - Standard Size)
OEM
Eair
Friedrich
GE
Goodman
Gree
Heat Controller
LG
McQuay
Sanyo
Total









Number of









AHRI-









Certified









Models
8
26
24
8
21
8
20
52
2
Number that



Meet



Proposed
EER Criteria

None
Number that



Meet



Proposed
COP Criteria

None
4. Energy and Cost Savings Potential
PTAC Energy Consumption Methodology
The electricity consumption of PTACs and PTHPs can be estimated using a bin temperature
methodology for air conditioners and heat pumps outlined in ACCA's Manual J, Residential Load
Calculation. Bin temperature data was taken from ACCA's Manual J, Residential Load Calculation.
ENERGY STAR Market & Industry Scoping Report: PTAC/PTHP
Page 14 of 23

-------
From ACCA's Manual J, electricity consumption for space cooling can be measured using the following
formula:
y Cooling Load •» Bi'ntVenf^cT
AEC =
SEER
For this analysis, Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER) can be replaced with Energy Efficiency
Ratio (EER). EER is rated cooling efficiency units provided by manufacturers and AHRI for PTACs and
PTHPs.
PTHP Energy Consumption Methodology
The bin temperature method for estimating space heating energy consumption by PTHPs involves
changes in efficiency of the heat pump as temperatures drop. The COP and electricity draw of heat
pumps drops as the outside air temperatures drop. Additionally, supplementary resistance heating is
engaged when temperatures drop below 35F. Time that the heat pump operates versus supplementary
heating is a function of outside temperatures. The method for estimating annual electricity consumption
for space heating and cooling can be estimated in the following manner:
AEC = } + SupplementEREnergy
where
i BinWeather* LoadSu:iainB
HeatPvmpEnergyCDBlirvMlubl =
3413
EER
/
I SinlV eat her - Loads,aL;^ns \
HeatPvmpEnergy^^^, = £ | 3413
COP
SupplementEREnergy = ^{BinWeather »
PTAC Savings Analysis21
The tables below show the Annual Electricity Consumption (AEC) and estimated savings by city for
standard size PTACs. The AEC includes only energy for cooling. The "Federal Standard" column
shows the maximum electricity that can be used by a PTAC. The "Proposed ENERGY STAR" column
shows the electricity consumption of PTACs at the suggested ENERGY STAR criteria above the
federal standard for standard-size equipment and without electric resistance heating. The
"Savings/Unit" columns list the difference in dollars and kWh per year for each unit between "Federal
Standard" and "Proposed ENERGY STAR".
As the tables below indicate, a proposed ENERGY STAR level of either 10% or 25% for standard-size
equipment would result in long payback periods and low levels of energy and financial savings for
21 Regional electricity prices are from EIA from ENERGY STAR 2011 Databook. Savings analysis is based on the assumption of a 9,000
BTU/hr average unit.
ENERGY STAR Market & Industry Scoping Report: PTAC/PTHP
Page 15 of 23

-------
qualifying PTACs, except in climates such as Honolulu and Las Vegas that experience year-round
warm weather. A level at 25% over the MEPS might be justified, but no manufacturers currently make
such efficient equipment. (See tables 4 and 5.) As the market responds to the 2012 standards, that
may change. In that case, an ENERGY STAR program for high efficiency PTACs may make sense.
Table 9: Energy and Financial Savings Associated With Proposed
ENERGY STAR Level of MEPS+10% for Stand
ard-Size PTACs
City
2012
Federal
Standard
(kWh/yr)
Proposed
ENERGY
STAR
(kWh/yr)
Estimated
Energy
Savings/Unit
(kWh/yr)
Estimated
Cost
Savings/Unit
($/yr)
Payback
(Years)
Atlanta
987
897
90
8
9.1
Chicago
627
570
57
4
16.9
Dallas
1,541
1,401
140
13
6.0
Kansas City
962
874
87
6
12.5
Honolulu
2,337
2,124
212
57
1.3
Houston
1,526
1,387
139
12
6.1
Miami
2,494
2,267
227
23
3.3
New Orleans
1,651
1,501
150
14
5.3
New York
442
402
40
6
11.9
Phoenix
1,692
1,539
154
13
5.7
San Francisco
127
116
12
1
57.5
Tampa
1,860
1,691
169
17
4.4
Washington
809
736
74
10
7.6
Las Vegas
2,522
2,292
229
22
3.5
Table 10: Energy and Financial Savings Associated With Proposed
ENERGY STAR Level of MEPS+25% for Stand
ard-Size PTACs
City
2012 Federal
Standard
(kWh/yr)
Proposed
ENERGY
STAR
(kWh/yr)
Estimated
Energy
Savings/Unit
(kWh/yr)
Estimated
Cost
Savings/Unit
($/yr)
Payback
(Years)
Atlanta
987
790
197
18
4.2
Chicago
627
502
125
10
7.7
Dallas
1,541
1,233
308
28
2.7
Kansas City
962
769
192
13
5.7
Honolulu
2,337
1,869
467
126
0.6
Houston
1,526
1,220
305
27
2.8
Miami
2,494
1,995
499
51
1.5
New





Orleans
1,651
1,321
330
31
2.4
New York
442
354
88
14
5.4
Phoenix
1,692
1,354
338
29
2.6
San





Francisco
127
102
25
3
26.1
Tampa
1,860
1,488
372
38
2.0
Washington
809
647
162
22
3.5
Las Vegas
2,522
2,017
504
47
1.6
ENERGY STAR Market & Industry Scoping Report: PTAC/PTHP
Page 16 of 23

-------
The tables below show the Annual Electricity Consumption (AEC) and estimated savings by city for
non-standard size PTACs. While shorter payback periods and energy and financial savings are more
difficult to achieve with an ENERGY STAR level of 10% or 25% for standard size PTACs, savings
associated with non-standard size units are greater in consistently warm climates such as Honolulu,
Las Vegas, and southeastern US cities such as Tampa and Miami. Potential non-standard size
ENERGY STAR units operating year round in these cities would also incur shorter payback periods
than standard size units operating under the same conditions and in the same geographical locations. If
data regarding the availability of non-standard PTACs at various efficiencies becomes available, they
may be considered for labeling.
Table 11: Energ
ENERGY STAR
y and Financial Savings Associated With Proposed
Level of MEPS+10% for Non-Standard Size PTACs
City
2010 Federal
Standard
(kWh/yr)
Proposed
ENERGY
STAR
(kWh/yr)
Estimated
Energy
Savings/Unit
(kWh/yr)
Estimated
Cost
Savings/Unit
($/yr)
Payback
(Years)
Atlanta
1,218
1,107
111
10
7.4
Chicago
773
703
70
7
13.7
Dallas
1,901
1,728
173
16
4.9
Kansas City
1,186
1,078
108
10
10.1
Honolulu
2,882
2,620
262
25
1.1
Houston
1,882
1,711
171
16
4.9
Miami
3,076
2,796
280
26
2.6
New
Orleans
2,036
1,851
185
17
4.3
New York
546
496
50
5
9.7
Phoenix
2,087
1,898
190
18
4.6
San
Francisco
157
143
14
1
46.6
Tampa
2,295
2,086
209
20
3.5
Washington
998
907
91
9
6.2
Las Vegas
3,110
2,827
283
27
2.8
ENERGY STAR Market & Industry Scoping Report: PTAC/PTHP
Page 17 of 23

-------
Table 12:
ENERGY STAR
Energy and Financial Savings Associated With Proposed
Level of MEPS+25% for Non-Standard Size PTACs
City
2010 Federal
Standard
(kWh/yr)
Proposed
ENERGY
STAR
(kWh/yr)
Estimated
Energy
Savings/Unit
(kWh/yr)
Estimated
Cost
Savings/Unit
($/yr)
Payback
(Years)
Atlanta
1,218
974
244
22
3.4
Chicago
773
619
155
12
6.2
Dallas
1,901
1,521
380
34
2.2
Kansas City
1,186
949
237
16
4.6
Honolulu
2,882
2,306
576
155
0.5
Houston
1,882
1,505
376
34
2.2
Miami
3,076
2,461
615
62
1.2
New
Orleans
2,036
1,629
407
38
2.0
New York
546
436
109
17
4.4
Phoenix
2,087
1,670
417
36
2.1
San
Francisco
157
126
31
4
21.2
Tampa
2,295
1,836
459
46
1.6
Washington
998
798
200
27
2.8
Las Vegas
3,110
2,488
622
58
1.3
Potential PTAC National Savings
Based on unit shipment data referenced above, potential national energy savings levels associated with
varying penetrations (10%, 25% and 100%) of ENERGY STAR qualified PTACs can be found in Tables
13-14 below.
Table 13: National Savings Associated With Proposed ENERGY STAR
Level of MEPS+10% for Standard Size PTACs
Total ENERGY STAR
Shipments (%
Penetration)
AEC (kWh/yr)"
Annual Energy
Savings
(MWh/yr)
2012 Federal
Standard
(kWh/yr)
Proposed
ENERGY STAR
(kWh/yr)
Saving/Unit
(kWh/yr)
22,400 (10%)
1,398
1,271
127
2,848
56,000 (25%)
7,119
224,000 (100%)23
28,477
22	All consumption figures in kWh are computed from the 14-city averages listed above.
23	Assumption of 224,000 units based on 56% penetration of PTACs of a total PTAC/PTHP shipment population of 400,000 units
ENERGY STAR Market & Industry Scoping Report: PTAC/PTHP
Page 18 of 23

-------
Table 14: National Savings Associated With Proposed ENERGY STAR
Level of MEPS+25% for Standard Size PTACs
Total ENERGY STAR
Shipments (%
Penetration)
AEC (kWh/yr)
Annual Energy
Savings
(MWh/yr)
2012 Federal
Standard
(kWh/yr)
Proposed
ENERGY STAR
(kWh/yr)
Saving/Unit
(kWh/yr)
22,400 (10%)
1,398
1,119
280
6,265
56,000 (25%)
15,662
224,000 (100%)
62,649
PTHP Savings Analysis24
The tables below show the Annual Electricity Consumption (AEC) and estimated savings by sample city
for standard-size PTHPs. The "Federal Standard" column shows the maximum electricity that can be
used by a PTHP. The "Proposed ENERGY STAR" column shows the electricity consumption for PTHPs
at the suggested ENERGY STAR criteria above the federal standard for standard size equipment and
without electric resistance heating. The "Savings/Unit" columns list the difference in dollars and kWh
per year for each unit between "Federal Standard" and "Proposed ENERGY STAR".
From the tables below, there is evidence that greater energy and financial savings (and reduced
payback periods) are possible from potential ENERGY STAR qualified PTHPs than from similarly
situated PTACs. These savings are more considerable in areas with year-round mild climates or mild
winter seasons (San Francisco, Dallas) or more truncated summer heating seasons (New York,
Washington). Particularly at MEPS + 25%, the payback is in line with ENERGY STAR principles.
However, the number of models available at these higher efficiencies is small (see tables 7 and 8). If
this changes as the market responds to the 2012 MEPS, this product category may be a good
candidate for labeling.
24 Regional electricity prices are from EIA from ENERGY STAR 2011 Databook. Savings data based on the assumption of a 1 ton (12,000
BTU/hr) average unit.
ENERGY STAR Market & Industry Scoping Report: PTAC/PTHP	Page 19 of 23

-------
Table 15: Savings Associated With Proposed ENERGY STAR
Level of MEPS+10%1
For Standard Size PTHPs
City
2012 Federal
Standard
(kWh/yr)
Proposed
ENERGY
STAR (kWh/yr)
Estimated
Energy
Savings/Unit
(kWh/yr)
Estimated
Cost
Savings/Unit
($/yr)
Payback
(Years)
Atlanta
3,210
3,021
189
17
4.3
Chicago
8,205
8,073
132
10
7.3
Dallas
3,083
2,906
177
16
4.7
Kansas
City
6,429
6,285
145
10
7.5
Honolulu
922
841
81
22
3.4
Houston
2,087
1,925
162
14
5.2
Miami
1,415
1,290
124
13
5.9
New
Orleans
1,957
1,792
165
15
4.8
New York
5,493
5,304
189
30
2.5
Phoenix
2,518
2,311
207
18
4.3
San
Francisco
4,801
4,381
420
47
1.6
Tampa
1,816
1,659
157
16
4.7
Washingto
n
4,753
4,563
190
25
3.0
Las Vegas
3,196
2,973
223
21
3.6
Table 16: Savings Associated With Proposed ENERGY STAR
Level of MEPS+25%
For Standard Size PTHPs
City
2012 Federal
Standard
(kWh/yr)
Proposed
ENERGY
STAR (kWh/yr)
Estimated
Energy
Savings/Unit
(kWh/yr)
Estimated
Cost
Savings/Uni
t ($/yr)
Payback
(Years)
Atlanta
3,210
2,781
429
39
1.9
Chicago
8,205
7,905
299
23
3.2
Dallas
3,083
2,681
402
36
2.1
Kansas City
6,429
6,101
328
23
3.3
Honolulu
922
737
184
50
1.5
Houston
2,087
1,719
367
33
2.3
Miami
1,415
1,132
283
29
2.6
New
Orleans
1,957
1,582
374
35
2.1
New York
5,493
5,064
429
67
1.1
Phoenix
2,518
2,049
469
40
1.9
San
Francisco
4,801
3,849
952
107
0.7
Tampa
1,816
1,459
357
36
2.1
Washington
4,753
4,322
432
58
1.3
Las Vegas
3,196
2,691
505
47
1.6
ENERGY STAR Market & Industry Scoping Report: PTAC/PTHP
Page 20 of 23

-------
The table below shows the Annual Electricity Consumption (AEC) and estimated savings by city for
non-standard size PTHPs. The findings for non-standard size equipment are similar to that of standard
size equipment, however, it is clear that greater savings and shorter paybacks are possible for non-
standard size units. If data regarding the availability of non-standard PTACs at various efficiencies
becomes available, they may be considered for labeling.
Table 17: Savings Associated With Proposed ENERGY STAR
Level of MEPS+10% for Non-Standard Size PTHPs
City
2010 Federal
Standard
(kWh/yr)
Proposed
ENERGY
STAR (kWh/yr)
Estimated
Savings/Unit
(Proposed
ENERGY
STAR)
(kWh/yr)
Estimated
Savings/Unit
(Proposed
ENERGY
STAR) ($/yr)
Payback
(Years)
Atlanta
3,641
3,407
234
21
3.5
Chicago
8,505
8,341
163
13
5.9
Dallas
3,499
3,278
221
20
3.8
Kansas City
6,763
6,583
179
12
6.1
Honolulu
1,143
1,039
104
28
2.7
Houston
2,469
2,267
202
18
4.2
Miami
1,734
1,577
158
16
4.7
New
Orleans
2,348
2,142
206
19
3.9
New York
5,915
5,681
233
36
2.1
Phoenix
3,000
2,743
257
22
3.4
San
Francisco
5,719
5,202
516
58
1.3
Tampa
2,195
1,998
197
20
3.8
Washington
5,184
4,949
235
31
2.4
Las Vegas
3,712
3,435
277
26
2.9
ENERGY STAR Market & Industry Scoping Report: PTAC/PTHP
Page 21 of 23

-------
Table 18: Savings Associated With Proposed ENERGY STAR
Level of MEPS+25% for Non-Standard Size PTHPs
City
2010 Federal
Standard
(kWh/yr)
Proposed
ENERGY
STAR (kWh/yr)
Estimated
Savings/Unit
(Proposed
ENERGY
STAR)
(kWh/yr)
Estimated
Savings/Uni
t (Proposed
ENERGY
STAR) ($/yr)
Payback
(Years)
Atlanta
3,641
3,126
515
47
1.6
Chicago
8,505
8,145
359
28
2.7
Dallas
3,499
3,014
485
43
1.7
Kansas City
6,763
6,368
395
27
2.8
Honolulu
1,143
915
229
62
1.2
Houston
2,469
2,025
444
40
1.9
Miami
1,734
1,388
347
35
2.1
New
Orleans
2,348
1,895
453
43
1.8
New York
5,915
5,401
514
80
0.9
Phoenix
3,000
2,435
565
48
1.6
San
Francisco
5,719
4,583
1,136
128
0.6
Tampa
2,195
1,762
433
44
1.7
Washington
5,184
4,666
518
69
1.1
Las Vegas
3,712
3,103
609
57
1.3
Potential PTHP National Savings
Based on unit shipment data referenced above, potential national energy savings levels associated with
varying penetrations (10%, 25% and 100%) of ENERGY STAR qualified PTHPs can be found in Tables
19-20 below. As with PTACs, the greatest potential level of energy savings can be found with
increasing penetrations within the non-standard size markets at ENERGY STAR levels of both 10%
and 25%.
Table 19: National Savings Associated With Proposed ENERGY STAR
	 Level of MEPS+10% for Standard Size PTHPs 	
Acr /l,lA/k./..-\25
Total ENERGY STAR
Shipments (%
Penetration)
AEC (kWh/yr)2b
Annual Energy
Savings
(MWh/yr)
2012 Federal
Standard
(kWh/yr)
Proposed
ENERGY STAR
(kWh/yr)
Saving/Unit
(kWh/yr)
17,600 (10%)
3,563
3,380
183
3,220
44,000 (25%)
8,049
176,000 (100%)
32,198
25 All consumption figures in kWh are computed from the 14-city averages listed above.
ENERGY STAR Market & Industry Scoping Report: PTAC/PTHP
Page 22 of 23

-------
Table 20: National Savings Associated With Proposed ENERGY STAR
Level of MEPS+25% for Standard Size PTHPs
Total ENERGY STAR
Shipments (%
Penetration)
AEC (kWh/yr)
Annual Energy
Savings
(MWh/yr)
2012 Federal
Standard
(kWh/yr)
Proposed
ENERGY STAR
(kWh/yr)
Saving/Unit
(kWh/yr)
17,600 (10%)
3,563
3,148
415
7,307
44,000 (25%)
18,267
176,000 (100%)
73,068
ENERGY STAR Market & Industry Scoping Report: PTAC/PTHP
Page 23 of 23

-------