ENERGY STAR HVAC Quality Installation Program March 11, 2008.
-
Upload
destiney-batty -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
2
Transcript of ENERGY STAR HVAC Quality Installation Program March 11, 2008.
ENERGY STAR HVAC Quality Installation Program
March 11, 2008
Potential Losses per Installation
• Air Flow over Indoor Coil (70% inadequate)• Refrigerant Charge
(62% improperly charged)• Equipment Sizing
(50% oversized)• Duct Leakage is significant (Total leakage
averaged 35% in the pilots)
Source: C. Neme, J. Proctor, S. Nadel, National Energy Savings Potential from Addressing Residential HVAC Installation Problems, 1999
Installation issues reduce capacity by up to 30 percent!
Or put another way…
a SEER 13 performs like a SEER 10
% of Cooling Delivered
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
Quality Installation Low airflow Low Airflow +Improper Charge
Low Airflow +Improper Charge +
Duct Leakage
Co
oli
ng
Del
iver
ed
The HVAC Market
More than 53 percent of all existing homes have central air conditioning (Source CEE)
Four out of five new homes constructed today are built with central air conditioners (Source CEE)
In 2006, 7,069,296 unitary air conditioners and heat pumps were shipped from U.S. factories (Source ARI)
ACCA estimates that 60% to 70% of the shipments were for replacement
Reason for System Replacement (Source Decision Analyst)
• 49% due to system failure• 39% planned replacement
Residential AC Market (Source CEE)
Annual BTUs 0.55 quadrillion
% of U.S. Residential Site Electricity Consumption 14%
Annual Consumer Cost $13.8 billion
How HVAC QI Meets Utilities' Goals
Average estimated savings from HVAC QI
Estimated peak electricity demand savings
Homes Annual per-house savingsNorth (Indianapolis, IN) South (Jackson, MS)
Existing 1300 kWh 1900 kWh
National
New 1000 kWh
Assumptions: New system corrects typical install problems
•Duct leakage reduced from 35%to 20%•Duct insulation increased from R2 to R6•Proper charge•Proper airflow•Proper sizing
Location Per-house peak AC demand savings
Fort Worth, TX 1.3 KW
Jacksonville, FL 1 KW
Cost Benefit of QI
Location 13 SEER Annual Operating Cost
30-percent Savings from QI
QI Savings over 5 Years
Boston $163 $48 $244
Washington, DC $261 $78 $390
Dallas, TX $488 $146 $732
Los Angeles, CA $261 $78 $390
Miami $782 $234 $1174
•Savings based on 10 cents/kWh electricity price
Comparison of SEER versus QI
Equipment SEER Savings Due to Equipment Efficiency*
Savings Due to Quality Installation
13 0% 30%
14 7% 30%
15 13% 30%
16 19% 30%
*13 SEER Baseline efficiency used for 3 ton unit
Barriers to Market Correction
Even though there are large potential savings from improving installation practices the market has not corrected itself because: Consumers are unaware that improper installation affects efficiency and
comfort (view HVAC similar to an appliance) Consumers do not know their performance is low (If cold air is blowing they
don’t usually complain) Installation technicians rely on “rules of thumb” “Time is money” business model Manufacturer’s are willing to absorb warranty claims for units that have failed
because of installation issues Definition of a quality installation is not defined
Program Development Strategy
Stakeholder Market Barrier Strategy
Contractor/technician -Lack of qualified technicians-Rule of thumb practices-Time is money business model-Lack of defined elements that constitute a quality installation
-Training is a program entry requirement-Proper measurement and reporting will help with system evaluation and minimize call backs-Worked with ACCA and other stakeholder to create HVAC QI Spec (now ANSI recognized)
Customer - Lack understanding of HVAC installation and its relation to efficiency and comfort
-Marketing material will make ES trusted 3rd voice during sales call-Working with ACCA and CEE to improve consumer education
Manufacturer - Warranty Claims - Working on technical solution for HVAC diagnostics
Program Scope
Residential installations New and replacement systems Central air conditioning and air-source heat pump Rated capacity up to 65,000 BTU/H Homes with multiple systems must verify each unit separately ENERGY STAR qualified equipment encouraged
Stakeholder Roles in ES HVAC QI Utility
Develop program standards, policies and procedures
Manage program Recruit and train qualified contractors Program marketing Ensure installations meet program
standards Contract and manage verifiers Issue ENERGY STAR certificates to
homeowners Track and evaluate program success Report data to EPA
Verifier Provide QA Provide feedback to contractors
Contractor Fulfill program training
requirements Fulfill program participation
agreement as written by program administrator
Provide marketing material to homeowner
Perform installation to program standards
Document and report installation information
EPA Provide 3rd party voice Assist with training development Provide technical support Work with stakeholders to
improve installation practices
Third Party Basis for Program Design
Implementation guide Marketing material Sample commissioning and
verification reports Certificate Training for participating
contractors
ENERGY STAR HVAC QI Guidelines Minimum requirements for installations
under the program must meet the ANSI/ACCA HVAC Quality Installation Specification
The QI Specification identifies consensus requirements associated with quality installations, acceptable procedures for measuring or verifying the attainment of those requirements, and acceptable forms of documentation to show compliance to the requirements.
Program Details – Sizing and Equipment Selection
Requirements: Total capacity between 95% and
115% of calculated system load or next largest nominal piece of equipment
Provide evidence of matched system
Verification: Check to make sure load
calculations were performed Check to make sure calculations
are reasonable (dimensions and sketches, orientation, assumed duct leakage)
Check for an ARI matched coils set
Program Details – Refrigerant Charge
Requirements: Provide evidence that the system
was properly charged via superheat, subcooling or a method specifically stated by the OEM.
Verification: Refrigerant charge should be verified
using the superheat or subcooling method.
Check the commissioning report to ensure that system conditions were within requirements at time of test.
Program Details – Air Flow
Requirements: Airflow across the coil is within the
range recommended by the OEM product data (typically between 350 to 450 CFM per ton)
Verification: Check the airflow across the coil
using the pressure matching method, flow grid measurement method, or anemometer traverse.
Program Details – Duct Leakage
Requirement (existing construction): The total duct leakage must be less
than or equal to 20 percent airflow, or at least a 50 percent improvement ‑over existing conditions. Or per local code if they exceed the specification
Verification: Duct sealing should be verified using
Duct pressurization test Blower door subtraction method Hybrid duct
pressurization/blower door subtraction method
Program Details - Additional Elements
Electrical Amperage, voltage check Wire sizing Grounding Self certified
Controls Compatibility Sequencing Self certified
Pilot Results
SizingResults - Replacement units were
typically 0.5 to 1.0 Tons smaller but still oversized per the guidelines
Issues - Sizing is essentially self reporting (difficult to verify) - 1% Design temperatures
Strategy - Focus on downsizing not right-sizing
- Allow for micro climate design temperatures- Manual J training is an entry requirement
Air FlowResults - 90% of verified sites passed
the in- field verification
Issues - Guidelines are not standard practice
- Lack of proper equipment
Strategy - Approved air flow technique training is an entry requirement
- Verifier should use same method to ensure consistency
Airflow per ton of Installed Capacity
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Unit Number
Airfl
ow (C
FM)
Percent of Load Installed
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
95%
100%
105%
110%
115%
120%
125%
130%
135%
140%
145%
150%
155%
160%
165%
170%
175%
180%
185%
190%
200%
Coun
t
Pilot Results
ChargeResults – 70% of verified sites passed in-field
verification
Issues - Timeliness of verification (leaks)- Gauge calibration
Strategy - Educate participants on the importance of calibration and make it part of the entry training
Duct LeakageResults – 100% of verified sites passed in-field
verification
Issues - Standard practice in TX and CA but not elsewhere- Duct may need major repair which is expensive
Strategy - Possible exclusion of duct leakage in the NE if ducts are in conditioned space
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Level 1 - Data Review Level 2-Field Verification
Submitted
Passed
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
Sites
Po
st S
eal
Lea
kag
e
= >50% reduction
Cost of HVAC QI
• Baseline Installation– sized (rule of thumb), airflow not
measured, refrigerant charge is estimated based on “beer can cold”, and ducts are not tested.
• EPA Guidelines for Quality Installation
– Based on $75 per hour for technician
HVAC QIElement
AdditionalTime (Hours)
Additional Cost ($)
Sizing 0.5 $37.50
Charge 0.5 $37.50
Air Flow(Measure)
0.5 $37.50
Air Flow(Correct)
0 to 2 $0 - $150
Duct Testing 1 $75
Duct SealingVariable
$300 for boot seal to over $1,000 for return duct installation
Total Cost (Low End) $200
Total cost (Mid Range) $550
Total Cost (High End) $1200
Average Cost $650
Cost Effectiveness of HVAC QI(ACO of SEER 13 - $782)
Payback of HVAC QI (Miami)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% 22% 24% 26% 28%
% Savings
Pay
bac
k (y
ears
)
Low End ($200) Mid Range ($550) High End ($1200) Average Cost ($650)
Verification
Level 1 Verification:Data review of Manual J calculations and commissioning report. The data review will include confirming that all required installation elements were performed using an approved method and check for data inconsistencies
Level 2 Verification:In-field verification of the installation that follows established protocols.
ACCA has established a committee that is currently working on HVAC QI verification protocols
Sampling Rates
Program requirements:1. All sites receive a Level 1 verification
2. Level 2 verification sampling protocols:Phase 1 - Level 2 verification protocols will be conducted on 3 of
the first 5 installations submitted by a new contractor participant. Phase 2 – Level 2 verification protocols will be conducted on 20%
of the next 25 installation submittals. Phase 3 – After successful completion of Phase 1 and 2 the
partner may use Level 2 verification protocols at a rate of 5%.
Cost of verification
Verifications cost approximately $300 per system
Costs could decrease with the use of an automated remote verification systems (i.e. Checkme, Enalasys, Testo)
Paid by the program administrator
Contractors can not self verify