CODES AND STANDARDS ENHANCEMENT REPORT

2005 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Update

CODE CHANGE PROPOSAL FOR

Cooling Towers
APRIL 8, 2002

Copyright 2002 Pacific Gas and Electric Company. All rights reserved. Overview .............................................. 2
Reproduction or distribution of the whole or any part of the contents of Methodology ......................................... 7
this document without the express written permission of PG&E is
prohibited. Neither PG&E nor any of its employees makes any warranty,
express or implied, or assumes any legal liability of responsibility for the Results ................................................ 10
accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any data, information, method,
policy, product or process disclosed in this document, or represents that Recommendations............................... 13
its use will not infringe any privately-owned rights, including but not
limited to patents, trademarks or copyrights..
Bibliography and Other Research ....... 14
Acknowledgments ............................... 14
Appendices ......................................... 15

Created on 4/9/2002 1:59 PM

Overview
This proposal contains three provisions to enhance the performance of chilled water plants, and their treatment under
Title 24.

Description
Limitation on the Application of Air-Cooled Chillers
Our first measure is a limitation on the use of air-cooled chillers in chilled water plants. Above 300t plant capacities
we propose to require water-cooled chillers with cooling towers. Water-cooled plants cost more but are far more
efficient than air-cooled plants. This proposed requirement is based on a life-cycle cost analysis.

At present, Title 24 has a mandatory requirement for the efficiency of cooling towers (gpm/hp at Cooling Tower
Institute Acceptance Test Code 105 (CTI ATC 105) test conditions, §112, Table 1-C7) and a prescriptive
requirement for the unloading capabilities of cooling tower fans (§144h). These measures were adopted in the
AB970 emergency standard based on analysis performed for ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1999. The effect of these
measures is an increase in both the size and cost of cooling towers and water-cooled systems. To prevent a shift in
the market to less efficient and less expensive air-cooled equipment we propose a companion requirement for a
limitation on air-cooled chillers.

This proposal is based on a life cycle cost analysis and comparison of air- vs. water-cooled chilled water plants as a
function of plant size (installed tonnage) and climate (dry, intermediate or humid). This analysis is based on similar
analysis that we have performed for a number of commercial building clients in the greater San Francisco Bay Area.
As detailed below, we have found that water-cooled plants are cost effective above 200t. The analysis includes the
increased installed cost, the cost of the utilities (electricity and water) and the maintenance costs.

Our analysis was based on a real design of a 200t plant. That plant design is quite typical of dozens of other plants
that we have either designed or reviewed in the field. The comparison of the cost effectiveness of that plant
included maintenance cost estimates from a service contractor, installed cost estimates from a mechanical contractor
and detailed energy and water usage from eQuest simulations with water estimates based on post simulation
analysis. We scaled this plant to represent a small, medium and large facility in each of the three climates (dry,
intermediate and humid). Each design was analyzed for its energy and water usage as well as the installed and
maintenance costs.

Cooling Tower Flow Turndown

Our second proposed measure addresses the design of cooling towers to accommodate variations in flow as chillers
are staged on or off in multiple chiller plants. When staging chillers in a multiple chiller plant, you must either
design the tower cells to accommodate a range of flows or provide multiple tower cells with isolation valves so that
one cell is designed for the flow of each chiller. Varying water flow through a tower that is not designed for it can
cause premature scaling of the fill and drastic loss of capacity. Cooling towers can be designed to provide flow
turndown on the order of 3:1 (i.e. they can accommodate between design flow and 1/3 of design flow with no loss of
performance). This is accomplished by selection of flow nozzles and weirs (for basin type towers).

With two-speed or variable speed motors (a present Prescriptive requirement, Section 144(h)), it is far more efficient
to run tower water through multiple cells due to the near cube law efficiency of the fans; running two fans at ½
speed uses approximately ¼ of the energy of running one fan at full speed for the same heat rejection. On the design
side, it is less expensive to design the tower for variable flow than it is to provide automatic isolation valves on the
tower cells; nozzles and weirs cost approximately $300 to $500 per cell while automatic isolation valves cost $1,500
to $2,000 per cell.

PG&E CASE Report Page 2

 Cooling Tower Limitation for Centrifugal Fan Application
Our final proposed measure addresses the application of cooling towers with centrifugal fans. Towers with
centrifugal fans use approximately twice the energy of towers with propeller fans for the same heat rejection. The
rated conditions in Section 112 of the AB970 Standards (Section 112, Table 1-C7) reflect this: 38.2 gpm/hp for
propeller and axial fans and 20.0 gpm/hp for centrifugal fans. There are three applications where centrifugal fans
may be required:

1. For low profile applications, centrifugal blow-through towers can be built lower than draw-through towers
with propeller fans.

2. For applications with high static pressure like towers that are sited in a well and require ducted inlet or
outlet air.

3. For noise sensitive applications.

The first application is completely aesthetic and can usually be accommodated through careful location of the tower
or the application of architectural screens. The second application (high static pressure) is legitimate and should be
accommodated through the standard. The third issue can generally be accommodated through application of low-
noise propeller blades (a relatively new product), careful siting of the tower and the application of variable speed
controls on the tower fans.

Since there are no cost premiums for propeller towers and they save ½ the energy this measure is immediately cost
effective.

Benefits
As shown below, the restriction on air-cooled chillers will drastically reduce both energy and demand. Even with
the pumping energy included our study indicates that water-cooled plants use less than half the energy in all three
climates that we simulated.

The requirement for tower flow turndown will save both energy and first cost of chilled water plants.

The requirement for propeller or axial fans will save both energy and demand with no little or no addition of first
cost.

Environmental Impact
The limitation on air-cooled chillers will increase both water consumption and the use of chemicals (biocides) for
water treatment but these impacts will be offset by a significant reduction in both electrical energy and demand.

The requirements for tower flow turndown and limitation on centrifugal fans offers savings in energy and demand
with no adverse environmental impacts.

Type of Change
We propose three new prescriptive requirements:

1. A limitation on the capacity of air-cooled chillers in central chilled water plants

2. A requirement for design of cooling towers to accommodate variable flow

3. A limitation on the application of centrifugal fans for cooling towers

PG&E CASE Report Page 3

No changes are anticipated for the ACM Manual. Changes will be required for the Non-Residential Users manual
and compliance forms.

Technology Measures
Measure Availability and Cost
Both cooling towers and water-cooled chillers are readily available from multiple providers. The principal
manufacturers of cooling towers are Marley, Evapco and BAC. The principal manufacturers of chillers are Carrier,
York, Trane and McQuay. All of these manufacturers distribute their products through district and regional sales
offices. It is anticipated that the manufacturing base can easily adjust to changes as a result of the proposed
measure.

All three manufacturers of cooling towers have product lines with centrifugal and propeller fans. They also all have
the ability to provide tower flow turndown through application of nozzles and weirs using existing parts.

Our first cost estimates are detailed in Table 1 and Table 2 below. Table 1 presents the cost estimates for the water-
cooled plants and Table 2 details the cost estimates for the air-cooled plants and summarizes the incremental costs
for the water-cooled plant. Costs are developed for three plant sizes; 200, 400 and 600 tons. As noted in the table,
both first- and annual-cost data were collected from a wide variety of sources, including vendors, a water treatment
company, a mechanical contractor, a service company, and RS Means Mechanical Cost Data Book. Costs not
specifically listed in the tables are assumed to be equal in both cases. For example, installation and maintenance
costs are not listed for the water or air-cooled chillers as they are roughly equal.

PG&E CASE Report Page 4

 Table 1

Equipment Selections and Cost Data

Water Cooled Chillers

chiller first cost 200 ton Plant 400 ton Plant 600 ton Plant Data Source
num chillers 2 2 2
tons/chiller 100 200 300
chiller type screw screw centrifugal
Average of costs from Trane,
chiller cost ($/ton) $ 323 $ 244 $ 299 Carrier, York
chiller cost (includes tax, freight) $ 64,667 $ 97,779 $ 179,133
chiller penthouse cost ($/sf) $30 $30 $30 estimate
incremental penthouse area (sf) 600 800 1000 based on Electronic Arts penthse.
incr. Penthouse cost $ 18,000 $ 24,000 $ 30,000
CW pump head 40 40 40 from EA and other designs
CW pump GPM 163.3 304.2 493 from the CoolTools optimization
Num CW pumps 2 2 2 based on pump vendor data +
CW pump first costs (incl installation) $ 3,591 $ 4,388 $ 5,456 Means labor costs. See Figure 6
per UMC (based on lbs of
chiller room exhaust fan CFM 1400 2000 2500 refrigerant)
chiller room fan cost ($/cfm)(fan+labor) $ 2.48 $ 2.48 $ 2.48 Southland (mech. contractor)
chiller room fan cost ($) (fan+labor) $ 3,472 $ 4,960 $ 6,200
refrig monitoring system cost $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 Southland (mech. contractor)

tower manufacturer (includes tax,

Tower cost in San Francisco (65 wb) $ 13,080 $ 18,520 $ 31,000 freight)
does not include VSD, contractor
Tower cost in Long Beach (70 wb) $ 10,820 $ 17,540 $ 25,300 markup, installation
Tower cost in Fresno (73 wb) $ 10,380 $ 16,520 $ 25,300
Tower installation cost $ 6,700 $ 8,000 $ 10,000 MEANS 2002 p. 469
Tower HP (per cell) 7.5 10.0 15.0
Tower VSD $/HP 250 250 250
Tower VSD Cost $ 3,750 $ 5,000 $ 7,500

CW treatment installed cost $ 3,128 $ 4,061 $ 5,399 Chem Aqua

Southland, tower vendor, Linford
Tower/Chem. Maintenance ($/yr) $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 Service

Water Rate ($/100 ft3) $ 1.98 $ 1.98 $ 1.98 EBMUD website

Cycles of Concentration 4 4 4 Chem Aqua - statewide average
SF Tower Load (Mbtu) 1,492 2,985 4,477
gallons evaporated 192,328 384,657 576,985 970 btu/lb water
gallons bled 48,082 96,164 144,246
SF Water Cost/yr $ 636 $ 1,273 $ 1,909
Fresno Tower Load (Mbtu) 2,986 5,973 8,959
Fresno water cost/yr $ 1,273 $ 2,547 $ 3,820
Long Beach Tower Load (Mbtu) 3,731 7,462 11,194
Long Beach water cost/yr $ 1,591 $ 3,182 $ 4,773
Piping/Fitting/Valve Costs $ 9,000 $ 12,000 $ 17,000 Means, Southland (see Figure 5)

Contractor Markup 25% 25% 25% estimate

First cost - San Francisco $ 157,722 $ 222,380 $ 360,587

First cost - Long Beach $ 154,897 $ 221,155 $ 353,462
First cost - Fresno $ 154,347 $ 219,880 $ 353,462
Annual Cost - San Francisco $ 4,636 $ 5,273 $ 5,909
Annual Cost - Fresno $ 5,273 $ 6,547 $ 7,820
Annual Cost - Long Beach $ 5,591 $ 7,182 $ 8,773

PG&E CASE Report Page 5

 Table 2

Air Cooled Assumptions 200 ton Plant 400 ton Plant 600 ton Plant
num chillers 2 2 2
cost/chiller $ 37,668 $ 70,313 $ 100,286 data from Trane, Carrier, York
chiller cost $ 75,336 $ 140,625 $ 200,572
incremental screen wall length (ft) 30 40 50 estimate
screen wall cost ($/ft) 5 5 5 estimate
screen cost $ 150 $ 200 $ 250
Air cooled first cost $ 75,486 $ 140,825 $ 200,822
Incremental Cost (Water Minus Air)
Incr. First cost - San Francisco $ 82,236 $ 81,555 $ 159,765
Incr. First cost - Long Beach $ 79,411 $ 80,330 $ 152,640
Incr. First cost - Fresno $ 78,861 $ 79,055 $ 152,640
Avg $ 80,169 $ 80,313 $ 155,015

Incr. Annual Cost see Annual Cost above

Flow Turndown
Costs for tower nozzles/weirs were collected from two of the major cooling tower manufacturers: Marley and
Baltimore Air Coil. The incremental cost to add the nozzles/weirs necessary for a 3:1 turndown ratio on a typical
200 – 600 ton tower is about $300 to $500. A controls contractor, Siemens Controls, provided an estimate to
automate an isolation valve on a tower in this size range ($2,000). This price includes the actuator and all controls,
but not the actual valve itself since a manual isolation valve would still be required in the base-case scenario.

Centrifugal Fans
No costs were collected in support of this measure. Our experience is that there is no significant cost difference
between towers with centrifugal and propeller fans in the larger plant applications (300 tons and above).

Useful Life, Persistence and Maintenance

Both air and water-cooled chiller plants require maintenance but water-cooled plants require more maintenance due
because of the cooling tower and associated water treatment.

Cooling tower performance degrades over time from the following effects:

• Fouling of the fill from debris and precipitation of dissolved solids

• Slippage of fan belts and dirt or wear of the bearings
• Dirt in the fan wheels (centrifugal tower fans)
• Fouling in the nozzles

All of these items can be addressed with routine maintenance and automatic water treatment. In extreme cases
nozzles and fill will need to be replaced.

Air-cooled chillers degrade in time from:

• Fouling of the condenser coil

• Rusting of the condenser coil fins
• Slippage of fan belts and dirt or wear of the bearings

Unfortunately air-cooled condensing coils are much harder to clean than tower fill. Fouled or rusted condensers
usually leads to replacement of the entire chiller.

The compressors in air-cooled chillers are more susceptible to early failure than the compressors in water-cooled
chillers due to the expanded range of condensing temperatures that they experience. Our experience is that the

PG&E CASE Report Page 6

service life of an air-cooled chiller is ~ 15years. Water-cooled chillers and towers are closer to 20 years. (The 1999
ASHRAE Applications Handbook lists service lives of 20 years for air-cooled chillers, 20-23 years for water-cooled
chillers and 20-34 years for cooling towers.)

As a conservative assumption we assumed that the maintenance costs of air and water-cooled chillers are equal (and
therefore not included in the tables above) and the only incremental maintenance is for the cooling tower.
Incremental maintenance costs are included in the tables above.

An additional conservative assumption that we made is that both air and water-cooled plants have an expected life of
15 years.

Performance Verification
It is very difficult to measure the performance of cooling towers in the field. CTI/ATC has a field performance test
procedure that costs in practice $5,000 to $10,000 to implement. We have NEVER heard of this test performed on a
commercial building (it is routinely applied to towers connected to power plants). Key factors that make this
difficult include the need for water flow measurements, outdoor air wet-bulb measurements and assessment of tower
air recirculation (entrainment of discharge air).

We do not recommend any new performance verification measures for these requirements. Standard start-up
procedures are adequate to ensure performance of the system and new measures are unlikely to be either practical or
cost-effective.

Relationship to Other Measures

No other measures are affected by this change.

Methodology
The following section describes our methodology for the analysis of the air-cooled chiller limitation. As described
below we simulated three sizes of chilled water plants in three climate zones. The three plant sizes correspond to the
break points in minimum water-cooled chiller efficiencies in Section 112 of the Standard. The three climates were
chosen to represent the full range of design wet-bulb temperatures in California.

There is no analysis performed to support the flow turndown requirement; this requirement is immediately cost
effective because it saves both energy and first cost. As previously stated, it is far more efficient to run tower water
through multiple cells due to the near cube law efficiency of the fans; running two fans at ½ speed uses
approximately ¼ of the energy of running one fan at full speed for the same heat rejection. On the design side, it is
less expensive to design the tower for variable flow than it is to provide automatic isolation valves on the tower
cells; nozzles and weirs cost approximately $300 to $500 per cell while automatic isolation valves cost $1,500 to
$2,000 per cell.

There is also no analysis performed to support the limitation on centrifugal fan cooling towers. As previously stated
propeller or axial fan towers provide the same heat rejection at the same cost but use approximately ½ of the energy.
This measure is also immediately cost effective as it provides energy cost savings with little or no cost premium.

Simulation Using DOE2 Office in California

We simulated a generic 10 story, 100,000 sf building with Title-24 non-residential defaults for occupancy, building
envelope, etc. We ran 12 parametric runs: 4 models in 3 climate zones.

• 3 climate zones:

PG&E CASE Report Page 7

 o San Francisco (Mild) - 84/65 dry-bulb/wet-bulb design conditions
o Long Beach (Intermediate) – 97/70 dry-bulb/wet-bulb design conditions
o Fresno (Extreme) – 104/73 dry-bulb/wet-bulb design conditions
• One air-cooled model.
• 3 water-cooled models because the T-24 minimum efficiencies are different for the 3 sizes of chillers used for
the different plant sizes. (Air-cooled minimum efficiencies did not change). The energy results for each run
were scaled as required to model different installed plant capacities. In each case we assumed that the scaled
peak load was equal to 90% of the installed plant capacity.

Modeling Assumptions
Our modeling assumptions are summarized in Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 below. Table 3 details the general
economic and modeling assumptions that were used in both the air- and water-cooled plant models. Table 4 details
the modeling parameters particular to water-cooled plants. Table 5 details the modeling parameters particular to
water-cooled plants.

Table 3 – General Modeling Assumptions for All Plants.

General Assumptions (both Cases)

economic criteria CEC avg annual PV (1.02, 7.04)
CZ3: SF CO (84/65) These represent a large percentage of population and
CZ6: Long Beach CO (97/70) range of climates. If we are to propose a rule, we
climate zones (1% data) CZ12: Fresno AP (104/73) should run all climate zones
plant sizes 200, 400, 600 ton little chance of success mandating WC below 200 t
peak load sizes 180, 360, 540 ton 90% of plant capacity
bldg size 100 x 100 ft square, 10 stories
since 200, 400, and 600 ton WC plants have different
simulation runs 4 runs per CZ: (3) WC+(1) AC efficiencies and curves.
window wall ratio 50% typical
envelope/internal load assumptions per ACM

All chilled water pipe costs are same for both cases
CHW setpoint 44 per ACM
CHW delta T 10 per ACM
CHWST control 44 fixed
zone min air flow ratio 0.4
zone min outside air 0.15 cfm/sf
AHU suppply air temperature (SAT) 55F when OAT >= 60F
SAT control reset to 60F when OAT <=55
economizer drybulb
drybulb hi limit 75F

PG&E CASE Report Page 8

 Table 4 - Modeling Assumptions for Water-Cooled Plants

Water Cooled Modeling Assumptions

chiller type and T-24 min efficiencies 200t = (2) 100t screw (4.45 COP = 0.2247 EIR, 4.50 IPLV)
400t = (2) 200t screw (4.90 COP = 0.204 EIR, 4.95 IPLV)
600t = (2) 300t centrif (6.10 COP = 0.1639 EIR, 6.10 IPLV)
chiller curves DOE-2 defaults for W.C. screw, centrif
CW pump selection GPMs from the CoolTools optimization, Head from EA and other designs
DOE-2 does not do a good job modeling start/stop
chiller min unloading 0% losses
chiller HGB 15% ACM min unload default is 10% centrif, Screw 15%
chiller staging max out 1st before bringing on second
Tower efficiency (EIR) 0.01 based on manufacturer's cost/performance data
CW approach 7 degree F common practice
CW delta T 18 based on CoolTools optimization
CWST setpoint fixed at design wb

Table 5 – Modeling Assumptions for Air-Cooled Plants

Air Cooled Modeling Assumptions

chiller type 200t = (2) 100t screw
400t = (2) 200t screw
600t = (2) 300t screw
chiller efficiency T-24 min = 2.8 COP (0.357 EIR), 2.8 IPLV
chiller compressor vs fan power split 93% compressor, 7% fan Carrier catalog
compressor EIR 0.3333
fan EIR 0.0245
chiller curves DOE-2 defaults
Min Air temp 70 default
Below this, control action is initiated to maintain this min temp.
DOE-2 does not do a good job modeling start/stop
chiller min unloading 0% losses
chiller HGB 15% ACM min unload default is 10% centrif, Screw 15%

Economic Criteria
Assumptions:

• 15 year expected life of equipment

• 3% discount rate used to calculate present value of annual maintenance and water costs.
• Water utility rates were taken from the East Bay Municipal Utility District website (see water rate sensitivity
analysis below).
• We used two sets of electricity cost criteria:
o CEC PV - $1.37 as the present value of a kilowatt-hour saved over a 15 year life (This is the CEC
standard value.)
o CPUC TOU - The California Public Utility Commission Time Of Use rate has different value for
the present value of a KWH saved based on time of use bins (Summer-Peak, Summer-Off-Peak,
Winter-Mid-Peak, etc.)

Due to time and budgetary constraints, we did not apply the TDV cost methodology. As it was, the threshold
justified using the flat rate electric cost is as low as we would recommend for a new requirement; this requirement
will cause changes in both standard practice of engineers and in the balance of sales between vendors in the market
place. Refer to the Life Cycle Cost Methodology Report by Eley Associates for further information on these
electricity rates.

PG&E CASE Report Page 9

Results
Simulation and LCC Results
Figure 1 illustrates the relative amount of energy used for the two plant types and for the three climate zones. (The
water-cooled results in this figure are using the 600 ton plant minimum efficiencies. The 200 and 400 ton water-
cooled results are very similar.)

Figure 1

Chiller Plant Energy for Air and Water Cooled Models in 3 Climates

Condenser Water Pumps

Tower/Condenser Fans
Compressors
4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0
KWH/sf-yr

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

-
SF-AC

Fresno-AC

LongBeach-

LongBeach-
SF-WC

Fresno-WC

WC

AC

Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4 show the lifecycle cost for San Francisco, Long Beach and Fresno, respectively. In
each of these figures the present value of the life-cycle cost savings from a water-cooled plant is depicted on the y-
axis as a function of the plant size (x-axis). Two sets of results are presented on these graphs: electricity costs using
the CEC fixed present value equation and using the CPUC time of use rates. In each case the TOU rate structure
justifies a more aggressive limitation of air-cooled plants. Lifecycle cost includes energy cost savings as well as
incremental first costs and maintenance costs. These figures indicate that water-cooled is cost effective above 200
tons in all climate zones using the CPUC TOU rates and is cost effective above 250 tons in all climates using the
CEC PV rate.

PG&E CASE Report Page 10

 Figure 2

Lifecycle Cost of Water Cooled versus Air Cooled in San Francisco

(LCC = Savings - Cost)

$8

$7

$6 CEC PV Rate ($1.37/kWh)

CPUC TOU Rate
$5
PV dollars/ft2

$4

$3

$2

$1

$0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-$1
plant size (tons)

PG&E CASE Report Page 11

 Figure 3

Lifecycle Cost of Water Cooled versus Air Cooled in Long Beach

(LCC = Savings - Cost)

$8

$7

$6 CEC PV Rate ($1.37/kWh)

CPUC TOU Rate
$5
PV dollars/ft2

$4

$3

$2

$1

$0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-$1
plant size (tons)

Figure 4

Lifecycle Cost of Water Cooled versus Air Cooled in Fresno

(LCC = Savings - Cost)

$8

$7

$6 CEC PV Rate ($1.37/kWh)

CPUC TOU Rate
$5
PV dollars/ft2

$4

$3

$2

$1

$0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-$1
plant size (tons)

PG&E CASE Report Page 12

Cost Multiplier

Given the many different elements that are included in first cost and the various sources of cost data, there is a
significant amount of uncertainty in the costs. Also, many of the costs that are assumed to be equal in both cases
may in fact not be equal. In order to test the sensitivity to the cost assumptions we included a cost multiplier of
120% on all water-cooled plant first costs and incremental maintenance costs. The results of this sensitivity analysis
are shown in the Appendices. With a 120% cost multiplier, the breakpoint moves up to about 300-400 tons for San
Francisco, 250-300 tons for Long Beach and 200-250 tons for Fresno.

Water Rates

We used the current East Bay Municipal Utility District’s commercial water rate. It turns out that the cost of the
water used in the water-cooled scenario is only about 10% of the total present value cost. We ran a sensitivity
analysis on water rate by more than doubling the water rate to $4.00 per 100 ft3. Doubling the cost of water has little
impact on the results. The results of this sensitivity analysis are shown in the Appendices.

Recommendations
We recommend that chilled water plants over 300 tons be required to use water-cooled chillers rather than air-cooled
chillers. Of course, air-cooled chillers are allowed if the Performance method of compliance is used.

We recommend that water-cooled plants with more than one chiller be required to have a flow turndown ratio of at
least 2.5:1 on all cooling towers.

We also recommend a limitation on centrifugal fan cooling towers in plants over 300t of capacity.

Proposed Standards Language

Proposed New Prescriptive Requirement for Water-Cooled Plants

Chilled water plants shall employ water-cooled chillers.

Exceptions:

1. Air-cooled chillers may be installed up to a maximum total installed capacity of 300t

2. Where it can be demonstrated to the authority having jurisdiction that the water quality prohibits the use of
water-cooled equipment.

Proposed New Prescriptive Requirement for Tower Flow Turndown

Heat rejection units configured with multiple condenser water pumps shall be designed so that all cells can be run
in parallel with the larger of the flow that’s produced by the smallest pump or 33% the design flow.

Proposed New Prescriptive Requirement for Limitation on Centrifugal Fan Cooling Towers

Heat rejection units serving cooling loads 300t and greater shall use propeller fans in lieu of centrifugal blowers.

Exceptions:

PG&E CASE Report Page 13

 1. If heat rejection units is located indoors and requires external static pressure capability

2. If an acoustical engineer certifies that acceptable noise levels cannot be achieved with a propeller fan
tower.

3. If the heat rejection unis meets the energy efficiency requirement for propeller fan towers in Section 112,
Table 1-C7.

Proposed ACM Language

No changes are anticipated for the ACM manual.

Bibliography and Other Research

CTI ATC 105, Acceptance Test Code for Water-Cooling Towers. 1997. Houston TX.
CTI STD 201, Standard for the Certification of Water-Cooling Tower Thermal Performance. 1996. Houston TX.
ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2001, ASHRAE, Atlanta GA.
Taylor, S.; Dupont, P.; Jones, B.; Hartman, T; Hydeman, M. CoolTools Report CT-016 May 2000. CoolTools™
Chilled Water Plant Design and Specification Guide (PG&E Pacific Energy Center, http://www.pge.com/pec,
[email protected])
Hydeman, M., PE; Taylor, S., PE; Winiarski, D. January 2002. Application of Component Models for Standards
Development . ASHRAE, Atlanta GA. AC-02-09
Benton, D., PhD.; Bowman, C.; Hydeman, M.; PE; Miller, P. January 2002. An Improved Cooling Tower Model.
ASHRAE, Atlanta GA. AC-02-09

AB 970 Impact Analysis

Acknowledgments
PG&E sponsored this proposal under direction of Pat Eilert. The contractor for this project is the Heschong Mahone
Group The analysis for this measure was performed by Jeff Stein, Mark Hydeman and Steve Taylor of Taylor
Engineering. Incremental cost and estimated incremental labor data were provided by Bob Levi and Jon Malkovich
of Carrier Corporation, Kurt Wessels of Trane Company, Bill Bates of York International, and Ben Clark of Norman
Wright Company.

PG&E CASE Report Page 14

Appendices
Piping Unit Prices and Takeoffs

Figure 5

Condenser Water Piping System Unit Prices and Material Takeoffs

Includes prices for labor+materials to install the following:
Fitting Allowance for Means 1.50
Local Contractor MEANS/Cooltools Count - No Aux load
Unit Prices ($/ft) 200t Plant 400t Plant 600t Plant
3" pipe length (incl. fittings) 41.2 31.38 169
4" pipe length (incl. fittings) 49.92 38.46 4 188
5" pipe length (incl. fittings) 58.32 52.19 4 208
6" pipe length (incl. fittings) 76.42 69.52 4
8" pipe length (incl. fittings) 87.86 90.34

valves: Unit Prices ($/item)

1" shut off (ball) 50.24 38.11 3 3 3
2" shut off (ball) 99.29 83.12 2 2 2
3" shut off (bfly) 271.25 243.01 8
4" shut off (bfly) 354.65 401.49 8
5" shut off (bfly) 488.75 474.75 8
8" shut off (bfly) 538.75 707.19
3" check valve 367.89 483.20 2
4" check valve 461.96 411.36 2
5" check valve 543.95 536.73 2
3" strainer 372.88 339.51 2
4" strainer 394.56 605.06 2
5" strainer 587.12 1,959.57 2
3" flex connection 278.36 170.92 4
4" flex connection 366.25 242.94 4
5" flex connection 468.24 375.28 4
peet's plugs 38.98 8 8 8
pump pressure gages with tubing a 103.89 2 2 2
thermometers 108.29 4 4 4

Refrigerant monitoring equip 7500 1 1 1

Exhaust Fan installation Cost 2.48 per cfm includes fan

CW Chemical Treatment System 10 per gal

Tower Maint Cost ($/yr) 4000 per year

PG&E CASE Report Page 15

 Pump Costs

Figure 6

Pump Costs (at fixed head of 40ft)

(does not include mark up or installation)
$2,500

$2,000
y = 2.8287x + 1333.7
2
$1,500 R = 0.9862
$

$1,000

$500

$-
- 100 200 300 400
gpm

Sensitivity Analysis: 120% Cost Multiplier

Figure 7

Sensitivity: 120% Cost Multiplier

Lifecycle Cost of Water Cooled versus Air Cooled in San Francisco
(LCC = Savings - Cost)
$8

$7

$6 CEC PV Rate ($1.37/kWh)

CPUC TOU Rate
$5
PV dollars/ft2

$4

$3

$2

$1

$0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-$1
plant size (tons)

PG&E CASE Report Page 16

 Figure 8

Sensitivity: 120% Cost Multiplier

Lifecycle Cost of Water Cooled versus Air Cooled in Long Beach
(LCC = Savings - Cost)
$8

$7

$6 CEC PV Rate ($1.37/kWh)

CPUC TOU Rate
$5
PV dollars/ft2

$4

$3

$2

$1

$0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-$1
plant size (tons)

Figure 9

Sensitivity: 120% Cost Multiplier

Lifecycle Cost of Water Cooled versus Air Cooled in Fresno
(LCC = Savings - Cost)
$8

$7

$6 CEC PV Rate ($1.37/kWh)

CPUC TOU Rate
$5
PV dollars/ft2

$4

$3

$2

$1

$0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-$1
plant size (tons)

PG&E CASE Report Page 17

 Sensitivity Analysis: Double Water Rates

Figure 10

Sensitivity Analysis: Double Water Rate

Lifecycle Cost of Water Cooled versus Air Cooled in San Francisco
(LCC = Savings - Cost)
$8

$7

$6 CEC PV Rate ($1.37/kWh)

CPUC TOU Rate
$5
PV dollars/ft2

$4

$3

$2

$1

$0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-$1
plant size (tons)

Figure 11

Sensitivity Analysis: Double Water Rate

Lifecycle Cost of Water Cooled versus Air Cooled in Long Beach
(LCC = Savings - Cost)
$8

$7

$6 CEC PV Rate ($1.37/kWh)

CPUC TOU Rate
$5
PV dollars/ft2

$4

$3

$2

$1

$0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-$1
plant size (tons)

PG&E CASE Report Page 18

 Figure 12

Sensitivity Analysis: Double Water Rate

Lifecycle Cost of Water Cooled versus Air Cooled in Fresno
(LCC = Savings - Cost)
$8

$7

$6 CEC PV Rate ($1.37/kWh)

CPUC TOU Rate
$5
PV dollars/ft2

$4

$3

$2

$1

$0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-$1
plant size (tons)

PG&E CASE Report Page 19