See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236511969

Energy Audit Analysis of Residential Air- Conditioning Systems in Austin, Texas

Conference Paper  in  ASHRAE Transactions · January 2012

CITATIONS READS
9 974

3 authors, including:

Joshua Rhodes Michael E Webber

University of Texas at Austin University of Texas at Austin
33 PUBLICATIONS   518 CITATIONS    287 PUBLICATIONS   4,578 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sustainability Implications of Urban + Suburban Locations View project

The Full Cost of Electricity View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Joshua Rhodes on 28 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Energy Audit Analysis of Residential Air-
Conditioning Systems in Austin, Texas

Joshua Rhodes Brent Stephens Michael E. Webber, PhD

Student Member ASHRAE Student Member ASHRAE

ABSTRACT
This work uses a unique database of nearly 5000 single-family home energy audits performed between 2009 and 2010 in
Austin, TX to 1) characterize the homes and their air-conditioning systems, and 2) estimate the aggregated peak power
savings attainable through the implementation of a series of conservation steps. The audit database is restricted to single-
family detached units, which allows the analysis to be extrapolated to just under one-half of the Austin residential building
stock. Characterization of the audit homes reveals that many homes still have “low-hanging fruit” efficiency improvements
available. Theoretically enrolling all homes in the utility-sponsored efficiency program yields a potential reduction in the
average air-conditioner size in the database from 3.1 tons (11 kW) to 2.2 tons (7.7 kW), which corresponds to a peak power
demand reduction of 1.8 kW for the average individual system. The maximum utility-scale peak power reduction for the
implementation of this program city-wide is estimated to be as high as 200 MW, which is almost 8% of Austin’s peak electric
demand in 2008 and enough to possibly offset new power plant acquisitions. Our calculations estimate that >97% of homes
in the audit database would benefit from enrollment in a home efficiency program and that the cost of savings is significantly
less than the cost of new generation facilities. Although this analysis is based on data from the City of Austin, understanding
the methods described herein could allow electric utilities and homeowners in similar climates to make better-informed
decisions when considering efficiency improvement programs.

INTRODUCTION

Several widespread factors have been shown to increase peak power demand (e.g., improper equipment sizing and low
system efficiency) and total energy consumption (e.g., suboptimal refrigerant charge, excess duct leakage, and incorrect
airflow rates) by air-conditioning systems in single-family residences (James et al., 1997; Proctor, 1997; Proctor, 1998; Neme
et al., 1999; Downey and Proctor, 2002; Mowris et al., 2004; Pigg, 2008). However, there have been limited studies of the
peak power consequences of residential air-conditioning systems that have sample sizes large and diverse enough to scale to
the utility level. Thus, there is a knowledge gap that this paper is seeking to fill. This work uses a database of 4971 recently
performed energy audits in Austin, Texas to characterize the prevalence of typical design and installation issues across the
audit homes and predict the amount of peak power draw reductions that may be achieved in the average home. Additionally,
the aggregated peak power savings potential to Austin Energy, the local electric utility, is estimated for widespread
participation in a utility-scale efficiency program, and the costs of savings are compared to the costs of a new peaking
generation plant. Understanding this dataset, especially the peak power consequences, can lead Austin Energy and similar
utilities to make better-informed decisions when considering efficiency improvement programs.

Joshua Rhodes and Brent Stephens are graduate students in the Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering at The
University of Texas, Austin, TX. Michael E. Webber is an assistant professor of Mechanical Engineering and associate director of the Center
for International Energy and Environmental Policy at The University of Texas, Austin, TX.
ENERGY AUDIT DATABASE
Austin, Texas is unique in that it is one of the few cities in the U.S. that requires an energy audit to be performed on a
home before it can be sold. This mandate is part of the Energy Conservation Audit and Disclosure (ECAD) ordinance (Austin
Energy, 2011). Homes may be exempted from this ordinance under several conditions, including recent participation in
utility-sponsored energy efficiency programs, classification as a condominium or manufactured home, or if the change of
ownership occurs under a variety of extenuating legal conditions (e.g., foreclosure, exercise of eminent domain, or property
settlements). The goal of the ECAD ordinance is to improve the energy efficiency of the entire Austin building stock, and it
applies to both residential (single- and multi-family) and commercial buildings. Despite the wide applicability of the ECAD
ordinance, we consider only single-family residences in this study. The ECAD program’s intent is to 1) use market forces to
increase the energy efficiency of on-the-market homes by providing prospective buyers with better information, and 2)
address part of the Austin Climate Protection Plan, which includes reducing the City of Austin’s peak power demand by 700
MW by 2020.
There are over 200 companies in the greater Austin area that are permitted to conduct official ECAD audits. Each
auditor receives training by Austin Energy and is given a detailed handbook explaining the steps necessary to conduct the
official ECAD audit. Audits are all submitted on a uniform document to Austin Energy who then supplies the completed
audit to prospective buyers. Auditor’s results are internally checked against similar home audits to determine authenticity
(Kisner, 2011). This work uses a database of almost 5000 energy audits that were performed on single-family detached
homes between 2009 and 2010 as a basis for analysis. To the authors’ knowledge, no other analysis of this type has been
conducted on a dataset this extensive.

METHODS

We first characterized common design and installation issues found in the homes in the audit database. Many of these
parameters were assessed simply by visual inspection, and others were measured directly by the auditors. Subsequently, we
estimated the amount of peak power draw reductions that might be achieved across the building stock in Austin for various
penetration levels of participation in the most aggressive residential efficiency program in Austin Energy’s Power Saver™
Program, Home Performance with ENERGY STAR®.
Home Performance with ENERGY STAR® (HPwES) is a joint program between the US Department of Energy and the
US Environmental Protection Agency. As stated on the program website, the program is a “comprehensive, whole-house
approach to improving energy efficiency and home comfort, while helping to protect the environment” (Energy Star, 2011).
Austin Energy, the municipally owned electric utility of Austin, TX, is the local sponsor, with over 7000 participants since
1998. Homeowners participate in the program by first contacting a participating home energy company to perform an energy
audit on their home. The audit company then makes recommendations on improving the efficiency of the home in the
following areas: duct sealing and repair, attic insulation, upgrading windows, caulking, weather stripping, radiant barriers,
and correctly sizing the air-conditioner or heat pump to a unit with a SEER of 14 (12 EER, COP-3.5). The participant decides
which improvements they would like to have performed, and Austin Energy reviews the proposal for work. Once approved,
the homeowner has two options, 1) the homeowner may receive a rebate of up to 20% of the cost of repairs, up to $1575 or 2)
the homeowner may be eligible for a low interest, unsecured loan from Austin Energy.
To establish a “best case” scenario of improved homes, each home in the database was theoretically enrolled to receive
the most commonly performed improvements in the HPwES program, and then each air-conditioning system was resized to
meet its “best case” reduced cooling loads. The power draw savings of a resized air-conditioning unit, as compared to
installed units at the time of the home audit, in each home were then summed and multiplied by a scaling factor to estimate
the peak power consequences at the utility scale. For all homes in the database, attic insulation was brought to code (R-38
hr·ft²·°F/Btu, RSI-6.7 m2·K/W), caulking and weather-stripping was assumed to increase air tightness to 0.35 ACH
(ASHRAE, 2009), leaky ducts were sealed, and windows were upgraded to a generic double-paned window (U-value of 0.56
Btu/hr·ft²·°F, 0.97 W/m²·°K). Although nearly 5000 homes underwent energy audits as part of a sales transaction as required
by the ECAD ordinance, it is assumed that no home energy improvements were previously implemented in these homes.
Thus, it is assumed that the home characteristics as listed in the ECAD database are an accurate reflection of the homes
today, as well as the rest of the single-family homes in Austin.
To assess peak power improvements, the optimal air-conditioner capacity for each theoretically improved home in the
audit database was estimated by performing a Manual J calculation (Rutkowski, 2004). This analysis was accomplished with
a custom spreadsheet program following the Manual J (ACCA) reference (James et al., 1997). Assuming the homes went
through the home energy upgrades, the values mentioned above were used in place of each home’s existing characteristics.
The calculated unit size (EER 12, COP-3.5) was then compared to the installed unit size (installed EER) and the difference in
peak power draw was calculated. Peak power draw was estimated in both cases by dividing equipment nominal capacity by
rated EER and adjusting for likely operating conditions, as shown in using Equation 1:

!"# ∗ 12 ∗ 1 + !" (1)

!   =
!!"

where P is the peak power draw (kW), CAP is the nominal capacity of the unit (tons), 12 is the unit conversion factor ([Btu-
kW]/[hr-tons-W]), EER is the rated efficiency of the unit (BTU/hr-W), and CF is the consumption factor used to account for
increased power draw at outdoor conditions during the peak hour in Austin that are likely higher than rated conditions. The
average power draw for homes in the database was calculated and extrapolated to 156,000 single-family detached homes with
an assumed average 70% run time for each unit during peak summer demand (Pigg, 2008; Stephens et al., 2011).
There are approximately 332,000 residential buildings in Austin Energy’s service area, 41.7% (156,000) of which are
single-family detached units (US Census, 2009). Thus, this database of 4971 energy audits represents over 3% of all single-
family homes in Austin, making it a statistically relevant representation of the building stock. Because the audits in the
ECAD database in our possession were single-family detached homes, we extrapolated the results of our analysis of the
ECAD data to all single-family units in the City of Austin.
Percentage  of  Homes  (%)  

25  
Audit  Database  
20   Austin  Census  
15  
10  
5  
0  

Year  Built  

Figure 1 ECAD audit database homes compared to projected 2009 Austin census data (single-family detached homes only).

Based on Figure 1, the ECAD data are similar to the demographic data for Austin as of 2009. Census data shows a
higher percentage of recently built homes (these homes are not subject to the ECAD ordinance because of their age). The
owners of these newer homes may have chosen to obtain an ECAD audit as an incentive to give to potential buyers.
Furthermore, the audit data includes a higher percentage of older homes.
RESULTS

Findings from the Audit Database

This section first summarizes building and system characteristics of homes in the audit database. Figure 2 shows the
distribution of the year that each home in the database was built. The majority (~99%) of homes in the audit database were
built prior to 2000, with a mean and median year built of 1972 and 1976, respectively.

200
Number of Homes

150

100

50

0
1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005

Figure 2 Distribution of year built of the homes in the ECAD audit database (N = 4893).

The mean floor area of the homes in the audit database was approximately 1798 ft2 (167 m2) (std. dev. 764 ft2, 71 m2),
with a median value of 1615 ft2 (150 m2). Figure 3 shows the measured attic insulation levels for ECAD homes.

500 Mean: R-21

Number of Homes

Median: R-21
400 Std. Dev.: R-9.5
Number: 4555
300
200
100
0
<2 6 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 46 50
Attic Insulation R-value (hr·ft²·°F/Btu)

Figure 3 Distribution of Attic insulation levels of homes in the ECAD audit database.

Austin Energy recommends an attic R-value of 38 hr·ft²·°F/Btu (RSI-6.7 m2·K/W) for homes in the Austin area,
although the majority of homes in the audit database (92%) fall below this recommendation. Homes in the audit database had
an average attic insulation R-value of 21.5 hr·ft²·°F/Btu (std. dev. 9.5) (RSI-3.8 m2·K/W; std. dev. 1.7). High thermal
conductivity between conditioned spaces and attic spaces increases cooling demand in the summer, as the temperature
difference between the attic and conditioned space can be greater than 54°F (30°C) (Parker et al., 2002). Although there
were 4971 homes in the audit database, only a negligible fraction (< 0.2%) did not have central air-conditioning.
 Table 1 describes selected characteristics for the primary air-conditioning systems in the homes in the audit database,
and the subsequent sections describe selected measured (or estimated) air-conditioning system parameters. Although there
were 4971 homes in the audit database, only a negligible fraction (< 0.2%) did not have central air-conditioning.

Table 1. Air-Conditioning System Characteristics

Standard Number of
Parameter Mean Median
Deviation Units
Nominal Capacity in tons [kW] 3.1 [11] 3.0 [10.6] 0.8 [2.8] 4763
Airflow Rate in CFM [m3/s] 1296 [0.61] 1200 [0.56] 651 [0.31] 4714
Rated Efficiency in Btu/hr/W [COP] 10.0 [2.9] 10.0 [2.9] 1.7 [0.5] 3818
Floor Area/Capacity in ft2/ton [m2/kW] 505.6 [13.3] 502 [13.2] 91.4 [2.4] 4693
Unit Age (years) 10.8 11 5.7 3480

Figure 4 shows the distribution of total duct leakage across the audit homes, measured as the leakage airflow rate at -0.1
IWC (-25 Pa), normalized to the estimated system airflow rates. Duct leakage fractions include the combined supply and
return leakage to both interior and exterior spaces.

Figure 4 Distribution of duct leakage as a fraction of total duct flow for homes in the database.

The majority of homes (approximately 77%) had duct leakage that would typically require sealing (greater than 10%),
although there is considerable uncertainty associated with both the leakage measurements and the estimated system airflow
rates. The mean duct leakage fraction was 19% (std. dev. 13%), with a median of 16% and an interquartile range of 10-24%.
The mean duct leakage airflow rate, measured at -0.1 IWC (-25 Pa), was approximately 234 cfm (0.108 m3/s), which was at
the low end of Neme et al. (1999), who summarized 19 duct studies that yielded a range of 193-396 cfm (0.091-0.187 m3/s)
at -0.1 IWC (-25 Pa).
The temperature difference across the cooling coil is another parameter measured in the audit homes and is an important
indicator of how well the system is functioning. Figure 5 shows the distribution of temperature differences measured across
the audit homes. The mean temperature difference was 17.1°F (9.5°C) (std. dev. 5.9°F (3.3°C), N = 3687). Austin Energy
recommends that the temperature difference across the cooling coil be in the range of 15-20°F (8.3-11.1°C). Approximately
47% of the systems were operating outside of the recommended range, split approximately equal between too high (24%) and
too low (23%). Temperatures that are below this range may be indicators of low airflow rates, fouled coils, or improper
refrigerant charge, all of which can reduce the cooling capacity of the unit (Proctor, 1997). Excessive temperature differences
may be indicators of improper sizing or overcharging, but can be an indication of increased sensible capacity.
Additionally, the distribution of rated energy efficiency ratios (EER) of the installed units is presented in Figure 6, in
units of cooling output (BTU/hr) per electrical power input (W).
 600

Number of Homes
500 Mean:  17.1  °F    
Median:  17  °F    
400 Std.  Dev.:  5.9  °F    
Number:  3687  
300
200
100
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Temperature Diference Across the Coil (°F)

Figure 5 Distribution of temperature Difference across the evaporator coil for homes in the ECAD audit database.

600 Mean:  EER-­‐9.9  

Number of Homes

500 Median:  EER-­‐10  

Std.  Dev.:  EER-­‐1.7  
400 Number:  3839  
300
200
100
0
Up To 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
6
Installed EER (BTU/hr per W)

Figure 6 Distribution of the installed efficiency of air-conditioning units in the ECAD audit database.

The installed unit efficiency has a direct impact on the energy consumption and power draw of the air-conditioning unit.
Approximately 86% of homes had systems with a rated EER less than Austin Energy’s recommendation of EER 12 (COP-
3.5), and less than 2% had an EER of 14 (COP-4.1) or more. Using Equation 1 with CF = 0, we estimate that the average
rated power draw across all individual units is approximately 3.9 kW (std. dev. 1.2 kW). This estimate is conservative for
summer peak, as the outdoor temperature during the summer peak in Austin typically exceeds 95°F (35°C). Using an increase
in outdoor unit power draw of 1.8% per °C rise in outdoor temperatures (Stephens et al., 2011) and an outdoor temperature of
105 °F (41°C) during the peak hour, the average peak power draw across all individual units is likely 4.2 kW (std. dev. 1.4
kW). Scaling to the approximately 156,000 single-family units in the City of Austin, and considering this dataset to be
representative of all single-family detached homes in Austin, this analysis leads to a collective total possible rated power
draw of approximately 660 MW for air-conditioning (or approximately 460 MW if we assume that 70% of air-conditioners
are operating during the peak hour). These values represent approximately 25% and 18% of Austin’s peak power demand in
2008, respectively (Duncan, 2009).

Increasing the Efficiency of the Homes with the Home Performance with Energy Star Program
Using the previously described sizing procedure and assigning oversized units with new correctly sized units (in
commercially-available increments of 0.5 tons (1.8 kW)), the mean unit size in the database would decrease from 3.1 tons
(~11 kW) (std. dev. 0.8 tons, 2.8 kW) to 2.2 tons (7.7 kW) (std. dev. 0.5 tons, ~1.8 kW) using HPwES retrofits, which would
allow the average home to realize a peak power demand reduction of approximately 1.8 kW (std. dev. 1.2 kW) if replaced by
a correctly sized EER 12 (COP-3.5) unit. Results indicate that more than 97% of the homes in the audit database would
benefit from this program. Aggregated across the entire 156,000 single-family detached homes in Austin, TX, we estimate
that application of HPwES retrofits to all applicable single-family homes in Austin could reduce Austin Energy’s peak power
demand by as much as 200 MW, or almost 8% of peak demand in 2008.
Our estimate of the potential peak power savings of HPwES retrofits assumes that the fraction of systems operating
during the peak hour (assumed 70%) does not change after correctly sized units are installed, although this fraction could
potentially increase as smaller systems will generally operate for longer periods of time to meet the same cooling load.
Oversized systems often cycle on and off frequently, which can help reduce the aggregate instantaneous demand on a utility.
If the fraction of air-conditioning systems operating during the peak hour increased from 70% to 100%, as a result of the
home improvements, the peak savings would be reduced to 86 MW. However, it is not expected that the fraction would
increase to that level because other HPwES retrofits would also decrease the cooling load during the peak hour. The
aggregation of air-conditioning units drawing less power because of their decreased size, increased efficiency (EER 12, COP-
3.5), and reduced cooling loads from improvements to the efficiency of the home, should still enable substantial reductions in
peak power demand (Neme et al., 1999).

Comparison of the Costs of Efficiency Upgrades to the Costs of Peaking Power Plant Acquisitions

The above analysis suggests that up to ~200 MW of peak demand can potentially be shaved with a very aggressive level
of home energy efficiency improvements. Reducing this peak demand in Austin might offset the need for Austin Energy to
obtain additional peak generation units, which are used to meet peak demand and usually only operate a small number of
hours during the hottest parts of the summer when the air-conditioning load is high. A generic 160 MW conventional natural
gas combustion turbine is estimated to cost $685 per kW (overnight costs), or approximately $110 million, with $2 million in
fixed O&M cost per year (EIA, 2010). Assuming that fuel costs are $75.60 per MWh, depending on the generating unit and
prevailing market prices for natural gas (NRRI, 2007), 200 hours per year of operation, and a modest 5% yearly rise in fuel
prices, the total fuel cost for 20 years would be about $80 million. Thus, considering a 20-year life span, the total cost
associated with a 160 MW natural gas peaking unit could be approximately $230 million (or $1438 per kW of generation).
The maximum rebate from Austin Energy to homeowners enrolled in HPwES is currently $1575. Considering an
average peak power reduction of 1.8 kW per home, the cost per kW (savings) to Austin Energy is approximately $865 per
kW, or only 60% of the cost of a new peaking generation plant. Austin Energy could even increase the maximum rebate to
approximately $2600 per home and the cost of savings would still be at parity with the cost per kW of generation. This
increased maximum rebate is over half the average cost (approximately $5000) to homeowners for enrolling in this program
(Belzer et al., 2007). Although there are other more cost-effective methods to reduce peak demand on electric utilities, such
as direct load control and critical peak pricing (Newsham and Bowker, 2010), this analysis is limited to building retrofits
using HPwES, which can still be more cost-effective than new plant acquisitions while simultaneously benefiting
homeowners by reducing their overall energy consumption.

CONCLUSION

Given this unique dataset of energy audit information for almost 5000 single-family homes, we were able to
characterize a significant portion of the Austin residential building stock. We assessed the contribution of single-family
residential air-conditioning units to Austin’s peak power demand, and estimated the potential peak power savings of
widespread participation in a residential efficiency program. Our analysis leads to similar conclusions of previous studies:
residential homes and air-conditioning systems are often inefficient. However, because of the scale and diversity of the
dataset, broader conclusions can be drawn for the city of Austin’s residential building stock. We estimate that residential air-
conditioning systems in single-family homes likely account for ~18% of Austin’s peak power demand in the summer, and
that repairing system inefficiencies and poor building performance characteristics could reduce peak demand by almost 200
 MW, or almost 8%. We estimate that more than 97% of the homes in the audit database would benefit from home efficiency
upgrades, and that the cost of savings to the utility is currently only ~60% of the cost of an additional peaking generation
unit. Additionally, full participation in an efficiency program could help achieve up to 28% of Austin’s peak power demand
reduction goal of 700 MW by 2020. Although our analysis is limited to the City of Austin, implementation of a program
similar to Austin’s ECAD in any other city would allow for similar analysis of the existing building stock and associated
peak power savings.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Joshua Rhodes’ portion of this work was funded by The Pecan Street Project, Inc. (a 501(c)3 non-profit public-private
partnership in Austin, Texas) and the University of Texas at Austin. Brent Stephens’ portion of this work was funded by the
National Science Foundation (IGERT Award DGE #0549428). The authors would also like to thank Christopher Frye and
Timothy Kisner (both Austin Energy) for their intellectual contributions and their help with understanding the audit database.

REFERENCES

ASHRAE, 2009. ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers, Inc.
Austin Energy, 2011. About the Energy Conservation Audit and Disclosure (ECAD) Ordinance. Web. 21 Apr. 2011.
<http://www.austinenergy.com/about%20us/environmental%20initiatives/ordinance/index.htm>.
Belzer, D., G. Mosey, P. Plympton, and L. Dagher, 2007. Home Performance with ENERGY STAR: Utility Bill Analysis on
Homes Participating in Austin Energy’s Program. Report No. NREL/TP-640-41903. Golden, CO: NREL.
Downey, T. and J. Proctor, 2002. What can 13,000 air-conditioners tell us?, In the Proceedings of ACEEE Summer Study on
Energy Efficiency in Buildings.
Duncan, R., 2009. Resource & Climate Protection Plan to 2020. 18 Aug. 2009. Web. 16 May 2011.
<http://www.austinenergy.com/About%20Us/Newsroom/Reports/resourceAndClimateProtectionPlan.pdf>.
EIA, 2010. Electricity Market Module. Report No. DOE/EIA-0554(2010). Washington, DC: DOE/EIA.
Energy Star, 2011. Home Performance with ENERGY STAR. USDOE & USEPA. Web. 19 May 2011.
<http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=hpwes_profiles.showSplash>.
James, P., J.E. Cummings, J. Sonne, R. Vieira, and J. Klongerbo, 1997. The Effect of Residential Equipment Capacity on
Energy Use, Demand, and Run-Time. ASHRAE Transactions 103(2): 297-303.
Kisner, T., 2011. Personal communication with Tim Kisner, Austin Energy. April 19, 2011.
Mowris, R.J., A. Blankenship, E. Jones, 2004. Field Measurements of Air Conditioners with and without TXVs. In the
Proceedings of the ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings.
Newsham, G. R. and B. G. Bowker, 2010. The effect of utility time-varying pricing and load control strategies on residential
summer peak electricity use: A review. Energy Policy 38: 3289-3296.
Neme, C., J. Proctor, and S. Nadel, 1999. Energy Savings Potential From Addressing Residential Air Conditioner and Heat
Pump Installation Problems. Report No. A992. Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.
NRRI, 2007. McGarvey, J., K. Costello, R.S. Potter, M. Murphy, and P. Laurent. What Generation Mix Suits Your State?
Tools for Comparing Fourteen Technologies across Nine Criteria. Report No. 07-03. Columbus, Ohio: NRRI.
Parker, D.S., J.K. Sonne, and J.R. Sherwin, 2002. Comparative Evaluation of the Impact of Roofing Systems on Residential
Cooling Energy Demand in Florida. Report No. FSEC-CR-1220-00. Florida Solar Energy Center.
Pigg, S, 2008. Central Air Conditioning in Wisconsin. Report No. 241-1. Madison: Energy Center of Wisconsin.
Proctor, J., 1997. Field Measurements of new residential air-conditioners in Phoenix, Arizona. ASHRAE Transactions
103(1): 406-415.
Proctor, J., 1998. Monitored In-Situ Performance of residential Air-Conditioning Systems. ASHRAE Transactions 104(1B):
1833-1840.
Rutkowski, H., 2004. Residential Load Calculation: Manual J. Arlington, VA: Air Conditioning Contractors of America.
Stephens, B., Siegel, J.A., and Novoselac, A., 2011. Operational Characteristics Of Residential And Light-Commercial Air-
Conditioning Systems In A Hot And Humid Climate Zone. Building and Environment 46(10): 1972-1983.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2009. American Community Survey, 2009 Summary Tables; generated by Joshua Rhodes; using
American FactFinder; <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (15 May 2011).

View publication stats