Geographic Variation in
Potential of Residential Solar
Hot Water System Performance
in the United States
Authors
Camilo E. Gil and Danny S. Parker
Original Publication
Gil, C. and Parker, D., "Geographic Variation in Potential of Residential Solar Hot Water
System Performance in the United States", October 2009.
Publication Number
FSEC-CR-1817-09
Copyright
Copyright © Florida Solar Energy Center/University of Central Florida
1679 Clearlake Road, Cocoa, Florida 32922, USA
(321) 638-1000
All rights reserved.
Disclaimer
The Florida Solar Energy Center/University of Central Florida nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use
would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or
service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the Florida Solar Energy Center/University of Central Florida or
any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of
the Florida Solar Energy Center/University of Central Florida or any agency thereof.
Geographic Variation in Potential of Residential Solar Hot Water System
Performance in the United States
Camilo E. Gil and Danny S. Parker
Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC)
October 2009
Abstract
This paper describes an assessment of residential solar water heater performance around the
continental United States. We performed annual simulations using an hourly simulation model
(EGUSA) for 212 TMY3 weather locations around the nation. The annual simulations show how
standard hot water energy use for electric and gas systems vary geographically (kWh and therms)
as well as the potential energy savings from solar water heaters. A key finding is that the energy
necessary for water heating varies by 2:1 around the U.S. with implications for solar water
heating system design and sizing. Our results provide information on expected water heater
performance, solar systems savings and best configurations.
Keywords: solar water heaters, energy savings, simulations, EnergyGauge USA, TRNSYS, BEopt.
Page 2 of 65
Executive Summary
Water heating accounts for a significant portion of the total annual energy consumption in a
typical home in the United States. This paper describes a geographical assessment of residential
solar hot water performance around the U.S. as a way of quantifying potential benefits and
renewable energy contributions around the country.
Using a detailed hourly energy simulation software EnergyGauge USA (EGUSA), we simulated
annual hot water energy use under the ASHRAE hot water draw profile. The analysis was
conducted for 212 TMY3 (Typical Meteorological Year version 3) weather sites on a two-story
three bedroom home. A total of eight different water heating systems were evaluated, giving
clear indication on how hot water production varies throughout the U. S. For each TMY3
location we simulated both natural gas and electric water heaters as the standard storage systems.
Each of these standard systems was then simulated with a 32 ft2 integrated collector storage
(ICS) solar water heating system, a 40 ft2 and 64 ft2 closed loop flat plate system respectively,
for a total of eight systems (four with gas and four electric).
Flat plate systems showed the highest level of savings; a 40 ft2 system with freeze protection
showed the ability to meet 50 – 80% of energy requirements for water heating around most of
the country (Figure E.1). The specific energy savings in EGUSA for the electric 40 ft2 system
averaged 2132 kWh for a solar fraction of 58 % (varying from 1473 – 3051 kWh and 35 – 64%).
For the 40 ft2 solar system with natural gas energy savings averaged 81.6 therms for a solar
fraction of 40 % (varying from 54 – 113 therms and 24 – 43 %).
For a larger electric 64 ft2 system of the same type, energy savings averaged 2621 kWh for a
solar fraction of 71 % (varying from 2002 – 3875 kWh and 48 – 81 %). In the natural gas case,
energy savings averaged 107.3 therms for a solar fraction of 53 % (varying from 78 – 154 therms
and 34 – 59 %).
Solar fractions and savings were lowest for ICS systems numbers. The specific energy savings in
EGUSA for the electric 32 ft2 system averaged 1424 kWh for a solar fraction of 40 % (varying
from 989 – 2001 kWh and 20 – 55 %). For the 32 ft2 solar system with natural gas energy
savings averaged 49.9 therms for a solar fraction of 25 (varying from 34 – 71 therms and 12 –
42%).
As a check on results we simulated annual hot water energy use for the same locations and
configurations using the TRNSYS energy simulation software as implemented in BEopt. For the
majority of the country, the discrepancies between both simulation programs are less than +10 %
for a standard 40 gallons electric water heater combined with a 40ft2 flat plate closed loop solar
water heater (E40FPCL).
A key innovation in our analysis was that our annual simulations showed that standard energy
requirements for water heating vary by more than 2:1 around the continental U. S because of
varying inlet water temperatures. This has potential ramifications for both solar system
performance, sizing and even optimal collector tilt—where greater energy loads in winter would
Page 3 of 65
suggest higher collector tilts than otherwise justified. 1 We present data both for absolute savings,
and solar fraction. As it is shown in Figures E.1 and E.2, for E40FPCL, the annual simulations
show how potential absolute and fractional energy savings from solar water heaters vary
geographically around the U. S. The most commonly invoked unit of merit, fractional savings
tells the percentage of water heating energy provided with respect to the case of only having a
regular water heater. In practical terms, and given a fixed energy price, absolute savings gives an
indication of relative economics. In general, colder, sunnier climates showed most attractive
savings. Our analysis gives designers and builders in a specific region an indication of expected
water heater performance and best configurations. A more detailed analysis was done for the
states of Florida and California given current levels of interest in solar water heating.
Figure E.1: Annual fractional energy savings (%) for a standard 40 gallons electric water heater combined
with a 40ft2 flat plate closed loop solar water heater
Figure E.2: Annual absolute energy savings in kWh for a standard 40 gallons electric water heater combined
with a 40ft2 flat plate closed loop solar water heater
1
Page 4 of 65
Introduction
Water heating accounts for a significant portion of the total annual energy consumption in a
regular home. Solar domestic water heating is an alternative to help meet the hot water energy
demands in a household. In order to visualize the potential benefits and contributions of solar
systems, an assessment of residential roof-top solar hot water performance around the
continental United States is developed through the document.
Using the energy simulation software EnergyGauge USA (EGUSA) [1] and TRNSYS [2] [3] as
implemented in BEopt [6], we simulated annual hot water energy use in 212 TMY3 sites on a
two-story three bedroom home for eight water heating systems, with the objective to learn how
hot water system performance varies throughout the U. S. For each TMY3 location and software,
we simulated both natural gas and electric water heaters as the standard storage systems. Each of
these standard systems was then simulated with a 32 ft2 integrated collector storage (ICS) solar
water heating system, a 40 ft2 and 64 ft2 closed loop flat plate system respectively, for a total of
eight systems (four with gas and four electric). Note that although concerns have been expressed
in the past for the adequacy of simulations for ICS systems, BEopt uses TRNSYS for their
simulation and EGUSA has been shown to very successfully emulate this software in its own
calculation of ICS performance [6].
Solar Hot Water Systems
We choose the three solar water heating system as ones which are roughly representative of a
large number of solar water heating installations being installed in the U.S. The integrated
collector storage system reflects a popular batch type water heater with a series of water filled
tubes filled with 40 gallons of water in an insulated structure under loss-heat loss glazing. These
systems are popular in non freezing climates since the have no pumps, valves or moving parts
and are considered very reliable. However, within the EGUSA simulation model, we assume the
ICS systems were not available in any hour in which the temperature over the preceding day fell
below freezing. No such limit is used within the BEopt program.
A second configuration is perhaps the most popular solar water heating system in the U.S. This
consists of a single glazed 4 x 10' flat plate collector with high transmittance low iron glass
connected by insulated piping to an 80 gallon storage tank. A glycol loop is utilized to provide
freeze protection and an integral heat exchanger in the storage tank. The glycol loop is pumped
by a small variable speed DC pump and is PV driven. A similarly performing system would
consist of a drainback collector, although typically a larger AC pump would be required for this
application. These systems are among the most successful of all solar water heating systems in
the field across climates [7].
The third solar system is similar to the 4 x 10' collector system save that two 4 x 8' collectors are
used in tandem. This provides a larger heat collection area along with a 80 gallon tank. With
electric resistance water heating as the auxiliary, 4500 Watt elements in the solar storage tanks
provide back up heat in case the solar system cannot meet the load. For natural gas systems,
Page 5 of 65
however, we assume that a two tank system with the auxiliary tank elevated to provide
circulation from the solar tank via natural buoyancy.
Building Simulation Analysis
The simulations were performed on an hourly time step with results compiled on an annual basis
(8,760 hours). Typical Meteorological Year Data (TMY3s) were used for all locations. A
specific implementation of the software, EGUSA was used for the analysis. The analytical
method used to predict hourly solar contributions in EGUSA is based on an hourly correlation of
the TRNSYS simulation such that it could be implemented as a function within the DOE-2.E [6].
Further, we also used TRNSYS itself within the BEopt simulation to evaluate the performance of
each electric solar system.
Description of the Simulated Home
Tables 1, 2 and 3 summarize the key specifications for the home used for our analysis. 2
Table 1. Site and Envelope Key Specifications
Type:
Occupancy:
Draw profile:
Shading:
Weather Data:
Attached Garage:
Roof area:
Roof slope:
2 stories, 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 1800 ft2
Single Family
ASHRAE [7] [8] [9]
No shade trees, no adjacent buildings
Typical Meteorological Year version 3 (TMY3)
Yes
1007 ft2
6/12 inches
Table 2. Standard Hot Water Systems Specifications
Type:
Efficiency:
Location:
Capacity:
Daily Use:
Set Temperature:
Natural Gas
0.59
Garage
40 gallons
60 gallons
120 °F
Electric
0.9
Garage
40 gallons
60 gallons
120 °F
2
Note that we assume a standard 6/12 roof pitch with a resulting 27 degree slope. Given the practical desirability
from homeowners of good aesthetic appearance with flush-mounted collectors, this tilt was utilized in all locations.
Page 6 of 65
Table 3. Solar Hot Water Systems Specifications
Integrated Collector Storage (ICS)
Cover area:
Tilt:
Azimuth:
Tank loss coefficient:
Transmittance absorptance product:
Volumetric capacity:
30.1 ft2
27 °
180 °
17.06 Btu / hr · ° F
0.82
41.2 gallons
Table 3. Solar Hot Water Systems Specifications (continuation)
Flat plate (closed loop)
Surface area:
Tilt:
Azimuth:
Loss coefficient:
Transmittance absorptance product:
Storage tank volume:
Transmittance correction:
Storage tank U-value:
Storage tank surface area:
Heat exchanger correction factor:
40 ft2
27 °
180 °
0.734 Btu/ hr · ft2 · ° F
0.78
80 gallons
0.96
0.123 Btu/ hr · ft2 · ° F
25 ft2
0.88
64.1 ft2
27 °
180 °
0.734 Btu/ hr · ft2 · ° F
0.78
80 gallons
0.96
0.123 Btu/ hr · ft2 · ° F
25 ft2
0.88
Weather Data
Hourly weather data used for the simulation was obtained from the Typical Meteorological Year
version 3 (TMY3) derived from the 1976-2005 National Solar Radiation Data Base (NSRDB).
TMY3 is a data set of hourly values of solar radiation and meteorological elements for a oneyear period. It consists of months statistically selected from individual years and concatenated to
form a complete year. The intended use is for computer simulations of solar energy conversion
systems and building systems [10].
Modeling Mains Water Temperature
The inlet water temperature of a water heating system is a primary determinant of the energy
requirement to bring the final delivery temperature to 120 °F. Commonly in the past, the mains
water temperature has been assumed to be nearly fixed at the average well temperatures in a
location. However, recently collated data from around the U.S. shows that water supply
temperatures have a strong seasonal component since mains are not deeply buried. This seasonal
variation has important implications for water heating systems—particularly for solar water
heating systems where available insolation also varies such that lowest levels are available in
Page 7 of 65
winter. 3 To address this important need, Hendron et al. [11] have summarized various data
sources and produced a calculation method to estimate mains water temperature depending on
location, weather data and time of year (Equation 1):
 ∆Tamb, max
Tmains = (Tamb, avg + offset ) + ratio ⋅ 
2


 ⋅ sin (0.986 ⋅ (day# - 15 - lag) - 90 )

(1)
where: Tmains = mains (supply) temperature to domestic hot water tank (°F)
Tamb,avg = annual average ambient air temperature (°F)
∆Tamb, max = maximum difference between monthly average ambient temperatures (e.g.,
Tamb,avg,july – Tamb, avg, january) (°F)
0.986
day#
offset
ratio
lag
= degrees / day (360 / 365)
= Julian day of the year (1 - 365)
= 6 °F
= 0.4 + 0.01 ⋅ (Tamb,avg - 44)
= 35 – 1.0 ⋅ (Tamb,avg - 44) (°F)
This equation is based on analysis by Craig Christensen and Jay Burch of the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) using data for multiple locations compiled by Abrams
and Shedd [12], the Florida Solar Energy Center, Sandia National Laboratories, and others.
When using this equation, a lower limit of 32 °F should be enforced for Tmains regardless of the
local weather conditions. The offset, ratio and lag factors were determined by fitting a sinusoidal
curve to the available data. The climate-specific ratio and lag factors reflect the practice of
burying water pipes deeper in colder climates.
For models that use average monthly mains temperature, Equation 2 is used to calculate day#.
day# = 30 ⋅ month# - 15
(2)
An example using Equation 2 to determine the monthly mains temperature profile for Chicago,
Illinois, is shown in Figure 1. Average daily hot water usage (labeled DHW gal / day) was
calculated using the equations in Table 4 based on cold water supplied at the mains temperature
and hot water supplied at 120 °F.
3
We acknowledge that a changing mains water temperature will also likely lead to some change in hot water
seasonal demand (e.g. see one study which showed a 27% seasonal change in hot water volume used by season in
Florida: T. Merrigan and D. Parker, 1990 “Electrical Use, Efficiency, and Peak Demand of Electric Resistance,
Heat Pump, Desuperheater, and Solar Hot Water Systems,” Proceedings of the 1990 ACEEE Summer Study on
Energy Efficiency in Buildings, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, August 1990, Pacific Grove,
CA) However, without evaluation of how this change in demand would vary around the U.S. we conducted this
analysis assuming that the volume of water used would remain constant year round).
Page 8 of 65
Figure 1. Mains temperature profile for Chicago
Table 4. Domestic hot water consumption by end-use
End-Use
End-Use Water
Temperature
Clothes Washer
N/A
Dish-washer
N/A
Shower and Bath
105 °F
Sinks
105 °F
Water Usage
7.5 + 2.5 ⋅ Nbr1 gal / day
(Hot Only)
2.5 + 0.833 ⋅ Nbr gal / day
(Hot Only)
14 + 4.67 ⋅ Nbr gal / day
(Hot + Cold)
10 + 3.33 ⋅ Nbr gal / day
(Hot + Cold)
1
Nbr = number of bedrooms
Simulation Results
We evaluated the data from the simulations in all TMY3s locations summarizing by city and
state. Appendix C shows the EGUSA simulated annual energy requirements for the standard
systems (electric and gas), and savings for the remaining three water heaters in each case with
respect to their respective standard system. In this simulation the ASHRAE draw profile
distributed according to Figure 2 [7] [8] [9] is assumed. A daily hot water consumption of 60
gallons per day was assumed in EGUSA, however the specific consumption for shower and sink
use in BEopt varies slightly with climate as shown in Table 4. Nevertheless, daily hot water
consumption in BEopt is only slightly different from 60 gallons per day— although typically
somewhat less. Appendix D shows a table with the BEopt simulated annual energy requirements
for the standard systems (electric and gas), and savings for the remaining six water heaters with
respect to their respective standard system.
Page 9 of 65
Figure 2. Hot water use profile [7]
The eight systems simulated are:
E:
E32ICS:
E40FPCL:
E64FPCL:
Standard electric resistance storage tank
Standard electric with a 32 ft2 integrated collector storage (ICS) system
Standard electric with a 40 ft2flat plate closed loop system
Standard electric with a 64 ft2flat plate closed loop system
G:
G32ICS:
G40FPCL:
G64FPCL:
Standard natural gas storage tank
Standard natural gas with a 32 ft2 integrated collector storage (ICS) system
Standard natural gas with a 40 ft2flat plate closed loop system
Standard natural gas with a 64 ft2flat plate closed loop system
Annual absolute and fractional savings are listed to show how much the solar systems contribute
in offsetting energy loads for each site. Absolute savings (AS) are shown in kWh or in therms
depending on the system and fractional savings (FS) are shown in percentage (%).
The EGUSA simulated systems produced 17 % to 95 % of the water heating needs around the
continental U. S. for the electric case and 11 % to 77 % for the natural gas case.
Geographic variation of energy requirements for standard water heaters
Using data from the annual simulations we created contour plot graphic representations of the
EGUSA estimated energy requirements for standard storage water heaters throughout the
continental U. S. The resulting EGUSA performance contours are shown in Figures 3 and 4. Note
that the energy consumption varies from 2,200 – 4,800 kWh for the electric resistance system
and from 120 – 260 therms for the gas system around the U. S., a variation of more than 2:1.
Lower energy requirements are found in the southern states with warmer inlet mains water
temperatures. The highest energy requirements are seen tending towards the extreme North
portion of the country where cold ground temperatures prevail. BEopt performance contours of
the estimated energy requirements for the standard storage electric system are shown in
Appendix E.
Page 10 of 65
Figure 3. Annual energy consumption in kWh for a standard storage electric water heater
Figure 4. Annual energy consumption in therms for a standard storage gas water heater
Geographic variation of absolute and fractional energy savings for solar water heaters
As before, we created contour plot graphic representations of the EGUSA estimated absolute and
fractional energy savings for different combinations of standard storage water heaters with solar
systems throughout the continental U. S. The resulting performance contours for E32ICS and
E64FPCL are shown in Figures 5 through 8. The remaining electric and natural gas plots can be
seen in appendices A and B respectively. Note that the energy savings varies from 1,000 – 3,200
kWh (20 - 78%) around the U.S. Lowest savings are from the ICS systems and the highest
savings came from the larger close loop flat plate system. For the solar gas systems, energy
savings varies from 35 – 130 therms (13 - 58 %) starting with G32ICS and ending with
G64FPCL (see appendix B). Savings for solar systems with a 2-tank natural gas system are lower
because of center flue and plumbing losses. Although, not simulated, much better results can be
obtained with solar systems mated with a tankless gas water heater auxiliary system.
Page 11 of 65
Figure 5. Annual absolute energy savings in kWh for E32ICS
Figure 6. Annual fractional energy savings (%) for E32ICS
Figure 7. Annual absolute energy savings in kWh for E64FPCL
Page 12 of 65
Figure 8. Annual fractional energy savings (%) for E64FPCL
Absolute Solar Savings vs. Solar Fraction
Typically, the savings of solar systems are evaluated by the fraction of the overall water heating
load that is served by the solar system element versus the system auxiliary heating system. "Solar
fraction" was further popularized by the analytical F-chart method developed by Duffie and
Beckman [13] and is commonly used to describe solar system performance.
While this method is correct from an analytical standpoint, we show in our analysis that when
evaluating performance of similar solar water heating systems around the U.S., the absolute
energy savings in terms of kWh and therms represents a better indicator of the
economic attractiveness of solar systems given a fixed energy price. This arises because the
water heating load itself varies with geographic location in the United States. Generally, the
colder
regions
of
the
country
have
the
greater
water
heating
loads
due to lower ground and well water temperatures as well as piping losses in garages, basements
and semi-conditioned utility rooms where tanks are commonly located. The end result, as shown
later in our series of plots showing the absolute savings of solar water heating systems, is that the
absolute energy savings of solar water heating systems is greatest in the colder, sunnier locations.
Not surprisingly, as shown in Figures 9 and 10 for a 40 ft2 closed loop system (perhaps the most
popular system type), the greatest absolute savings are seen in cold and clear southern Rocky
Mountain area in northern New Mexico, Colorado and Utah (compare to fractional savings in
Figures 11 and 12 respectively). However, our analysis clearly shows that significant energy
savings are available around the United States—particularly for flat plate systems which often
produce 50 - 80% of necessary water heating energy.
Page 13 of 65
Figure 9. Annual absolute energy savings in kWh for E40FPCL
Figure 10. Annual absolute energy savings in therms for G40FPCL
Figure 11. Annual fractional energy savings (%) for E40FPCL
Page 14 of 65
Figure 12. Annual fractional energy savings (%) for G40FPCL
In practical terms, absolute savings gives you an indication of the amount of money (energy) that
would be saved, while solar fraction indicates the percentage of annual water heating needs that
are met. The greatest fractional savings are seen in the state of Florida, while the largest absolute
savings are seen in Colorado and locations nearby.
Although not done here, if the results were further modified by prevailing energy prices, one
would find that systems look exceedingly attractive in the Northeastern U.S. and in California
where higher energy prices tend to prevail.
Comparison between EGUSA and BEopt simulations
Comparing the same locations for both programs, we found the following results. The EGUSA
simulated systems produced energy savings from 989 – 3,875 kWh (20 % – 81%) starting with
E32ICS and ending with E64FPCL for the solar electric systems. For the solar gas systems,
energy savings varies from 34 – 154 therms (12 % - 59 %) starting with G32ICS and ending with
G64FPCL.
The BEopt simulated systems produced energy savings from 1,239 – 3,997 kWh (30 % – 86%)
starting with E32ICS and ending with E64FPCL for the solar electric systems. For the solar gas
systems, energy savings varies from 50 – 191 therms (23% – 80 %) starting with G32ICS and
ending with G64FPCL.
A graphic comparison of the above quantities can be seen in Figure 13 where the averages shown
are 2059 and 2242 kWh for the electric case and 80and 105 therms for the natural gas case.
Page 15 of 65
Figure 13. BEopt and EGUSA ranges comparison for electric and gas systems
In general, BEopt simulation results present more optimistic predictions, especially for natural
gas systems. Figures 14 and 15 show detailed absolute savings ranges for each system. Here, we
can see that for electric and natural gas systems BEopt still shows more optimistic predictions
than EGUSA for all cases. For the electric systems, similar predictions are seen for flat plate
closed loop systems and the bigger discrepancies are seen for the ICS system. The difference in
the prediction for ICS systems is expected since EGUSA assumes these systems do not operate
on days where the temperature is below freezing whereas BEopt does not assume this limitation.
For the natural gas systems the variations in the prediction ranges are considerably bigger than
the variations for the electric systems. This is not surprising since EGUSA assumes a two-tank
system for natural gas leading to higher losses from the auxiliary tank center flue and associated
piping. In the natural gas cases the biggest discrepancy is also seen in the ICS system (G32ICS).
Table 6 shows the averages of the detailed absolute savings ranges for each system which are
also indicated on Figures 14 and 15.
Figure 14. BEopt and EGUSA detailed comparison for electric systems
Page 16 of 65
Figure 15. BEopt and EGUSA detailed comparison for natural gas systems
Table 6. Averages of the detailed absolute savings ranges for each system
BEopt
EGUSA
E32ICS
(kWh)
1728
1424
E40FPCL
(kWh)
2270
2132
E64FPCL
(kWh)
2728
2622
G32ICS
(Therms)
72.8
49.9
G40FPCL
(Therms)
106.7
81.6
G64FPCL
(Therms)
135
107.3
The differences in prediction of absolute energy savings in BEopt with respect to EGUSA on a
city by city basis are shown in Appendix I for all systems. As we stated before, in general BEopt
presents more optimistic results. Again, for the electric systems the biggest discrepancy is seen in
E32ICS where BEopt shows absolute energy savings between 2% and 60% higher than the
predictions in EGUSA—an expected result given the differing assumptions of ICS availability in
the EGUSA analsysi. The closest results are seen in E64FPCL where BEopt shows absolute
energy savings between - 4 % and 14 % with respect to EGUSA.
For the natural gas systems the biggest discrepancy is seen in G32ICS where BEopt shows
absolute energy savings between 23% and 91% higher than the predictions in EGUSA. The
closest results to EGUSA are seen in G64FPCL where BEopt shows absolute energy savings
between 15% and 36% higher.
Figure 16 shows how the differences between BEopt and EGUSA are geographically distributed
for E40FPCL around the continental United States. It can be seen that for most of the country,
the discrepancies between both simulation programs are less than +10 % for this type of system.
Closed loop flat plate types are the most popular solar water heating systems in the U.S.
Page 17 of 65
Figure 16. Geographically distributed differences of BEopt predictions vs. EGUSA for E40PFCL
Conclusions
We performed annual simulations for 212 TMY3 data locations throughout the continental
United States on a two-story three bedroom two bathroom home with eight different water
heaters under the ASHRAE draw profile. These annual simulations show how standard energy
requirements for water heating vary by more than 2:1 around the continental U. S. Also potential
energy savings from solar water heaters vary geographically around the U.S. Our analysis gives
designers and builders in a specific region an indication of expected solar water heater savings.
We presented data both for absolute savings, and solar fraction. Absolute savings are quite
different from solar fraction since the variation in the magnitude of water heating loads alters the
attractiveness of solar water heating.
Flat plate systems showed the highest level of savings; a 40 ft2 system with freeze protection
showed the ability to meet 50 – 80% of energy requirements for water heating around most of
the country (Figure E.1). The specific energy savings in EGUSA for the electric 40 ft2 system
averaged 2132 kWh for a solar fraction of 58 % (varying from 1473 – 3051 kWh and 35 – 64%).
For the 40 ft2 solar system with natural gas energy savings averaged 81.6 therms for a solar
fraction of 40 % (varying from 54 – 113 therms and 24 – 43 %).
For the flat plate closed loop electric 64 ft2 system, energy savings averaged 2621 kWh for a
solar fraction of 71 % (varying from 2002 – 3875 kWh and 48 – 81 %). In the natural gas case,
energy savings averaged 107.3 therms for a solar fraction of 53 % (varying from 78 – 154 therms
and 34 – 59 %).
Solar fractions and savings were lowest for ICS systems numbers. The specific energy savings in
EGUSA for the electric 32 ft2 system averaged 1424 kWh for a solar fraction of 40 % (varying
from 989 – 2001 kWh and 20 – 55 %). For the 32 ft2 solar system with natural gas energy
savings averaged 49.9 therms for a solar fraction of 25 (varying from 34 – 71 therms and 12 –
42%).
Page 18 of 65
Better results could be accomplished by customizing the efficiency components of the water
heating system to fit a particular location. For instance, as expected, we found ICS systems to
work best in mild climates. Moreover, for the natural gas, we also determined that solar works
best with tankless gas auxiliary systems due to center flue and piping losses in two-tank systems.
Future evaluations might consider the best water heater designs by climate including prevailing
energy costs.
In our analysis we showed the absolute energy savings in terms of kWh and therms, best
characterize the relative attractiveness of solar systems around the U.S. This arises since the
water heating load itself strongly varies with climatic severity due to prevailing ground water
temperatures. When this is considered, solar looks best in cold, clear areas such as Colorado
when a fixed energy price is assumed.
In general, BEopt simulation results suggest more optimistic predictions than EGUSA, especially
for natural gas systems where EGUSA likely makes more pessimistic assumption relative to the
thermal losses for two tank systems. However, for the majority of the country, the discrepancies
between both simulations are less than +10 % in the E40FPCL case.
Acknowledgements
This work is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Building America Program under cooperative agreement number DEFC26-06NT42767. The support and encouragement of program managers Mr. George James,
Mr. Terry Logee, Mr. Ed Pollock and Mr. William Haslebacher is gratefully acknowledged. This
support does not constitute DOE endorsement of the views expressed in this paper.
The authors appreciate the support of Scott Horowitz at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory who helped with documenting the assumptions used in BEopt’s TRNSYS model.
References
[1] Parker D, Broman P, Grant J, Gu L, Anello M, Vieira R, Henderson H. “EnergyGauge USA:
A Residential Building Energy Design Tool”. Proceedings of Building Simulation ’99, Kyoto,
Japan. International Building Performance Simulation Association, Organizing Committee for
the 6th International IBPSA Conference, Department of Architecture Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas, September 1999.
[2] Klein S A, Beckman W A, Mitchell J W, Duffie J A, Duffie N A, Freeman T L. “TRNSYS
Reference Manual 2000”. Solar Energy Laboratory, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
Wisconsin, 2000.
[3] “TRaNsient SYStems Simulation Program (TRANSYS) version 16, 2006 ”. Solar Energy
Laboratory, University of Winsconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, November 2006.
Page 19 of 65
[4] Christensen C, Horowitz S, Givler T, Courtney A, Barker G. “BEopt: Software for
Identifying Optimal Building Designs on the Path to Zero Net Energy”. NREL/CP – 550 –
37733. ISES 2005 Solar World Congress, Orlando, Florida, August 2005.
[5] Lane T. “Solar Hot Water, Lessons Learned 1977 to Today”. Energy Conservation Services
of North Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 2004.
[6] Anello M. “Comparison of Solar Hot Water Systems Simulated in EnergyGauge USA and
TRNSYS 15”. Technical Report, Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC), Cocoa, Florida, November
2006.
[7] American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
“HVAC Applications Handbook”. Atlanta, Georgia, 1999.
[8] American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
“HVAC Applications Handbook”. Chapter 49: Service Water Heating, pp 49.9 – 49.10, Atlanta,
Georgia, 2003.
[9] American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
“ANSI / ASHRAE Standard 90.2-1993”, “Energy Efficient Design of Low-Rise Residential
Buildings”, Section 8.9.4, “Hourly Domestic Hot Water Fraction” and Table 8-4, “Daily
Domestic Hot Water Load Profile”, pp 53 – 54, Atlanta, Georgia, 1993.
[10] Wilcox S, Marion W. “Users Manual for TMY3 Data Sets”. Technical Report, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, Colorado, May 2008.
[11] Hendron R, Anderson R, Christensen C, Eastment M, Reeves P. “Development of an Energy
Savings Benchmark for All Residential End-Uses”. National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL), Golden, Colorado, August 2004.
[12] Abrams D. W, Shedd A. C. “Effect of Seasonal Changes in Use Patterns and Cold Inlet
Water Temperature on Water Heating Load”. ASHRAE Transactions, AT – 96 – 18 – 3, Atlanta,
Georgia, 1996.
[13] Duffie J. A, Beckmann W. A. “Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes”. Wiley and Sons,
New York, 1980.
Page 20 of 65
Appendix A: EGUSA Auxiliary Electric Water Heaters Contour Plots
Figure A1. Annual energy consumption in kWh for a standard storage electric water heater
Figure A2. Annual absolute energy savings in kWh for E32ICS
Figure A3. Annual fractional energy savings (%) for E32ICS
Page 21 of 65
Figure A4. Annual absolute energy savings in kWh for E40FPCL
Figure A5. Annual fractional energy savings (%) for E40FPCL
Figure A6. Annual absolute energy savings in kWh for E64FPCL
Page 22 of 65
Figure A7. Annual fractional energy savings (%) for E64FPCL
Page 23 of 65
Appendix B: EGUSA Auxiliary Natural Gas Water Heaters Contour Plots
Figure B1. Annual energy consumption in therms for a standard storage gas water heater
Figure B2. Annual absolute energy savings in therms for G32ICS
Figure B3. Annual fractional energy savings (%) for G32ICS
Page 24 of 65
Figure B4. Annual absolute energy savings in therms for G40FPCL
Figure B5. Annual fractional energy savings (%) for G40FPCL
Figure B6. Annual absolute energy savings in therms for G64FPCL
Page 25 of 65
Figure B7. Annual fractional energy savings (%) for G64FPCL
Page 26 of 65
Appendix C: EGUSA Summary of Auxiliary Systems Simulation Results
Table C1. EGUSA Summary of Auxiliary Electric Simulation Results
EGUSA Simulated annual energy requirements for standard water heaters with absolute and
fractional savings from the addition of solar water heaters
State
ALABAMA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
City
BIRMINGHAM
HUNTSVILLE
MOBILE
MONTGOMERY
FLAGSTAFF
PHOENIX
PRESCOTT
TUCSON
FORT SMITH
LITTLE ROCK
ARCATA
BAKERSFIELD
DAGGET
FRESNO
LONG BEACH
LOS ANGELES
SACRAMENTO
SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO
SANTA MARIA
ALAMOSA
COLORADO SPRINGS
EAGLE
GRAND JUNCTION
PUEBLO
BRIDGEPORT
HARTFORD
WILMINGTON
DAYTONA BEACH
JACKSONVILLE
MIAMI
TALLAHASSEE
TAMPA
WEST PALM BEACH
ATHENS
ATLANTA
AUGUSTA
COLUMBUS
MACON
SAVANNAH
BOISE
POCATELLO
CHICAGO
MOLINE
PEORIA
ROCKFORD
SPRINGFIELD
EVANSVILLE
FORT WAYNE
INDIANAPOLIS
SOUTH BEND
DES MOINES
MASON CITY
SIOUX CITY
E
(kWh)
3151
3351
2838
3014
4422
2154
3638
2665
3337
3201
4038
2941
2754
3020
3104
3196
3314
3234
3617
3673
4780
4171
4647
3834
3890
3975
4073
3807
2566
2753
2127
2825
2424
2256
3201
3194
3106
2930
3037
2859
3957
4351
3924
4105
4087
4308
3876
3616
4166
3977
4032
4085
4488
4189
E32ICS
AS (kWh)
FS (%)
1592
50.5
1516
45.2
1559
54.9
1647
54.6
1736
39.3
1544
71.7
1986
54.6
1838
69.0
1540
46.1
1535
48.0
1441
35.7
1706
58.0
1845
67.0
1697
56.2
1849
59.6
1881
58.9
1738
52.4
1974
61.0
1803
49.8
2053
55.9
1653
34.6
1635
39.2
1464
31.5
1668
43.5
1812
46.6
1277
32.1
1183
29.0
1372
36.0
1645
64.1
1569
57.0
1514
71.2
1587
56.2
1635
67.5
1583
70.2
1597
49.9
1595
49.9
1665
53.6
1564
53.4
1609
53.0
1602
56.0
1540
38.9
1512
34.8
1214
30.9
1298
31.6
1335
32.7
1190
27.6
1372
35.4
1455
40.2
1170
28.1
1284
32.3
1188
29.5
1356
33.2
1193
26.6
1327
31.7
E40FPCL
AS (kWh)
FS (%)
2175
69.0
2158
64.4
2059
72.6
2185
72.5
2923
66.1
1905
88.4
2672
73.4
2269
85.1
2130
63.8
2045
63.9
1966
48.7
2124
72.2
2288
83.1
2120
70.2
2357
75.9
2405
75.3
2248
67.8
2572
79.5
2379
65.8
2739
74.6
3051
63.8
2581
61.9
2561
55.1
2514
65.6
2642
67.9
1985
49.9
1970
48.4
2087
54.8
2086
81.3
2056
74.7
1878
88.3
2080
73.6
2047
84.4
1975
87.5
2182
68.2
2189
68.5
2220
71.5
2074
70.8
2136
70.3
2099
73.4
2219
56.1
2386
54.8
1916
48.8
2138
52.1
2138
52.3
2050
47.6
2162
55.8
2107
58.3
1954
46.9
2053
51.6
1908
47.3
2237
54.8
2100
46.8
2207
52.7
E64FPCL
AS (kWh)
FS (%)
2564
81.4
2594
77.4
2367
83.4
2529
83.9
3616
81.8
2027
94.1
3132
86.1
2463
92.4
2542
76.2
2430
75.9
2599
64.4
2387
81.2
2519
91.5
2390
79.1
2718
87.6
2785
87.1
2545
76.8
2918
90.2
2882
79.7
3199
87.1
3875
81.1
3237
77.6
3320
71.4
3009
78.5
3166
81.4
2562
64.5
2557
62.8
2605
68.4
2301
89.7
2347
85.3
2011
94.5
2373
84.0
2217
91.5
2122
94.1
2567
80.2
2558
80.1
2575
82.9
2396
81.8
2471
81.4
2390
83.6
2667
67.4
2949
67.8
2419
61.6
2714
66.1
2696
66.0
2650
61.5
2680
69.1
2555
70.7
2509
60.2
2582
64.9
2429
60.2
2796
68.4
2745
61.2
2780
66.4
Page 27 of 65
EGUSA Simulated annual energy requirements for standard water heaters with absolute and
fractional savings from the addition of solar water heaters
State
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
City
WATERLOO
DODGE CITY
GOODLAND
TOPEKA
WICHITA
COVINGTON
LEXINGTON
LOUISVILLE
BATON ROUGE
LAKE CHARLES
NEW ORLEANS
SHREVEPORT
CARIBOU
PORTLAND
BALTIMORE
BOSTON
WORCESTER
ALPENA
DETROIT
FLINT
GRAND RAPIDS
HOUGHTON LAKE
LANSING
MUSKEGON
SAULT STE. MARIE
TRAVERSE CITY
DULUTH
INTERNATIONAL FALLS
MINNEAPOLIS
ROCHESTER
SAINT CLOUD
JACKSON
MERIDIAN
COLUMBIA
KANSAS CITY
SPRINGFIELD
ST. LOUIS
BILLINGS
CUT BANK
GLASGOW
GREAT FALLS
HELENA
KALISPELL
LEWISTON
MILES CITY
MISSOULA
GRAND ISLAND
NORFOLK
NORTH PLATTE
SCOTTSBLUFF
ELKO
ELY
LAS VEGAS
RENO
TONOPAH
WINNEMUCCA
CONCORD
ATLANTIC CITY
NEWARK
ALBUQUERQUE
E
(kWh)
4306
3751
4054
3731
3575
3871
3758
3518
2828
2805
2671
2998
4981
4497
3678
4047
4407
4621
4093
4315
4290
4572
4306
4325
4881
4496
4964
5050
4438
4617
4754
3046
3033
3836
3837
3683
3642
4284
4656
4577
4534
4521
4606
4633
4421
4474
4162
4229
4218
4226
4354
4479
2732
3974
3961
4091
4414
3840
3774
3612
E32ICS
AS (kWh)
FS (%)
1248
29.0
1652
44.0
1669
41.2
1438
38.5
1603
44.8
1307
33.8
1319
35.1
1221
34.7
1488
52.6
1531
54.6
1507
56.4
1516
50.6
869
17.4
1193
26.5
1414
38.4
1265
31.3
1156
26.2
1021
22.1
1101
26.9
1110
25.7
1163
27.1
995
21.8
1163
27.0
1151
26.6
989
20.3
1048
23.3
1037
20.9
993
19.7
1155
26.0
1130
24.5
1167
24.5
1612
52.9
1550
51.1
1449
37.8
1441
37.6
1463
39.7
1399
38.4
1410
32.9
1351
29.0
1277
27.9
1387
30.6
1305
28.9
1171
25.4
1255
27.1
1414
32.0
1271
28.4
1413
34.0
1365
32.3
1471
34.9
1486
35.2
1588
36.5
1503
33.6
1774
64.9
1814
45.6
1831
46.2
1687
41.2
1139
25.8
1411
36.7
1288
34.1
2001
55.4
E40FPCL
AS (kWh)
FS (%)
2116
49.1
2483
66.2
2616
64.5
2233
59.8
2321
64.9
1998
51.6
2013
53.6
1772
50.4
1956
69.2
2009
71.6
1964
73.5
2022
67.4
1763
35.4
2160
48.0
2113
57.4
2058
50.9
2094
47.5
1936
41.9
1779
43.5
1872
43.4
1895
44.2
1751
38.3
1900
44.1
1875
43.4
1931
39.6
1813
40.3
2001
40.3
1847
36.6
2094
47.2
1996
43.2
2154
45.3
2145
70.4
2071
68.3
2224
58.0
2275
59.3
2165
58.8
2126
58.4
2235
52.2
2274
48.8
2159
47.2
2185
48.2
2203
48.7
1907
41.4
2179
47.0
2291
51.8
1969
44.0
2361
56.7
2311
54.6
2431
57.6
2456
58.1
2587
59.4
2784
62.2
2258
82.7
2645
66.6
2782
70.2
2589
63.3
2033
46.1
2166
56.4
2032
53.8
2769
76.7
E64FPCL
AS (kWh)
FS (%)
2721
63.2
2970
79.2
3178
78.4
2747
73.6
2776
77.7
2518
65.0
2511
66.8
2228
63.3
2257
79.8
2310
82.4
2243
84.0
2347
78.3
2461
49.4
2847
63.3
2621
71.3
2637
65.2
2774
62.9
2578
55.8
2316
56.6
2453
56.8
2446
57.0
2345
51.3
2476
57.5
2411
55.7
2622
53.7
2411
53.6
2720
54.8
2538
50.3
2715
61.2
2643
57.2
2863
60.2
2491
81.8
2435
80.3
2733
71.2
2803
73.1
2639
71.7
2602
71.4
2810
65.6
2955
63.5
2771
60.5
2821
62.2
2838
62.8
2479
53.8
2856
61.6
2882
65.2
2542
56.8
2956
71.0
2897
68.5
3054
72.4
3068
72.6
3186
73.2
3486
77.8
2484
90.9
3147
79.2
3281
82.8
3112
76.1
2674
60.6
2723
70.9
2564
67.9
3187
88.2
Page 28 of 65
EGUSA Simulated annual energy requirements for standard water heaters with absolute and
fractional savings from the addition of solar water heaters
State
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
City
TUCUMCARI
ALBANY
BINGHAMTON
BUFFALO
MASSENA
NEW YORK CITY
ROCHESTER
SYRACUSE
ASHEVILLE
CAPE HATTERAS
CHARLOTTE
GREENSBORO
RALEIGH
WILMINGTON
BISMARCK
FARGO
MINOT
AKRON
CLEVELAND
COLUMBUS
DAYTON
MANSFIELD
TOLEDO
YOUNGSTOWN
OKLAHOMA CITY
TULSA
ASTORIA
BURNS
EUGENE
MEDFORD
NORTH BEND
PENDLETON
PORTLAND
REDMOND
SALEM
ALLENTOWN
BRADFORD
ERIE
HARRISBURG
PHILADELPHIA
PITTSBURGH
WILKES-BARRE
WILLIAMSPORT
PROVIDENCE
CHARLESTON
COLUMBIA
GREENVILLE
HURON
PIERRE
RAPID CITY
SIOUX FALLS
BRISTOL
CHATTANOOGA
KNOXVILLE
MEMPHIS
NASHVILLE
ABILENE
AMARILLO
AUSTIN
BROWNSVILLE
E
(kWh)
3589
4267
4374
4262
4542
3776
4209
4241
3740
3128
3287
3504
3388
3094
4640
4789
4758
4156
4082
3980
4029
4228
4202
4245
3373
3335
4026
4453
3966
3856
3972
3960
3825
4305
3897
3991
4635
4202
3912
3744
4049
4143
4029
4056
2945
3105
3457
4548
4303
4362
4420
3717
3323
3503
3138
3373
2829
3595
2661
2369
E32ICS
AS (kWh)
FS (%)
1843
51.4
1194
28.0
1073
24.5
1128
26.5
1090
24.0
1371
36.3
1133
26.9
1139
26.9
1559
41.7
1599
51.1
1615
49.1
1487
42.4
1561
46.1
1585
51.2
1307
28.2
1186
24.8
1158
24.3
1126
27.1
1041
25.5
1236
31.1
1218
30.2
1130
26.7
1252
29.8
1122
26.4
1534
45.5
1523
45.7
1118
27.8
1471
33.0
1291
32.6
1585
41.1
1468
37.0
1521
38.4
1221
31.9
1590
36.9
1288
33.1
1236
31.0
1057
22.8
1114
26.5
1275
32.6
1391
37.2
1184
29.2
1162
28.0
1169
29.0
1252
30.9
1614
54.8
1578
50.8
1436
41.5
1288
28.3
1397
32.5
1459
33.4
1291
29.2
1431
38.5
1502
45.2
1420
40.5
1540
49.1
1467
43.5
1761
62.2
1830
50.9
1465
55.1
1421
60.0
E40FPCL
AS (kWh)
FS (%)
2631
73.3
2029
47.6
1887
43.1
1868
43.8
1956
43.1
2028
53.7
1837
43.6
1897
44.7
2276
60.9
2134
68.2
2217
67.4
2156
61.5
2165
63.9
2119
68.5
2189
47.2
2130
44.5
1990
41.8
1799
43.3
1664
40.8
1923
48.3
1951
48.4
1874
44.3
1995
47.5
1770
41.7
2172
64.4
2181
65.4
1606
39.9
2399
53.9
1796
45.3
2149
55.7
2061
51.9
2102
53.1
1705
44.6
2339
54.3
1807
46.4
2005
50.2
1861
40.2
1786
42.5
2036
52.0
2090
55.8
1894
46.8
1911
46.1
1898
47.1
2031
50.1
2134
72.5
2119
68.2
2104
60.9
2248
49.4
2226
51.7
2424
55.6
2191
49.6
2128
57.3
2081
62.6
2100
59.9
2074
66.1
2095
62.1
2314
81.8
2574
71.6
1902
71.5
1815
76.6
E64FPCL
AS (kWh)
FS (%)
3075
85.7
2641
61.9
2511
57.4
2428
57.0
2606
57.4
2523
66.8
2384
56.6
2470
58.2
2824
75.5
2488
79.5
2627
79.9
2622
74.8
2604
76.9
2485
80.3
2825
60.9
2805
58.6
2643
55.5
2343
56.4
2178
53.4
2462
61.9
2490
61.8
2454
58.0
2572
61.2
2332
54.9
2553
75.7
2591
77.7
2139
53.1
2998
67.3
2250
56.7
2582
67.0
2631
66.2
2546
64.3
2148
56.2
2893
67.2
2267
58.2
2572
64.4
2530
54.6
2304
54.8
2596
66.4
2602
69.5
2433
60.1
2486
60.0
2461
61.1
2627
64.8
2460
83.5
2484
80.0
2557
74.0
2905
63.9
2817
65.5
3060
70.2
2818
63.8
2645
71.2
2507
75.4
2565
73.2
2422
77.2
2511
74.4
2550
90.1
3025
84.1
2172
81.6
2022
85.4
Page 29 of 65
EGUSA Simulated annual energy requirements for standard water heaters with absolute and
fractional savings from the addition of solar water heaters
State
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
City
CORPUS CHRISTI
EL PASO
FORT WORTH
HOUSTON
LUBBOCK
LUFKIN
MIDLAND
PORT ARTHUR
SAN ANGELO
SAN ANTONIO
VICTORIA
WACO
WICHITA FALLS
CEDAR CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
BURLINGTON
LYNCHBURG
NORFOLK
RICHMOND
ROANOKE
WASHINGTON D.C.
OLYMPIA
QUILLAYUTE
SEATTLE
SPOKANE
YAKIMA
CHARLESTON
ELKINS
HUNTINGTON
EAU CLAIRE
GREEN BAY
LA CROSSE
MILWAUKEE
CASPER
CHEYENNE
LANDER
ROCK SPRINGS
SHERIDAN
E
(kWh)
2499
3011
3045
2681
3369
2882
3092
2693
3036
2676
2638
2886
3092
4014
3866
4424
3584
3343
3471
3629
3550
4092
4189
3965
4182
4133
3744
4170
3719
4605
4491
4370
4394
4443
4480
4463
4618
4399
E32ICS
AS (kWh)
FS (%)
1437
57.5
1990
66.1
1575
51.7
1481
55.2
1796
53.3
1561
54.2
1848
59.8
1501
55.7
1767
58.2
1605
60.0
1511
57.3
1607
55.7
1666
53.9
1793
44.7
1551
40.1
1122
25.4
1538
42.9
1483
44.4
1515
43.6
1464
40.3
1358
38.3
1077
26.3
1022
24.4
1190
30.0
1259
30.1
1467
35.5
1346
36.0
1181
28.3
1337
36.0
1152
25.0
1120
24.9
1195
27.3
1185
27.0
1430
32.2
1460
32.6
1539
34.5
1453
31.5
1451
33.0
E40FPCL
AS (kWh)
FS (%)
1854
74.2
2544
84.5
2119
69.6
1943
72.5
2463
73.1
2048
71.1
2421
78.3
1951
72.4
2325
76.6
2061
77.0
1969
74.6
2127
73.7
2235
72.3
2767
68.9
2270
58.7
1897
42.9
2232
62.3
2110
63.1
2163
62.3
2175
59.9
2010
56.6
1556
38.0
1473
35.2
1676
42.3
1894
45.3
2117
51.2
2006
53.6
1884
45.2
1976
53.1
2078
45.1
2039
45.4
2071
47.4
2060
46.9
2513
56.6
2559
57.1
2651
59.4
2646
57.3
2332
53.0
E64FPCL
AS (kWh)
FS (%)
2099
84.0
2783
92.4
2456
80.7
2234
83.3
2855
84.7
2360
81.9
2723
88.1
2227
82.7
2629
86.6
2313
86.4
2233
84.6
2436
84.4
2573
83.2
3298
82.2
2735
70.7
2506
56.6
2709
75.6
2540
76.0
2628
75.7
2675
73.7
2468
69.5
2051
50.1
2002
47.8
2147
54.1
2353
56.3
2604
63.0
2512
67.1
2493
59.8
2486
66.8
2758
59.9
2690
59.9
2687
61.5
2693
61.3
3179
71.6
3284
73.3
3322
74.4
3363
72.8
2960
67.3
Page 30 of 65
Table C2. EGUSA Summary of Auxiliary Natural Gas Simulation Results
EGUSA Simulated annual energy requirements for standard water heaters with absolute and
fractional savings from the addition of solar water heaters
State
ALABAMA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
City
BIRMINGHAM
HUNTSVILLE
MOBILE
MONTGOMERY
FLAGSTAFF
PHOENIX
PRESCOTT
TUCSON
FORT SMITH
LITTLE ROCK
ARCATA
BAKERSFIELD
DAGGET
FRESNO
LONG BEACH
LOS ANGELES
SACRAMENTO
SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO
SANTA MARIA
ALAMOSA
COLORADO SPRINGS
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
EAGLE
GRAND JUNCTION
PUEBLO
BRIDGEPORT
HARTFORD
WILMINGTON
DAYTONA BEACH
JACKSONVILLE
MIAMI
TALLAHASSEE
TAMPA
WEST PALM BEACH
ATHENS
ATLANTA
AUGUSTA
COLUMBUS
MACON
SAVANNAH
BOISE
POCATELLO
CHICAGO
MOLINE
PEORIA
ROCKFORD
SPRINGFIELD
EVANSVILLE
FORT WAYNE
INDIANAPOLIS
SOUTH BEND
DES MOINES
MASON CITY
SIOUX CITY
WATERLOO
DODGE CITY
GOODLAND
G
Therms
176
186
159
169
242
124
201
150
186
178
222
165
155
169
173
178
184
180
200
203
261
229
254
211
214
219
224
210
145
155
122
159
138
129
178
178
173
164
170
161
218
239
217
226
225
236
214
200
229
219
222
225
246
230
236
207
223
G32ICS
AS (Therms)
56
53
54
58
60
58
70
67
55
54
50
62
67
62
64
65
62
69
62
71
57
57
51
59
63
44
41
47
58
55
53
56
59
56
56
56
58
55
57
57
54
53
43
45
47
41
48
51
41
45
41
47
41
46
43
58
58
FS (%)
31.8
28.5
34.0
34.3
24.8
46.8
34.8
44.7
29.6
30.3
22.5
37.6
43.2
36.7
37.0
36.5
33.7
38.3
31.0
35.0
21.8
24.9
20.1
28.0
29.4
20.1
18.3
22.4
40.0
35.5
43.4
35.2
42.8
43.4
31.5
31.5
33.5
33.5
33.5
35.4
24.8
22.2
19.8
19.9
20.9
17.4
22.4
25.5
17.9
20.5
18.5
20.9
16.7
20.0
18.2
28.0
26.0
G40FPCL
AS (Therms)
FS (%)
85
48.3
83
44.6
82
51.6
87
51.5
109
45.0
84
67.7
104
51.7
95
63.3
83
44.6
79
44.4
73
32.9
88
53.3
96
61.9
87
51.5
93
53.8
94
52.8
91
49.5
102
56.7
91
45.5
106
52.2
113
43.3
96
41.9
94
37.0
96
45.5
100
46.7
74
33.8
73
32.6
78
37.1
86
59.3
83
53.5
81
66.4
84
52.8
87
63.0
84
65.1
85
47.8
86
48.3
87
50.3
82
50.0
85
50.0
85
52.8
86
39.4
90
37.7
73
33.6
80
35.4
80
35.6
75
31.8
82
38.3
80
40.0
73
31.9
77
35.2
71
32.0
84
37.3
77
31.3
82
35.7
78
33.1
95
45.9
99
44.4
G64FPCL
AS (Therms)
FS (%)
108
61.4
107
57.5
102
64.2
109
64.5
147
60.7
95
76.6
132
65.7
111
74.0
106
57.0
101
56.7
103
46.4
104
63.0
112
72.3
104
61.5
117
67.6
120
67.4
109
59.2
127
70.6
120
60.0
136
67.0
154
59.0
130
56.8
131
51.6
124
58.8
130
60.7
102
46.6
101
45.1
105
50.0
103
71.0
102
65.8
93
76.2
104
65.4
101
73.2
98
76.0
108
60.7
109
61.2
110
63.6
103
62.8
106
62.4
104
64.6
110
50.5
120
50.2
97
44.7
108
47.8
108
48.0
104
44.1
109
50.9
105
52.5
99
43.2
104
47.5
97
43.7
112
49.8
108
43.9
111
48.3
107
45.3
123
59.4
130
58.3
Page 31 of 65
EGUSA Simulated annual energy requirements for standard water heaters with absolute and
fractional savings from the addition of solar water heaters
State
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
City
TOPEKA
WICHITA
COVINGTON
LEXINGTON
LOUISVILLE
BATON ROUGE
LAKE CHARLES
NEW ORLEANS
SHREVEPORT
CARIBOU
PORTLAND
BALTIMORE
BOSTON
WORCESTER
ALPENA
DETROIT
FLINT
GRAND RAPIDS
HOUGHTON LAKE
LANSING
MUSKEGON
SAULT STE. MARIE
TRAVERSE CITY
DULUTH
INTERNATIONAL FALLS
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
MINNEAPOLIS
ROCHESTER
SAINT CLOUD
JACKSON
MERIDIAN
COLUMBIA
KANSAS CITY
SPRINGFIELD
ST. LOUIS
BILLINGS
CUT BANK
GLASGOW
GREAT FALLS
HELENA
KALISPELL
LEWISTON
MILES CITY
MISSOULA
GRAND ISLAND
NORFOLK
NORTH PLATTE
SCOTTSBLUFF
ELKO
ELY
LAS VEGAS
RENO
TONOPAH
WINNEMUCCA
CONCORD
ATLANTIC CITY
NEWARK
ALBUQUERQUE
TUCUMCARI
ALBANY
BINGHAMTON
G
Therms
206
198
241
208
195
159
158
151
168
272
246
203
223
242
253
225
237
235
250
236
237
266
246
271
275
243
253
260
170
169
212
212
204
202
235
255
250
248
247
252
253
242
245
229
232
232
232
238
245
154
219
218
225
242
212
209
200
199
234
240
G32ICS
AS (Therms)
50
57
73
46
43
53
54
53
55
30
41
49
44
40
36
38
39
40
34
40
40
34
36
36
34
40
39
41
57
54
51
51
52
49
49
47
44
48
45
41
43
49
44
50
47
52
52
55
52
65
64
64
60
40
49
45
71
65
41
37
FS (%)
24.3
28.8
30.3
22.1
22.1
33.3
34.2
35.1
32.7
11.0
16.7
24.1
19.7
16.5
14.2
16.9
16.5
17.0
13.6
16.9
16.9
12.8
14.6
13.3
12.4
16.5
15.4
15.8
33.5
32.0
24.1
24.1
25.5
24.3
20.9
18.4
17.6
19.4
18.2
16.3
17.0
20.2
18.0
21.8
20.3
22.4
22.4
23.1
21.2
42.2
29.2
29.4
26.7
16.5
23.1
21.5
35.5
32.7
17.5
15.4
G40FPCL
AS (Therms)
FS (%)
85
41.3
90
45.5
103
42.7
76
36.5
67
34.4
78
49.1
81
51.3
80
53.0
81
48.2
64
23.5
79
32.1
80
39.4
77
34.5
77
31.8
71
28.1
66
29.3
69
29.1
70
29.8
64
25.6
70
29.7
69
29.1
70
26.3
66
26.8
73
26.9
67
24.4
77
31.7
73
28.9
79
30.4
85
50.0
81
47.9
85
40.1
86
40.6
83
40.7
81
40.1
83
35.3
84
32.9
79
31.6
81
32.7
81
32.8
71
28.2
80
31.6
85
35.1
73
29.8
89
38.9
86
37.1
91
39.2
92
39.7
97
40.8
103
42.0
95
61.7
102
46.6
107
49.1
99
44.0
75
31.0
82
38.7
77
36.8
109
54.5
103
51.8
75
32.1
69
28.8
G64FPCL
AS (Therms)
FS (%)
111
53.9
115
58.1
129
53.5
102
49.0
90
46.2
97
61.0
100
63.3
98
64.9
100
59.5
93
34.2
111
45.1
106
52.2
105
47.1
109
45.0
101
39.9
91
40.4
97
40.9
96
40.9
91
36.4
97
41.1
96
40.5
101
38.0
94
38.2
105
38.7
97
35.3
107
44.0
103
40.7
111
42.7
106
62.4
103
60.9
111
52.4
114
53.8
108
52.9
107
53.0
112
47.7
117
45.9
109
43.6
111
44.8
112
45.3
98
38.9
112
44.3
114
47.1
101
41.2
119
52.0
116
50.0
123
53.0
123
53.0
128
53.8
140
57.1
110
71.4
130
59.4
136
62.4
128
56.9
105
43.4
110
51.9
103
49.3
136
68.0
130
65.3
104
44.4
98
40.8
Page 32 of 65
EGUSA Simulated annual energy requirements for standard water heaters with absolute and
fractional savings from the addition of solar water heaters
State
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
City
BUFFALO
MASSENA
NEW YORK CITY
ROCHESTER
SYRACUSE
ASHEVILLE
CAPE HATTERAS
CHARLOTTE
GREENSBORO
RALEIGH
WILMINGTON
BISMARCK
FARGO
MINOT
AKRON
CLEVELAND
COLUMBUS
DAYTON
MANSFIELD
TOLEDO
YOUNGSTOWN
OKLAHOMA CITY
TULSA
ASTORIA
BURNS
EUGENE
MEDFORD
NORTH BEND
PENDLETON
PORTLAND
REDMOND
SALEM
ALLENTOWN
BRADFORD
ERIE
HARRISBURG
PHILADELPHIA
PITTSBURGH
WILKES-BARRE
WILLIAMSPORT
PROVIDENCE
CHARLESTON
COLUMBIA
GREENVILLE
HURON
PIERRE
RAPID CITY
SIOUX FALLS
BRISTOL
CHATTANOOGA
KNOXVILLE
MEMPHIS
NASHVILLE
ABILENE
AMARILLO
AUSTIN
BROWNSVILLE
CORPUS CHRISTI
EL PASO
FORT WORTH
G
Therms
234
249
209
231
233
207
175
183
194
188
173
254
262
260
228
225
219
222
232
231
233
188
186
222
244
218
212
219
218
211
236
215
220
253
231
216
207
223
228
222
223
165
173
192
249
236
239
242
205
185
194
175
187
159
199
150
135
142
168
170
G32ICS
AS (Therms)
39
38
48
39
40
55
56
57
52
54
56
46
41
40
39
36
43
43
39
44
39
55
55
39
52
45
55
51
53
43
55
45
43
36
39
45
48
41
41
41
43
57
55
50
45
48
50
45
50
53
50
54
51
64
64
52
51
51
71
56
FS (%)
16.7
15.3
23.0
16.9
17.2
26.6
32.0
31.1
26.8
28.7
32.4
18.1
15.6
15.4
17.1
16.0
19.6
19.4
16.8
19.0
16.7
29.3
29.6
17.6
21.3
20.6
25.9
23.3
24.3
20.4
23.3
20.9
19.5
14.2
16.9
20.8
23.2
18.4
18.0
18.5
19.3
34.5
31.8
26.0
18.1
20.3
20.9
18.6
24.4
28.6
25.8
30.9
27.3
40.3
32.2
34.7
37.8
35.9
42.3
32.9
G40FPCL
AS (Therms)
FS (%)
69
29.5
72
28.9
77
36.8
68
29.4
70
30.0
86
41.5
84
48.0
86
47.0
82
42.3
83
44.1
84
48.6
81
31.9
78
29.8
73
28.1
66
28.9
62
27.6
72
32.9
73
32.9
69
29.7
74
32.0
65
27.9
85
45.2
86
46.2
60
27.0
90
36.9
67
30.7
83
39.2
78
35.6
81
37.2
64
30.3
88
37.3
69
32.1
75
34.1
67
26.5
66
28.6
76
35.2
79
38.2
71
31.8
71
31.1
71
32.0
75
33.6
85
51.5
83
48.0
81
42.2
83
33.3
83
35.2
90
37.7
81
33.5
80
39.0
81
43.8
80
41.2
82
46.9
81
43.3
96
60.4
100
50.3
77
51.3
76
56.3
76
53.5
104
61.9
84
49.4
G64FPCL
AS (Therms)
FS (%)
96
41.0
102
41.0
103
49.3
94
40.7
97
41.6
116
56.0
106
60.6
111
60.7
108
55.7
108
57.4
106
61.3
111
43.7
109
41.6
103
39.6
92
40.4
86
38.2
98
44.7
100
45.0
96
41.4
102
44.2
91
39.1
108
57.4
109
58.6
85
38.3
121
49.6
91
41.7
106
50.0
106
48.4
104
47.7
87
41.2
117
49.6
92
42.8
102
46.4
97
38.3
92
39.8
104
48.1
105
50.7
97
43.5
98
43.0
98
44.1
104
46.6
106
64.2
105
60.7
106
55.2
114
45.8
112
47.5
121
50.6
111
45.9
107
52.2
105
56.8
105
54.1
103
58.9
104
55.6
113
71.1
127
63.8
95
63.3
90
66.7
93
65.5
123
73.2
105
61.8
Page 33 of 65
EGUSA Simulated annual energy requirements for standard water heaters with absolute and
fractional savings from the addition of solar water heaters
State
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
City
HOUSTON
LUBBOCK
LUFKIN
MIDLAND
PORT ARTHUR
SAN ANGELO
SAN ANTONIO
VICTORIA
WACO
WICHITA FALLS
CEDAR CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
BURLINGTON
LYNCHBURG
NORFOLK
RICHMOND
ROANOKE
WASHINGTON D.C.
OLYMPIA
QUILLAYUTE
SEATTLE
SPOKANE
YAKIMA
CHARLESTON
ELKINS
HUNTINGTON
EAU CLAIRE
GREEN BAY
LA CROSSE
MILWAUKEE
CASPER
CHEYENNE
LANDER
ROCK SPRINGS
SHERIDAN
G
Therms
151
187
162
173
152
170
151
149
162
173
221
213
242
198
186
193
201
197
225
230
218
229
227
207
229
205
252
246
240
241
243
245
244
252
241
G32ICS
AS (Therms)
52
63
56
66
53
63
58
53
57
60
63
55
38
53
52
53
51
48
37
35
41
44
51
47
41
46
40
39
42
41
49
50
53
50
50
FS (%)
34.4
33.7
34.6
38.2
34.9
37.1
38.4
35.6
35.2
34.7
28.5
25.8
15.7
26.8
28.0
27.5
25.4
24.4
16.4
15.2
18.8
19.2
22.5
22.7
17.9
22.4
15.9
15.9
17.5
17.0
20.2
20.4
21.7
19.8
20.7
G40FPCL
AS (Therms)
FS (%)
78
51.7
97
51.9
82
50.6
98
56.6
79
52.0
94
55.3
85
56.3
80
53.7
86
53.1
90
52.0
106
48.0
87
40.8
69
28.5
85
42.9
81
43.5
83
43.0
83
41.3
77
39.1
58
25.8
54
23.5
63
28.9
71
31.0
80
35.2
76
36.7
69
30.1
74
36.1
76
30.2
75
30.5
77
32.1
76
31.5
93
38.3
94
38.4
99
40.6
97
38.5
87
36.1
G64FPCL
AS (Therms)
FS (%)
97
64.2
121
64.7
102
63.0
119
68.8
97
63.8
114
67.1
102
67.5
98
65.8
105
64.8
110
63.6
137
62.0
112
52.6
97
40.1
111
56.1
106
57.0
109
56.5
110
54.7
101
51.3
81
36.0
78
33.9
86
39.4
94
41.0
106
46.7
102
49.3
98
42.8
100
48.8
107
42.5
105
42.7
106
44.2
106
44.0
126
51.9
130
53.1
133
54.5
133
52.8
118
49.0
Page 34 of 65
Appendix D: BEopt Summary of Auxiliary Electric and Natural Gas Simulations Results
Table D1. BEopt Summary of Auxiliary Electric Simulations Results
BEopt Simulated annual energy requirements for standard water heaters with absolute and
fractional savings from the addition of solar water heaters
State
ALABAMA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
City
BIRMINGHAM
MOBILE
MONTGOMERY
FLAGSTAFF
PHOENIX
PRESCOTT
TUCSON
FORT SMITH
LITTLE ROCK
ARCATA
BAKERSFIELD
FRESNO
LONG BEACH
LOS ANGELES
SACRAMENTO
SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO
ALAMOSA
COLORADO SPRINGS
EAGLE
GRAND JUNCTION
PUEBLO
BRIDGEPORT
HARTFORD
WILMINGTON
DAYTONA BEACH
JACKSONVILLE
MIAMI
TALLAHASSEE
TAMPA
WEST PALM BEACH
ATHENS
ATLANTA
AUGUSTA
COLUMBUS
MACON
SAVANNAH
BOISE
POCATELLO
CHICAGO
MOLINE
PEORIA
ROCKFORD
SPRINGFIELD
EVANSVILLE
FORT WAYNE
INDIANAPOLIS
SOUTH BEND
DES MOINES
MASON CITY
SIOUX CITY
WATERLOO
DODGE CITY
GOODLAND
E
(kWh)
3129
2836
2998
4293
2250
3575
2686
3304
3246
3933
2931
3009
3063
3146
3267
3033
3542
4626
4065
4506
3758
3806
3883
3973
3732
2573
2753
2159
2823
2442
2281
3180
3170
3084
2926
3022
2855
3870
4230
4025
4004
3990
4193
3797
3554
4062
3888
3934
3990
4356
4090
4191
3684
3955
E32ICS
AS (kWh)
FS (%)
1733
55.4
1675
59.1
1763
58.8
2298
53.5
1699
75.5
2221
62.1
2008
74.8
1773
53.7
1572
48.4
1624
41.3
1849
63.1
1835
61.0
1966
64.2
2006
63.8
1910
58.5
2064
68.1
1953
55.1
2472
53.4
2100
51.7
2087
46.3
2074
55.2
2174
57.1
1637
42.2
1577
39.7
1660
44.5
1741
67.7
1661
60.3
1603
74.2
1689
59.8
1746
71.5
1673
73.3
1751
55.1
1768
55.8
1786
57.9
1696
58.0
1727
57.1
1709
59.9
1827
47.2
1931
45.7
1604
39.9
1695
42.3
1708
42.8
1653
39.4
1727
45.5
1689
47.5
1582
38.9
1651
42.5
1531
38.9
1783
44.7
1693
38.9
1771
43.3
1694
40.4
2002
54.3
2088
52.8
E40FPCL
AS (kWh)
FS (%)
2230
71.3
2113
74.5
2240
74.7
3080
71.7
1938
86.1
2841
79.5
2350
87.5
2274
68.8
2067
63.7
2176
55.3
2183
74.5
2188
72.7
2463
80.4
2527
80.3
2327
71.2
2547
84.0
2543
71.8
3331
72.0
2801
68.9
2839
63.0
2666
70.9
2826
74.3
2179
56.1
2128
53.6
2217
59.4
2132
82.9
2122
77.1
1879
87.0
2155
76.3
2080
85.2
1979
86.8
2278
71.6
2267
71.5
2295
74.4
2147
73.4
2194
72.6
2171
76.0
2393
61.8
2587
61.2
2155
53.5
2280
56.9
2289
57.4
2237
53.4
2304
60.7
2218
62.4
2145
52.8
2213
56.9
2075
52.7
2381
59.7
2307
53.0
2386
58.3
2313
55.2
2636
71.6
2758
69.7
E64FPCL
AS (kWh)
FS (%)
2608
83.3
2419
85.3
2567
85.6
3702
86.2
2082
92.5
3209
89.8
2508
93.4
2653
80.3
2470
76.1
2795
71.1
2438
83.2
2440
81.1
2779
90.7
2846
90.5
2599
79.6
2811
92.7
2985
84.3
3997
86.4
3361
82.7
3490
77.5
3082
82.0
3260
85.7
2729
70.3
2679
67.4
2706
72.5
2332
90.6
2411
87.6
2022
93.7
2438
86.4
2245
91.9
2118
92.9
2653
83.4
2636
83.2
2627
85.2
2453
83.8
2523
83.5
2460
86.2
2797
72.3
3060
72.3
2663
66.2
2803
70.0
2791
69.9
2782
66.3
2795
73.6
2654
74.7
2651
65.3
2691
69.2
2556
65.0
2877
72.1
2885
66.2
2910
71.1
2863
68.3
3075
83.5
3255
82.3
Page 35 of 65
BEopt Simulated annual energy requirements for standard water heaters with absolute and
fractional savings from the addition of solar water heaters
State
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
City
TOPEKA
WICHITA
LEXINGTON
LOUISVILLE
BATON ROUGE
LAKE CHARLES
NEW ORLEANS
SHREVEPORT
PORTLAND
BALTIMORE
BOSTON
WORCESTER
ALPENA
DETROIT
FLINT
GRAND RAPIDS
HOUGHTON LAKE
LANSING
MUSKEGON
SAULT STE. MARIE
TRAVERSE CITY
DULUTH
INTERNATIONAL FALLS
MINNEAPOLIS
ROCHESTER
JACKSON
MERIDIAN
COLUMBIA
KANSAS CITY
SPRINGFIELD
ST. LOUIS
BILLINGS
CUT BANK
GLASGOW
GREAT FALLS
HELENA
KALISPELL
LEWISTON
MILES CITY
MISSOULA
GRAND ISLAND
NORFOLK
NORTH PLATTE
SCOTTSBLUFF
ELKO
ELY
LAS VEGAS
RENO
TONOPAH
WINNEMUCCA
CONCORD
ATLANTIC CITY
NEWARK
ALBUQUERQUE
TUCUMCARI
ALBANY
BINGHAMTON
BUFFALO
MASSENA
NEW YORK CITY
E
(kWh)
3665
3521
3683
3470
2823
2803
2682
2970
4361
3610
3947
4278
4473
3995
4193
4174
4430
4185
4200
4711
4358
4786
4870
4313
4475
3031
3070
3755
3757
3614
3585
4168
4502
4439
4397
4386
4461
4482
4299
4340
4064
4122
4105
4115
4237
4343
2761
3885
3873
3992
4285
3758
3702
3551
3535
4153
4244
4145
4403
3696
E32ICS
AS (kWh)
FS (%)
1771
48.3
1874
53.2
1598
43.4
1422
41.0
1589
56.3
1634
58.3
1598
59.6
1708
57.5
1739
39.9
1660
46.0
1649
41.8
1662
38.8
1579
35.3
1446
36.2
1522
36.3
1545
37.0
1461
33.0
1539
36.8
1545
36.8
1587
33.7
1494
34.3
1653
34.5
1554
31.9
1682
39.0
1632
36.5
1895
62.5
1684
54.9
1772
47.2
1801
47.9
1746
48.3
1681
46.9
1801
43.2
1824
40.5
1759
39.6
1764
40.1
1772
40.4
1569
35.2
1751
39.1
1844
42.9
1603
36.9
1883
46.3
1849
44.9
1924
46.9
1949
47.4
2085
49.2
2202
50.7
1935
70.1
2129
54.8
2243
57.9
2093
52.4
1641
38.3
1700
45.2
1600
43.2
2255
63.5
2124
60.1
1619
39.0
1519
35.8
1522
36.7
1583
36.0
1616
43.7
E40FPCL
AS (kWh)
FS (%)
2344
64.0
2438
69.2
2144
58.2
1929
55.6
2005
71.0
2043
72.9
2001
74.6
2160
72.7
2331
53.5
2202
61.0
2187
55.4
2226
52.0
2161
48.3
1977
49.5
2068
49.3
2102
50.4
2024
45.7
2110
50.4
2093
49.8
2171
46.1
2040
46.8
2263
47.3
2159
44.3
2305
53.4
2244
50.1
2208
72.8
2182
71.1
2346
62.5
2388
63.6
2310
63.9
2201
61.4
2412
57.9
2482
55.1
2401
54.1
2408
54.8
2401
54.7
2145
48.1
2393
53.4
2469
57.4
2186
50.4
2534
62.4
2488
60.4
2606
63.5
2603
63.3
2748
64.9
2950
67.9
2279
82.5
2726
70.2
2867
74.0
2721
68.2
2223
51.9
2276
60.6
2135
57.7
2839
79.9
2717
76.9
2179
52.5
2047
48.2
2048
49.4
2144
48.7
2141
57.9
E64FPCL
AS (kWh)
FS (%)
2833
77.3
2869
81.5
2613
70.9
2405
69.3
2304
81.6
2342
83.6
2292
85.5
2495
84.0
2968
68.1
2681
74.3
2742
69.5
2863
66.9
2739
61.2
2492
62.4
2609
62.2
2606
62.4
2596
58.6
2640
63.1
2585
61.5
2808
59.6
2597
59.6
2928
61.2
2798
57.5
2893
67.1
2832
63.3
2540
83.8
2545
82.9
2807
74.8
2898
77.1
2761
76.4
2647
73.8
2931
70.3
3093
68.7
2949
66.4
2997
68.2
2963
67.6
2665
59.7
3006
67.1
2990
69.6
2695
62.1
3064
75.4
3018
73.2
3158
76.9
3135
76.2
3253
76.8
3556
81.9
2524
91.4
3178
81.8
3295
85.1
3183
79.7
2810
65.6
2806
74.7
2638
71.3
3230
91.0
3130
88.5
2746
66.1
2624
61.8
2560
61.8
2742
62.3
2619
70.9
Page 36 of 65
BEopt Simulated annual energy requirements for standard water heaters with absolute and
fractional savings from the addition of solar water heaters
State
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
City
ROCHESTER
SYRACUSE
ASHEVILLE
CAPE HATTERAS
CHARLOTTE
GREENSBORO
RALEIGH
WILMINGTON
BISMARCK
FARGO
MINOT
AKRON
CLEVELAND
COLUMBUS
DAYTON
MANSFIELD
TOLEDO
YOUNGSTOWN
OKLAHOMA CITY
TULSA
ASTORIA
BURNS
EUGENE
MEDFORD
NORTH BEND
PENDLETON
PORTLAND
REDMOND
SALEM
ALLENTOWN
BRADFORD
ERIE
HARRISBURG
PHILADELPHIA
PITTSBURGH
WILKES-BARRE
WILLIAMSPORT
PROVIDENCE
CHARLESTON
COLUMBIA
PIERRE
RAPID CITY
SIOUX FALLS
CHATTANOOGA
KNOXVILLE
MEMPHIS
NASHVILLE
ABILENE
AMARILLO
AUSTIN
BROWNSVILLE
CORPUS CHRISTI
EL PASO
FORT WORTH
HOUSTON
LUBBOCK
LUFKIN
MIDLAND
PORT ARTHUR
SAN ANGELO
E
(kWh)
4096
4123
3667
3103
3256
3457
3346
3067
4488
4618
4606
4039
3970
3879
3923
4115
4091
4127
3336
3305
3905
4320
3867
3773
3871
3869
3740
4183
3805
3901
4485
4090
3918
3672
3950
4036
3935
3958
2934
3088
4188
4237
4296
3285
3454
3120
3331
3114
3534
2674
2391
2517
2999
3029
2692
3328
2874
3071
2700
3025
E32ICS
AS (kWh)
FS (%)
1495
36.5
1532
37.2
1792
48.9
1723
55.5
1767
54.3
1717
49.7
1729
51.7
1649
53.8
1794
40.0
1730
37.5
1745
37.9
1357
33.6
1388
35.0
1456
37.5
1497
38.2
1521
37.0
1603
39.2
1449
35.1
1705
51.1
1769
53.5
1290
33.0
1931
44.7
1490
38.5
1765
46.8
1639
42.3
1730
44.7
1408
37.6
1889
45.2
1486
39.1
1587
40.7
1526
34.0
1482
36.2
1486
37.9
1662
45.3
1529
38.7
1529
37.9
1518
38.6
1614
40.8
1727
58.9
1708
55.3
1793
42.8
1929
45.5
1762
41.0
1650
50.2
1671
48.4
1691
54.2
1687
50.6
1934
62.1
2061
58.3
1568
58.6
1511
63.2
1527
60.7
2158
72.0
1722
56.9
1576
58.5
1997
60.0
1661
57.8
2004
65.3
1594
59.0
1927
63.7
E40FPCL
AS (kWh)
FS (%)
2018
49.3
2066
50.1
2413
65.8
2192
70.6
2302
70.7
2272
65.7
2273
67.9
2183
71.2
2506
55.8
2408
52.1
2410
52.3
1887
46.7
1935
48.7
2013
51.9
2061
52.5
2054
49.9
2181
53.3
1969
47.7
2274
68.2
2285
69.1
1769
45.3
2595
60.1
2016
52.1
2297
60.9
2178
56.3
2235
57.8
1886
50.4
2532
60.5
1986
52.2
2127
54.5
2072
46.2
1983
48.5
2027
51.7
2216
60.3
2061
52.2
2053
50.9
2053
52.2
2163
54.6
2195
74.8
2208
71.5
2426
57.9
2580
60.9
2404
56.0
2172
66.1
2204
63.8
2145
68.8
2190
65.7
2420
77.7
2677
75.7
1949
72.9
1830
76.5
1872
74.4
2582
86.1
2206
72.8
1986
73.8
2578
77.5
2090
72.7
2511
81.8
1974
73.1
2416
79.9
E64FPCL
AS (kWh)
FS (%)
2529
61.7
2608
63.3
2951
80.5
2543
82.0
2689
82.6
2724
78.8
2702
80.8
2598
84.7
3186
71.0
3105
67.2
3009
65.3
2461
60.9
2484
62.6
2594
66.9
2642
67.3
2607
63.4
2711
66.3
2509
60.8
2677
80.2
2683
81.2
2313
59.2
3119
72.2
2443
63.2
2701
71.6
2727
70.4
2654
68.6
2317
62.0
3018
72.1
2423
63.7
2648
67.9
2685
59.9
2472
60.4
2569
65.6
2698
73.5
2564
64.9
2586
64.1
2582
65.6
2738
69.2
2519
85.9
2560
82.9
2961
70.7
3146
74.3
2984
69.5
2594
79.0
2659
77.0
2495
80.0
2599
78.0
2733
87.8
3090
87.4
2240
83.8
2042
85.4
2116
84.1
2795
93.2
2540
83.9
2290
85.1
2954
88.8
2401
83.5
2783
90.6
2253
83.4
2683
88.7
Page 37 of 65
BEopt Simulated annual energy requirements for standard water heaters with absolute and
fractional savings from the addition of solar water heaters
State
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
City
SAN ANTONIO
VICTORIA
WACO
WICHITA FALLS
CEDAR CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
BURLINGTON
LYNCHBURG
NORFOLK
RICHMOND
ROANOKE
WASHINGTON D.C.
OLYMPIA
QUILLAYUTE
SEATTLE
SPOKANE
YAKIMA
CHARLESTON
HUNTINGTON
EAU CLAIRE
GREEN BAY
LA CROSSE
MADISON
MILWAUKEE
CASPER
CHEYENNE
LANDER
E
(kWh)
2688
2646
2891
3082
3919
3783
4296
3530
3304
3424
3565
3399
3985
4072
3791
4190
4028
3676
3649
4464
4360
4256
4314
4267
4313
4340
4334
E32ICS
AS (kWh)
FS (%)
1708
63.5
1588
60.0
1726
59.7
1840
59.7
2209
56.4
1847
48.8
1552
36.1
1780
50.4
1677
50.8
1717
50.1
1715
48.1
1424
41.9
1296
32.5
1239
30.4
1348
35.6
1649
39.4
1730
42.9
1596
43.4
1559
42.7
1658
37.1
1638
37.6
1670
39.2
1661
38.5
1654
38.8
1983
46.0
1993
45.9
2091
48.2
E40FPCL
AS (kWh)
FS (%)
2089
77.7
1971
74.5
2138
74.0
2309
74.9
2878
73.4
2398
63.4
2090
48.6
2334
66.1
2196
66.5
2261
66.0
2277
63.9
1951
57.4
1778
44.6
1695
41.6
1803
47.6
2186
52.2
2305
57.2
2134
58.1
2088
57.2
2264
50.7
2224
51.0
2270
53.3
2255
52.3
2218
52.0
2660
61.7
2696
62.1
2810
64.8
E64FPCL
AS (kWh)
FS (%)
2340
87.1
2230
84.3
2452
84.8
2636
85.5
3327
84.9
2812
74.3
2666
62.1
2782
78.8
2605
78.8
2722
79.5
2756
77.3
2435
71.6
2265
56.8
2214
54.4
2260
59.6
2651
63.3
2752
68.3
2621
71.3
2578
70.6
2876
64.4
2820
64.7
2839
66.7
2802
65.0
2792
65.4
3223
74.7
3345
77.1
3407
78.6
Page 38 of 65
Table D2. BEopt Summary of Auxiliary Natural Gas Simulations Results
BEopt Simulated annual energy requirements for standard water heaters with absolute and
fractional savings from the addition of solar water heaters
State
ALABAMA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
City
BIRMINGHAM
MOBILE
MONTGOMERY
FLAGSTAFF
PHOENIX
PRESCOTT
TUCSON
FORT SMITH
LITTLE ROCK
ARCATA
BAKERSFIELD
FRESNO
LONG BEACH
LOS ANGELES
SACRAMENTO
SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO
ALAMOSA
COLORADO SPRINGS
EAGLE
GRAND JUNCTION
PUEBLO
BRIDGEPORT
HARTFORD
WILMINGTON
DAYTONA BEACH
JACKSONVILLE
MIAMI
TALLAHASSEE
TAMPA
WEST PALM BEACH
ATHENS
ATLANTA
AUGUSTA
COLUMBUS
MACON
SAVANNAH
BOISE
POCATELLO
CHICAGO
MOLINE
PEORIA
ROCKFORD
SPRINGFIELD
EVANSVILLE
FORT WAYNE
INDIANAPOLIS
SOUTH BEND
DES MOINES
MASON CITY
SIOUX CITY
WATERLOO
DODGE CITY
GOODLAND
TOPEKA
WICHITA
LEXINGTON
G
Therms
176
164
171
225
139
195
158
184
181
210
168
171
173
177
182
172
193
239
216
234
203
205
208
212
202
153
160
136
163
148
141
178
178
174
168
172
165
207
222
214
213
212
221
204
194
215
208
210
212
228
217
221
200
211
199
193
200
G32ICS
AS (Therms) FS (%)
74
42.0
72
43.9
76
44.4
96
42.7
87
62.6
95
48.7
92
58.2
76
41.3
67
37.0
67
31.9
83
49.4
82
48.0
84
48.6
86
48.6
82
45.1
89
51.7
82
42.5
103
43.1
88
40.7
86
36.8
89
43.8
92
44.9
68
32.7
65
30.7
70
34.7
76
49.7
71
44.4
71
52.2
72
44.2
77
52.0
74
52.5
74
41.6
75
42.1
76
43.7
73
43.5
74
43.0
74
44.8
77
37.2
80
36.0
67
31.3
70
32.9
71
33.5
68
30.8
72
35.3
71
36.6
65
30.2
69
33.2
63
30.0
74
34.9
70
30.7
74
34.1
70
31.7
86
43.0
88
41.7
75
37.7
80
41.5
67
33.5
G40FPCL
AS (Therms) FS (%)
106
60.2
104
63.4
109
63.7
138
61.3
115
82.7
136
69.7
130
82.3
111
60.3
99
54.7
98
46.7
118
70.2
117
68.4
120
69.4
120
67.8
120
65.9
124
72.1
117
60.6
148
61.9
128
59.3
127
54.3
128
63.1
134
65.4
99
47.6
97
45.8
102
50.5
110
71.9
104
65.0
102
75.0
107
65.6
111
75.0
105
74.5
108
60.7
110
61.8
111
63.8
106
63.1
109
63.4
108
65.5
114
55.1
118
53.2
98
45.8
104
48.8
104
49.1
101
45.7
106
52.0
104
53.6
97
45.1
102
49.0
95
45.2
109
51.4
104
45.6
109
50.2
104
47.1
125
62.5
128
60.7
110
55.3
117
60.6
99
49.5
G64FPCL
AS (Therms) FS (%)
134
76.1
130
79.3
136
79.5
178
79.1
128
92.1
166
85.1
147
93.0
137
74.5
125
69.1
129
61.4
135
80.4
134
78.4
147
85.0
150
84.7
139
76.4
152
88.4
149
77.2
191
79.9
163
75.5
164
70.1
156
76.8
165
80.5
129
62.0
126
59.4
132
65.3
133
86.9
130
81.3
122
89.7
132
81.0
133
89.9
127
90.1
137
77.0
137
77.0
138
79.3
132
78.6
134
77.9
133
80.6
140
67.6
149
67.1
127
59.3
134
62.9
134
63.2
131
59.3
136
66.7
132
68.0
126
58.6
130
62.5
123
58.6
139
65.6
135
59.2
140
64.5
136
61.5
156
78.0
161
76.3
139
69.8
145
75.1
128
64.0
Page 39 of 65
BEopt Simulated annual energy requirements for standard water heaters with absolute and
fractional savings from the addition of solar water heaters
State
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
City
LOUISVILLE
BATON ROUGE
LAKE CHARLES
NEW ORLEANS
SHREVEPORT
PORTLAND
BALTIMORE
BOSTON
WORCESTER
ALPENA
DETROIT
FLINT
GRAND RAPIDS
HOUGHTON LAKE
LANSING
MUSKEGON
SAULT STE. MARIE
TRAVERSE CITY
DULUTH
INTERNATIONAL
FALLS
MINNEAPOLIS
ROCHESTER
JACKSON
MERIDIAN
COLUMBIA
KANSAS CITY
SPRINGFIELD
ST. LOUIS
BILLINGS
CUT BANK
GLASGOW
GREAT FALLS
HELENA
KALISPELL
LEWISTON
MILES CITY
MISSOULA
GRAND ISLAND
NORFOLK
NORTH PLATTE
SCOTTSBLUFF
ELKO
ELY
LAS VEGAS
RENO
TONOPAH
WINNEMUCCA
CONCORD
ATLANTIC CITY
NEWARK
ALBUQUERQUE
TUCUMCARI
ALBANY
BINGHAMTON
BUFFALO
MASSENA
NEW YORK CITY
ROCHESTER
SYRACUSE
G
Therms
190
163
163
158
170
228
196
211
225
233
213
221
220
231
221
221
243
228
246
G32ICS
AS (Therms) FS (%)
59
31.1
68
41.7
71
43.6
70
44.3
74
43.5
72
31.6
69
35.2
69
32.7
69
30.7
65
27.9
60
28.2
62
28.1
63
28.6
60
26.0
64
29.0
63
28.5
65
26.7
61
26.8
67
27.2
G40FPCL
AS (Therms) FS (%)
89
46.8
99
60.7
103
63.2
101
63.9
108
63.5
104
45.6
101
51.5
100
47.4
100
44.4
97
41.6
90
42.3
93
42.1
95
43.2
91
39.4
96
43.4
94
42.5
97
39.9
92
40.4
101
41.1
G64FPCL
AS (Therms) FS (%)
116
61.1
123
75.5
127
77.9
125
79.1
133
78.2
137
60.1
130
66.3
130
61.6
132
58.7
127
54.5
118
55.4
122
55.2
123
55.9
119
51.5
125
56.6
123
55.7
128
52.7
120
52.6
132
53.7
250
63
25.2
97
38.8
127
50.8
226
233
172
174
203
203
197
195
220
234
231
230
229
232
233
225
227
215
218
217
218
223
227
161
208
207
212
225
203
200
194
193
219
223
219
230
200
217
218
69
67
75
72
75
76
74
71
75
75
72
73
73
64
72
76
66
78
77
80
82
87
92
92
90
95
88
68
71
67
97
91
66
62
63
65
67
62
63
30.5
28.8
43.6
41.4
36.9
37.4
37.6
36.4
34.1
32.1
31.2
31.7
31.9
27.6
30.9
33.8
29.1
36.3
35.3
36.9
37.6
39.0
40.5
57.1
43.3
45.9
41.5
30.2
35.0
33.5
50.0
47.2
30.1
27.8
28.8
28.3
33.5
28.6
28.9
103
100
108
105
109
112
108
103
110
111
108
109
108
97
107
112
99
116
114
119
120
127
133
125
131
137
128
100
104
98
138
130
98
92
93
96
99
92
93
45.6
42.9
62.8
60.3
53.7
55.2
54.8
52.8
50.0
47.4
46.8
47.4
47.2
41.8
45.9
49.8
43.6
54.0
52.3
54.8
55.0
57.0
58.6
77.6
63.0
66.2
60.4
44.4
51.2
49.0
71.1
67.4
44.7
41.3
42.5
41.7
49.5
42.4
42.7
135
132
134
132
139
142
137
131
141
144
139
141
140
125
140
143
127
148
145
152
152
159
170
143
159
166
157
131
135
126
167
160
128
120
121
126
127
119
122
59.7
56.7
77.9
75.9
68.5
70.0
69.5
67.2
64.1
61.5
60.2
61.3
61.1
53.9
60.1
63.6
55.9
68.8
66.5
70.0
69.7
71.3
74.9
88.8
76.4
80.2
74.1
58.2
66.5
63.0
86.1
82.9
58.4
53.8
55.3
54.8
63.5
54.8
56.0
Page 40 of 65
BEopt Simulated annual energy requirements for standard water heaters with absolute and
fractional savings from the addition of solar water heaters
State
NORTH
CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH
CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
City
G
Therms
G32ICS
AS (Therms) FS (%)
G40FPCL
AS (Therms) FS (%)
G64FPCL
AS (Therms) FS (%)
ASHEVILLE
199
75
37.7
110
55.3
143
71.9
CAPE HATTERAS
CHARLOTTE
GREENSBORO
RALEIGH
WILMINGTON
BISMARCK
FARGO
MINOT
AKRON
CLEVELAND
COLUMBUS
DAYTON
MANSFIELD
TOLEDO
YOUNGSTOWN
OKLAHOMA CITY
TULSA
ASTORIA
BURNS
EUGENE
MEDFORD
NORTH BEND
PENDLETON
PORTLAND
REDMOND
SALEM
ALLENTOWN
BRADFORD
ERIE
HARRISBURG
PHILADELPHIA
PITTSBURGH
WILKES-BARRE
WILLIAMSPORT
PROVIDENCE
175
182
190
185
173
233
239
238
214
212
208
210
218
217
218
185
184
209
226
207
203
207
207
202
221
204
209
233
217
209
199
211
214
210
211
73
75
72
73
69
73
71
71
55
57
60
62
63
66
59
72
76
53
80
62
74
67
72
58
79
61
66
62
61
61
70
63
63
62
67
41.7
41.2
37.9
39.5
39.9
31.3
29.7
29.8
25.7
26.9
28.8
29.5
28.9
30.4
27.1
38.9
41.3
25.4
35.4
30.0
36.5
32.4
34.8
28.7
35.7
29.9
31.6
26.6
28.1
29.2
35.2
29.9
29.4
29.5
31.8
105
109
106
106
101
111
107
107
85
88
91
93
93
99
89
107
111
80
118
93
109
98
105
87
116
92
97
92
91
92
102
94
93
93
98
60.0
59.9
55.8
57.3
58.4
47.6
44.8
45.0
39.7
41.5
43.8
44.3
42.7
45.6
40.8
57.8
60.3
38.3
52.2
44.9
53.7
47.3
50.7
43.1
52.5
45.1
46.4
39.5
41.9
44.0
51.3
44.5
43.5
44.3
46.4
132
139
135
136
131
147
142
140
112
116
120
123
122
129
116
137
138
106
150
119
135
128
131
111
147
117
126
122
117
120
131
122
121
121
128
75.4
76.4
71.1
73.5
75.7
63.1
59.4
58.8
52.3
54.7
57.7
58.6
56.0
59.4
53.2
74.1
75.0
50.7
66.4
57.5
66.5
61.8
63.3
55.0
66.5
57.4
60.3
52.4
53.9
57.4
65.8
57.8
56.5
57.6
60.7
CHARLESTON
168
74
44.0
108
64.3
134
79.8
COLUMBIA
PIERRE
RAPID CITY
SIOUX FALLS
CHATTANOOGA
KNOXVILLE
MEMPHIS
NASHVILLE
ABILENE
AMARILLO
AUSTIN
BROWNSVILLE
CORPUS CHRISTI
EL PASO
FORT WORTH
HOUSTON
LUBBOCK
LUFKIN
MIDLAND
PORT ARTHUR
SAN ANGELO
175
221
223
225
183
190
176
185
176
193
157
145
151
171
172
158
185
166
174
158
172
73
75
81
73
70
70
73
72
85
87
69
66
67
96
74
68
86
72
87
69
84
41.7
33.9
36.3
32.4
38.3
36.8
41.5
38.9
48.3
45.1
43.9
45.5
44.4
56.1
43.0
43.0
46.5
43.4
50.0
43.7
48.8
107
111
118
108
103
103
106
104
122
128
101
97
98
135
109
100
126
105
127
100
122
61.1
50.2
52.9
48.0
56.3
54.2
60.2
56.2
69.3
66.3
64.3
66.9
64.9
78.9
63.4
63.3
68.1
63.3
73.0
63.3
70.9
134
142
150
140
131
132
131
132
147
158
122
118
119
156
136
123
154
129
151
123
146
76.6
64.3
67.3
62.2
71.6
69.5
74.4
71.4
83.5
81.9
77.7
81.4
78.8
91.2
79.1
77.8
83.2
77.7
86.8
77.8
84.9
Page 41 of 65
BEopt Simulated annual energy requirements for standard water heaters with absolute and
fractional savings from the addition of solar water heaters
State
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
City
SAN ANTONIO
VICTORIA
WACO
WICHITA FALLS
CEDAR CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
BURLINGTON
LYNCHBURG
NORFOLK
RICHMOND
ROANOKE
WASHINGTON D.C.
OLYMPIA
QUILLAYUTE
SEATTLE
SPOKANE
YAKIMA
CHARLESTON
HUNTINGTON
EAU CLAIRE
GREEN BAY
LA CROSSE
MADISON
MILWAUKEE
CASPER
CHEYENNE
LANDER
G
Therms
158
156
166
174
209
204
225
193
184
189
195
188
212
216
204
221
214
199
198
232
228
224
226
224
226
227
227
G32ICS
AS (Therms) FS (%)
76
48.1
69
44.2
76
45.8
80
46.0
93
44.5
78
38.2
63
28.0
75
38.9
71
38.6
73
38.6
72
36.9
60
31.9
53
25.0
50
23.1
55
27.0
68
30.8
72
33.6
66
33.2
65
32.8
68
29.3
67
29.4
69
30.8
68
30.1
68
30.4
82
36.3
83
36.6
87
38.3
G40FPCL
AS (Therms) FS (%)
109
69.0
100
64.1
110
66.3
116
66.7
135
64.6
115
56.4
94
41.8
109
56.5
103
56.0
106
56.1
106
54.4
91
48.4
81
38.2
77
35.6
83
40.7
101
45.7
107
50.0
98
49.2
96
48.5
101
43.5
100
43.9
103
46.0
102
45.1
99
44.2
120
53.1
120
52.9
127
55.9
G64FPCL
AS (Therms) FS (%)
131
82.9
121
77.6
132
79.5
140
80.5
167
79.9
142
69.6
123
54.7
139
72.0
132
71.7
135
71.4
136
69.7
118
62.8
105
49.5
101
46.8
107
52.5
128
57.9
135
63.1
126
63.3
124
62.6
132
56.9
130
57.0
133
59.4
132
58.4
130
58.0
154
68.1
157
69.2
163
71.8
Page 42 of 65
Appendix E: BEopt Auxiliary Electric Water Heaters Contour Plots
Figure E1. Annual energy consumption in kWh for a standard storage electric water heater
Figure E2. Annual absolute energy savings in kWh for E32ICS
Figure E3. Annual fractional energy savings (%) for E32ICS
Page 43 of 65
Figure E4. Annual absolute energy savings in kWh for E40FPCL
Figure E5. Annual fractional energy savings (%) for E40FPCL
Figure E6. Annual absolute energy savings in kWh for E64FPCL
Page 44 of 65
Figure E7. Annual fractional energy savings (%) for E64FPCL
Page 45 of 65
Appendix F: EGUSA Auxiliary Electric Water Heaters Contour Plots for California
Figure F1. Annual energy consumption in kWh for a standard storage electric water heater
Figure F2. Annual absolute energy savings in kWh for E32ICS
Page 46 of 65
Figure F3. Annual fractional energy savings (%) for E32ICS
Figure F4. Annual absolute energy savings in kWh for E40FPCL
Page 47 of 65
Figure F5. Annual fractional energy savings (%) for E40FPCL
Figure F6. Annual absolute energy savings in kWh for E64FPCL
Page 48 of 65
Figure F7. Annual fractional energy savings (%) for E64FPCL
Page 49 of 65
Appendix G: EGUSA Auxiliary Natural Gas Water Heaters Contour Plots for California
Figure G1. Annual energy consumption in therms for a standard storage natural gas water heater
Figure G2. Annual absolute energy savings in therms for G32ICS
Page 50 of 65
Figure G3. Annual fractional energy savings (%) for G32ICS
Figure G4. Annual absolute energy savings in therms for G40FPCL
Page 51 of 65
Figure G5. Annual fractional energy savings (%) for G40FPCL
Figure G6. Annual absolute energy savings in therms for G64FPCL
Page 52 of 65
Figure G7. Annual fractional energy savings (%) for G64FPCL
Page 53 of 65
Appendix H: EGUSA Auxiliary Electric Water Heaters Contour Plots for Florida
Figure H1. Annual energy consumption in kWh for a standard storage electric water heater
Figure H2. Annual absolute energy savings in kWh for E32ICS
Page 54 of 65
Figure H3. Annual fractional energy savings (%) for E32ICS
Figure H4. Annual absolute energy savings in kWh for E40FPCL
Page 55 of 65
Figure H5. Annual fractional energy savings (%) for E40FPCL
Figure H6. Annual absolute energy savings in kWh for E64FPCL
Page 56 of 65
Figure H7. Annual fractional energy savings (%) for E64FPCL
Page 57 of 65
Appendix I: Difference in prediction of absolute energy savings in BEopt with respect to
EGUSA on a city by city basis
Table I1. Electric Systems
State
ALABAMA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
City
BIRMINGHAM
MOBILE
MONTGOMERY
FLAGSTAFF
PHOENIX
PRESCOTT
TUCSON
FORT SMITH
LITTLE ROCK
ARCATA
BAKERSFIELD
FRESNO
LONG BEACH
LOS ANGELES
SACRAMENTO
SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO
ALAMOSA
COLORADO SPRINGS
EAGLE
GRAND JUNCTION
PUEBLO
BRIDGEPORT
HARTFORD
WILMINGTON
DAYTONA BEACH
JACKSONVILLE
MIAMI
TALLAHASSEE
TAMPA
WEST PALM BEACH
ATHENS
ATLANTA
AUGUSTA
COLUMBUS
MACON
SAVANNAH
BOISE
POCATELLO
CHICAGO
MOLINE
PEORIA
ROCKFORD
SPRINGFIELD
EVANSVILLE
FORT WAYNE
INDIANAPOLIS
SOUTH BEND
DES MOINES
MASON CITY
SIOUX CITY
WATERLOO
DODGE CITY
GOODLAND
E32ICS
BEopt-EG (kWh)
141
116
116
562
155
235
170
233
37
183
143
138
117
125
172
90
150
819
465
623
406
362
360
394
288
96
92
89
102
111
90
154
173
121
132
118
107
287
419
390
397
373
463
355
234
412
367
343
427
500
444
446
350
419
%
8.9
7.4
7.0
32.4
10.0
11.8
9.2
15.1
2.4
12.7
8.4
8.1
6.3
6.6
9.9
4.6
8.3
49.5
28.4
42.6
24.3
20.0
28.2
33.3
21.0
5.8
5.9
5.9
6.4
6.8
5.7
9.6
10.8
7.3
8.4
7.3
6.7
18.6
27.7
32.1
30.6
27.9
38.9
25.9
16.1
35.2
28.6
28.9
31.5
41.9
33.5
35.7
21.2
25.1
E40FPCL
BEopt-EG (kWh)
55
54
55
157
33
169
81
144
22
210
59
68
106
122
79
-25
164
280
220
278
152
184
194
158
130
46
66
1
75
33
4
96
78
75
73
58
72
174
201
239
142
151
187
142
111
191
160
167
144
207
179
197
153
142
%
2.5
2.6
2.5
5.4
1.7
6.3
3.6
6.8
1.1
10.7
2.8
3.2
4.5
5.1
3.5
-1.0
6.9
9.2
8.5
10.9
6.0
7.0
9.8
8.0
6.2
2.2
3.2
0.1
3.6
1.6
0.2
4.4
3.6
3.4
3.5
2.7
3.4
7.8
8.4
12.5
6.6
7.1
9.1
6.6
5.3
9.8
7.8
8.8
6.4
9.9
8.1
9.3
6.2
5.4
E64FPCL
BEopt-EG (kWh)
44
52
38
86
55
77
45
111
40
196
51
50
61
61
54
-107
103
122
124
170
73
94
167
122
101
31
64
11
65
28
-4
86
78
52
57
52
70
130
111
244
89
95
132
115
99
142
109
127
81
140
130
142
105
77
%
1.7
2.2
1.5
2.4
2.7
2.5
1.8
4.4
1.6
7.5
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.1
-3.7
3.6
3.1
3.8
5.1
2.4
3.0
6.5
4.8
3.9
1.3
2.7
0.5
2.7
1.3
-0.2
3.4
3.0
2.0
2.4
2.1
2.9
4.9
3.8
10.1
3.3
3.5
5.0
4.3
3.9
5.7
4.2
5.2
2.9
5.1
4.7
5.2
3.5
2.4
Page 58 of 65
State
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
City
TOPEKA
WICHITA
LEXINGTON
LOUISVILLE
BATON ROUGE
LAKE CHARLES
NEW ORLEANS
SHREVEPORT
PORTLAND
BALTIMORE
BOSTON
WORCESTER
ALPENA
DETROIT
FLINT
GRAND RAPIDS
HOUGHTON LAKE
LANSING
MUSKEGON
SAULT STE. MARIE
TRAVERSE CITY
DULUTH
INTERNATIONAL FALLS
MINNEAPOLIS
ROCHESTER
JACKSON
MERIDIAN
COLUMBIA
KANSAS CITY
SPRINGFIELD
ST. LOUIS
BILLINGS
CUT BANK
GLASGOW
GREAT FALLS
HELENA
KALISPELL
LEWISTON
MILES CITY
MISSOULA
GRAND ISLAND
NORFOLK
NORTH PLATTE
SCOTTSBLUFF
ELKO
ELY
LAS VEGAS
RENO
TONOPAH
WINNEMUCCA
CONCORD
ATLANTIC CITY
NEWARK
ALBUQUERQUE
TUCUMCARI
ALBANY
BINGHAMTON
BUFFALO
MASSENA
NEW YORK CITY
ROCHESTER
SYRACUSE
ASHEVILLE
E32ICS
BEopt-EG (kWh)
333
271
279
201
101
103
91
192
546
246
384
506
558
345
412
382
466
376
394
598
446
616
561
527
502
283
134
323
360
283
282
391
473
482
377
467
398
496
430
332
470
484
453
463
497
699
161
315
412
406
502
289
312
254
281
425
446
394
493
245
362
393
233
%
23.2
16.9
21.2
16.5
6.8
6.7
6.0
12.7
45.8
17.4
30.4
43.8
54.7
31.3
37.1
32.8
46.8
32.3
34.2
60.5
42.6
59.4
56.5
45.6
44.4
17.6
8.6
22.3
25.0
19.3
20.2
27.7
35.0
37.7
27.2
35.8
34.0
39.5
30.4
26.1
33.3
35.5
30.8
31.2
31.3
46.5
9.1
17.4
22.5
24.1
44.1
20.5
24.2
12.7
15.2
35.6
41.6
34.9
45.2
17.9
32.0
34.5
14.9
E40FPCL
BEopt-EG (kWh)
111
117
131
157
49
34
37
138
171
89
129
132
225
198
196
207
273
210
218
240
227
262
312
211
248
63
111
122
113
145
75
177
208
242
223
198
238
214
178
217
173
177
175
147
161
166
21
81
85
132
190
110
103
70
86
150
160
180
188
113
181
169
137
%
5.0
5.0
6.5
8.9
2.5
1.7
1.9
6.8
7.9
4.2
6.3
6.3
11.6
11.1
10.5
10.9
15.6
11.1
11.6
12.4
12.5
13.1
16.9
10.1
12.4
2.9
5.4
5.5
5.0
6.7
3.5
7.9
9.1
11.2
10.2
9.0
12.5
9.8
7.8
11.0
7.3
7.7
7.2
6.0
6.2
6.0
0.9
3.1
3.1
5.1
9.3
5.1
5.1
2.5
3.3
7.4
8.5
9.6
9.6
5.6
9.9
8.9
6.0
E64FPCL
BEopt-EG (kWh)
86
93
102
177
47
32
49
148
121
60
105
89
161
176
156
160
251
164
174
186
186
208
260
178
189
49
110
74
95
122
45
121
138
178
176
125
186
150
108
153
108
121
104
67
67
70
40
31
14
71
136
83
74
43
55
105
113
132
136
96
145
138
127
%
3.1
3.4
4.1
7.9
2.1
1.4
2.2
6.3
4.3
2.3
4.0
3.2
6.2
7.6
6.4
6.5
10.7
6.6
7.2
7.1
7.7
7.6
10.2
6.6
7.2
2.0
4.5
2.7
3.4
4.6
1.7
4.3
4.7
6.4
6.2
4.4
7.5
5.3
3.7
6.0
3.7
4.2
3.4
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.6
1.0
0.4
2.3
5.1
3.0
2.9
1.3
1.8
4.0
4.5
5.4
5.2
3.8
6.1
5.6
4.5
Page 59 of 65
State
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
City
CAPE HATTERAS
CHARLOTTE
GREENSBORO
RALEIGH
WILMINGTON
BISMARCK
FARGO
MINOT
AKRON
CLEVELAND
COLUMBUS
DAYTON
MANSFIELD
TOLEDO
YOUNGSTOWN
OKLAHOMA CITY
TULSA
ASTORIA
BURNS
EUGENE
MEDFORD
NORTH BEND
PENDLETON
PORTLAND
REDMOND
SALEM
ALLENTOWN
BRADFORD
ERIE
HARRISBURG
PHILADELPHIA
PITTSBURGH
WILKES-BARRE
WILLIAMSPORT
PROVIDENCE
CHARLESTON
COLUMBIA
PIERRE
RAPID CITY
SIOUX FALLS
CHATTANOOGA
KNOXVILLE
MEMPHIS
NASHVILLE
ABILENE
AMARILLO
AUSTIN
BROWNSVILLE
CORPUS CHRISTI
EL PASO
FORT WORTH
HOUSTON
LUBBOCK
LUFKIN
MIDLAND
PORT ARTHUR
SAN ANGELO
SAN ANTONIO
VICTORIA
WACO
WICHITA FALLS
CEDAR CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
E32ICS
BEopt-EG (kWh)
124
152
230
168
64
487
544
587
231
347
220
279
391
351
327
171
246
172
460
199
180
171
209
187
299
198
351
469
368
211
271
345
367
349
362
113
130
396
470
471
148
251
151
220
173
231
103
90
90
168
147
95
201
100
156
93
160
103
77
119
174
416
296
%
7.8
9.4
15.5
10.8
4.0
37.3
45.9
50.7
20.5
33.3
17.8
22.9
34.6
28.0
29.1
11.1
16.2
15.4
31.3
15.4
11.4
11.6
13.7
15.3
18.8
15.4
28.4
44.4
33.0
16.5
19.5
29.1
31.6
29.9
28.9
7.0
8.2
28.3
32.2
36.5
9.9
17.7
9.8
15.0
9.8
12.6
7.0
6.3
6.3
8.4
9.3
6.4
11.2
6.4
8.4
6.2
9.1
6.4
5.1
7.4
10.4
23.2
19.1
E40FPCL
BEopt-EG (kWh)
58
85
116
108
64
317
278
420
88
271
90
110
180
186
199
102
104
163
196
220
148
117
133
181
193
179
122
211
197
-9
126
167
142
155
132
61
89
200
156
213
91
104
71
95
106
103
47
15
18
38
87
43
115
42
90
23
91
28
2
11
74
111
128
%
2.7
3.8
5.4
5.0
3.0
14.5
13.1
21.1
4.9
16.3
4.7
5.6
9.6
9.3
11.2
4.7
4.8
10.1
8.2
12.2
6.9
5.7
6.3
10.6
8.3
9.9
6.1
11.3
11.0
-0.4
6.0
8.8
7.4
8.2
6.5
2.9
4.2
9.0
6.4
9.7
4.4
5.0
3.4
4.5
4.6
4.0
2.5
0.8
1.0
1.5
4.1
2.2
4.7
2.1
3.7
1.2
3.9
1.4
0.1
0.5
3.3
4.0
5.6
E64FPCL
BEopt-EG (kWh)
55
62
102
98
113
361
300
366
118
306
132
152
153
139
177
124
92
174
121
193
119
96
108
169
125
156
76
155
168
-27
96
131
100
121
111
59
76
144
86
166
87
94
73
88
183
65
68
20
17
12
84
56
99
41
60
26
54
27
-3
16
63
29
77
%
2.2
2.4
3.9
3.8
4.5
12.8
10.7
13.8
5.0
14.0
5.4
6.1
6.2
5.4
7.6
4.9
3.6
8.1
4.0
8.6
4.6
3.6
4.2
7.9
4.3
6.9
3.0
6.1
7.3
-1.0
3.7
5.4
4.0
4.9
4.2
2.4
3.1
5.1
2.8
5.9
3.5
3.7
3.0
3.5
7.2
2.1
3.1
1.0
0.8
0.4
3.4
2.5
3.5
1.7
2.2
1.2
2.1
1.2
-0.1
0.7
2.4
0.9
2.8
Page 60 of 65
State
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
City
BURLINGTON
LYNCHBURG
NORFOLK
RICHMOND
ROANOKE
WASHINGTON D.C.
OLYMPIA
QUILLAYUTE
SEATTLE
SPOKANE
YAKIMA
CHARLESTON
HUNTINGTON
EAU CLAIRE
GREEN BAY
LA CROSSE
MILWAUKEE
CASPER
CHEYENNE
LANDER
E32ICS
BEopt-EG (kWh)
430
242
194
202
251
66
219
217
158
390
263
250
222
506
518
475
469
553
533
552
%
38.3
15.7
13.1
13.3
17.1
4.9
20.3
21.2
13.3
31.0
17.9
18.6
16.6
43.9
46.3
39.7
39.6
38.7
36.5
35.9
E40FPCL
BEopt-EG (kWh)
193
102
86
98
102
-59
222
222
127
292
188
128
112
186
185
199
158
147
137
159
%
10.2
4.6
4.1
4.5
4.7
-2.9
14.3
15.1
7.6
15.4
8.9
6.4
5.7
9.0
9.1
9.6
7.7
5.8
5.4
6.0
E64FPCL
BEopt-EG (kWh)
160
73
65
94
81
-33
214
212
113
298
148
109
92
118
130
152
99
44
61
85
%
6.4
2.7
2.6
3.6
3.0
-1.3
10.4
10.6
5.3
12.7
5.7
4.3
3.7
4.3
4.8
5.7
3.7
1.4
1.9
2.6
Page 61 of 65
Table I2. Natural Gas Systems
State
City
ALABAMA
BIRMINGHAM
MOBILE
MONTGOMERY
FLAGSTAFF
PHOENIX
PRESCOTT
TUCSON
FORT SMITH
LITTLE ROCK
ARCATA
BAKERSFIELD
FRESNO
LONG BEACH
LOS ANGELES
SACRAMENTO
SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO
ALAMOSA
COLORADO SPRINGS
EAGLE
GRAND JUNCTION
PUEBLO
BRIDGEPORT
HARTFORD
WILMINGTON
DAYTONA BEACH
JACKSONVILLE
MIAMI
TALLAHASSEE
TAMPA
WEST PALM BEACH
ATHENS
ATLANTA
AUGUSTA
COLUMBUS
MACON
SAVANNAH
BOISE
POCATELLO
CHICAGO
MOLINE
PEORIA
ROCKFORD
SPRINGFIELD
EVANSVILLE
FORT WAYNE
INDIANAPOLIS
SOUTH BEND
DES MOINES
MASON CITY
SIOUX CITY
WATERLOO
DODGE CITY
GOODLAND
TOPEKA
WICHITA
LEXINGTON
LOUISVILLE
BATON ROUGE
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
G32ICS
BEopt-EG
(Therms)
18
18
18
36
29
25
25
21
13
17
21
20
20
21
20
20
20
46
31
35
30
29
24
24
23
18
16
18
16
18
18
18
19
18
18
17
17
23
27
24
25
24
27
24
20
24
24
22
27
29
28
27
28
30
25
23
21
16
15
%
32.1
33.3
31.0
60.0
50.0
35.7
37.3
38.2
24.1
34.0
33.9
32.3
31.3
32.3
32.3
29.0
32.3
80.7
54.4
68.6
50.8
46.0
54.5
58.5
48.9
31.0
29.1
34.0
28.6
30.5
32.1
32.1
33.9
31.0
32.7
29.8
29.8
42.6
50.9
55.8
55.6
51.1
65.9
50.0
39.2
58.5
53.3
53.7
57.4
70.7
60.9
62.8
48.3
51.7
50.0
40.4
45.7
37.2
28.3
G40FPCL
BEopt-EG
(Therms)
21
22
22
29
31
32
35
28
20
25
30
30
27
26
29
22
26
35
32
33
32
34
25
24
24
24
21
21
23
24
21
23
24
24
24
24
23
28
28
25
24
24
26
24
24
24
25
24
25
27
27
26
30
29
25
27
23
22
21
%
24.7
26.8
25.3
26.6
36.9
30.8
36.8
33.7
25.3
34.2
34.1
34.5
29.0
27.7
31.9
21.6
28.6
31.0
33.3
35.1
33.3
34.0
33.8
32.9
30.8
27.9
25.3
25.9
27.4
27.6
25.0
27.1
27.9
27.6
29.3
28.2
27.1
32.6
31.1
34.2
30.0
30.0
34.7
29.3
30.0
32.9
32.5
33.8
29.8
35.1
32.9
33.3
31.6
29.3
29.4
30.0
30.3
32.8
26.9
G64FPCL
BEopt-EG
(Therms)
26
28
27
31
33
34
36
31
24
26
31
30
30
30
30
25
29
37
33
33
32
35
27
25
27
30
28
29
28
32
29
29
28
28
29
28
29
30
29
30
26
26
27
27
27
27
26
26
27
27
29
29
33
31
28
30
26
26
26
%
24.1
27.5
24.8
21.1
34.7
25.8
32.4
29.2
23.8
25.2
29.8
28.8
25.6
25.0
27.5
19.7
24.2
24.0
25.4
25.2
25.8
26.9
26.5
24.8
25.7
29.1
27.5
31.2
26.9
31.7
29.6
26.9
25.7
25.5
28.2
26.4
27.9
27.3
24.2
30.9
24.1
24.1
26.0
24.8
25.7
27.3
25.0
26.8
24.1
25.0
26.1
27.1
26.8
23.8
25.2
26.1
25.5
28.9
26.8
Page 62 of 65
State
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
City
LAKE CHARLES
NEW ORLEANS
SHREVEPORT
PORTLAND
BALTIMORE
BOSTON
WORCESTER
ALPENA
DETROIT
FLINT
GRAND RAPIDS
HOUGHTON LAKE
LANSING
MUSKEGON
SAULT STE. MARIE
TRAVERSE CITY
DULUTH
INTERNATIONAL FALLS
MINNEAPOLIS
ROCHESTER
JACKSON
MERIDIAN
COLUMBIA
KANSAS CITY
SPRINGFIELD
ST. LOUIS
BILLINGS
CUT BANK
GLASGOW
GREAT FALLS
HELENA
KALISPELL
LEWISTON
MILES CITY
MISSOULA
GRAND ISLAND
NORFOLK
NORTH PLATTE
SCOTTSBLUFF
ELKO
ELY
LAS VEGAS
RENO
TONOPAH
WINNEMUCCA
CONCORD
ATLANTIC CITY
NEWARK
ALBUQUERQUE
TUCUMCARI
ALBANY
BINGHAMTON
BUFFALO
MASSENA
NEW YORK CITY
ROCHESTER
SYRACUSE
ASHEVILLE
CAPE HATTERAS
CHARLOTTE
GREENSBORO
RALEIGH
G32ICS
BEopt-EG
(Therms)
17
17
19
31
20
25
29
29
22
23
23
26
24
23
31
25
31
29
29
28
18
18
24
25
22
22
26
28
28
25
28
23
29
27
22
28
30
28
30
32
40
27
26
31
28
28
22
22
26
26
25
25
24
27
19
23
23
20
17
18
20
19
%
31.5
32.1
34.5
75.6
40.8
56.8
72.5
80.6
57.9
59.0
57.5
76.5
60.0
57.5
91.2
69.4
86.1
85.3
72.5
71.8
31.6
33.3
47.1
49.0
42.3
44.9
53.1
59.6
63.6
52.1
62.2
56.1
67.4
55.1
50.0
56.0
63.8
53.8
57.7
58.2
76.9
41.5
40.6
48.4
46.7
70.0
44.9
48.9
36.6
40.0
61.0
67.6
61.5
71.1
39.6
59.0
57.5
36.4
30.4
31.6
38.5
35.2
G40FPCL
BEopt-EG
(Therms)
22
21
27
25
21
23
23
26
24
24
25
27
26
25
27
26
28
30
26
27
23
24
24
26
25
22
27
27
29
28
27
26
27
27
26
27
28
28
28
30
30
30
29
30
29
25
22
21
29
27
23
23
24
24
22
24
23
24
21
23
24
23
%
27.2
26.3
33.3
31.6
26.3
29.9
29.9
36.6
36.4
34.8
35.7
42.2
37.1
36.2
38.6
39.4
38.4
44.8
33.8
37.0
27.1
29.6
28.2
30.2
30.1
27.2
32.5
32.1
36.7
34.6
33.3
36.6
33.8
31.8
35.6
30.3
32.6
30.8
30.4
30.9
29.1
31.6
28.4
28.0
29.3
33.3
26.8
27.3
26.6
26.2
30.7
33.3
34.8
33.3
28.6
35.3
32.9
27.9
25.0
26.7
29.3
27.7
G64FPCL
BEopt-EG
(Therms)
27
27
33
26
24
25
23
26
27
25
27
28
28
27
27
26
27
30
28
29
28
29
28
28
29
24
29
27
30
30
28
27
28
29
26
29
29
29
29
31
30
33
29
30
29
26
25
23
31
30
24
22
25
24
24
25
25
27
26
28
27
28
%
27.0
27.6
33.0
23.4
22.6
23.8
21.1
25.7
29.7
25.8
28.1
30.8
28.9
28.1
26.7
27.7
25.7
30.9
26.2
28.2
26.4
28.2
25.2
24.6
26.9
22.4
25.9
23.1
27.5
27.0
25.0
27.6
25.0
25.4
25.7
24.4
25.0
23.6
23.6
24.2
21.4
30.0
22.3
22.1
22.7
24.8
22.7
22.3
22.8
23.1
23.1
22.4
26.0
23.5
23.3
26.6
25.8
23.3
24.5
25.2
25.0
25.9
Page 63 of 65
State
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
City
WILMINGTON
BISMARCK
FARGO
MINOT
AKRON
CLEVELAND
COLUMBUS
DAYTON
MANSFIELD
TOLEDO
YOUNGSTOWN
OKLAHOMA CITY
TULSA
ASTORIA
BURNS
EUGENE
MEDFORD
NORTH BEND
PENDLETON
PORTLAND
REDMOND
SALEM
ALLENTOWN
BRADFORD
ERIE
HARRISBURG
PHILADELPHIA
PITTSBURGH
WILKES-BARRE
WILLIAMSPORT
PROVIDENCE
CHARLESTON
COLUMBIA
PIERRE
RAPID CITY
SIOUX FALLS
CHATTANOOGA
KNOXVILLE
MEMPHIS
NASHVILLE
ABILENE
AMARILLO
AUSTIN
BROWNSVILLE
CORPUS CHRISTI
EL PASO
FORT WORTH
HOUSTON
LUBBOCK
LUFKIN
MIDLAND
PORT ARTHUR
SAN ANGELO
SAN ANTONIO
VICTORIA
WACO
WICHITA FALLS
CEDAR CITY
SALT LAKE CITY
BURLINGTON
LYNCHBURG
NORFOLK
G32ICS
BEopt-EG
(Therms)
13
27
30
31
16
21
17
19
24
22
20
17
21
14
28
17
19
16
19
15
24
16
23
26
22
16
22
22
22
21
24
17
18
27
31
28
17
20
19
21
21
23
17
15
16
25
18
16
23
16
21
16
21
18
16
19
20
30
23
25
22
19
%
23.2
58.7
73.2
77.5
41.0
58.3
39.5
44.2
61.5
50.0
51.3
30.9
38.2
35.9
53.8
37.8
34.5
31.4
35.8
34.9
43.6
35.6
53.5
72.2
56.4
35.6
45.8
53.7
53.7
51.2
55.8
29.8
32.7
56.3
62.0
62.2
32.1
40.0
35.2
41.2
32.8
35.9
32.7
29.4
31.4
35.2
32.1
30.8
36.5
28.6
31.8
30.2
33.3
31.0
30.2
33.3
33.3
47.6
41.8
65.8
41.5
36.5
G40FPCL
BEopt-EG
(Therms)
17
30
29
34
19
26
19
20
24
25
24
22
25
20
28
26
26
20
24
23
28
23
22
25
25
16
23
23
22
22
23
23
24
28
28
27
22
23
24
23
26
28
24
21
22
31
25
22
29
23
29
21
28
24
20
24
26
29
28
25
24
22
%
20.2
37.0
37.2
46.6
28.8
41.9
26.4
27.4
34.8
33.8
36.9
25.9
29.1
33.3
31.1
38.8
31.3
25.6
29.6
35.9
31.8
33.3
29.3
37.3
37.9
21.1
29.1
32.4
31.0
31.0
30.7
27.1
28.9
33.7
31.1
33.3
27.2
28.8
29.3
28.4
27.1
28.0
31.2
27.6
28.9
29.8
29.8
28.2
29.9
28.0
29.6
26.6
29.8
28.2
25.0
27.9
28.9
27.4
32.2
36.2
28.2
27.2
G64FPCL
BEopt-EG
(Therms)
25
36
33
37
20
30
22
23
26
27
25
29
29
21
29
28
29
22
27
24
30
25
24
25
25
16
26
25
23
23
24
28
29
30
29
29
26
27
28
28
34
31
27
28
26
33
31
26
33
27
32
26
32
29
23
27
30
30
30
26
28
26
%
23.6
32.4
30.3
35.9
21.7
34.9
22.4
23.0
27.1
26.5
27.5
26.9
26.6
24.7
24.0
30.8
27.4
20.8
26.0
27.6
25.6
27.2
23.5
25.8
27.2
15.4
24.8
25.8
23.5
23.5
23.1
26.4
27.6
26.8
24.0
26.1
24.8
25.7
27.2
26.9
30.1
24.4
28.4
31.1
28.0
26.8
29.5
26.8
27.3
26.5
26.9
26.8
28.1
28.4
23.5
25.7
27.3
21.9
26.8
26.8
25.2
24.5
Page 64 of 65
State
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
City
RICHMOND
ROANOKE
WASHINGTON D.C.
OLYMPIA
QUILLAYUTE
SEATTLE
SPOKANE
YAKIMA
CHARLESTON
HUNTINGTON
EAU CLAIRE
GREEN BAY
LA CROSSE
MILWAUKEE
CASPER
CHEYENNE
LANDER
G32ICS
BEopt-EG
(Therms)
20
21
12
16
15
14
24
21
19
19
28
28
27
27
33
33
34
%
37.7
41.2
25.0
43.2
42.9
34.1
54.5
41.2
40.4
41.3
70.0
71.8
64.3
65.9
67.3
66.0
64.2
G40FPCL
BEopt-EG
(Therms)
23
23
14
23
23
20
30
27
22
22
25
25
26
23
27
26
28
%
27.7
27.7
18.2
39.7
42.6
31.7
42.3
33.8
28.9
29.7
32.9
33.3
33.8
30.3
29.0
27.7
28.3
G64FPCL
BEopt-EG
(Therms)
26
26
17
24
23
21
34
29
24
24
25
25
27
24
28
27
30
%
23.9
23.6
16.8
29.6
29.5
24.4
36.2
27.4
23.5
24.0
23.4
23.8
25.5
22.6
22.2
20.8
22.6
Page 65 of 65