The Anthracite Chapter

NEWS February 2016

ASHRAE - Shaping Tomorrow’s Built Environment Today

2015-2016 OFFICERS & CHAIRS President: Rich Karns rkarns@sordoni.com (570) 287-3161 x210 President-Elect: Alyssa Procida alyssa.procida@irco.com (570) 821-4923 Vice-President Eric Turner eftdd@aol.com Treasurer: Jon Keller jon@jfohora.com (570) 342-7778 Secretary & Research Promotion Chair: Maxwell Tamasy mtamasy@smartwattinc.com (724) 797-4908 Board of Governors: Dan Mello: (570) 288-8759 Board of Governors & Student Activities Chair: Tracey Jumper tjumper@smartwattinc.com (570) 471-3480 Board of Governors & Chapter Technology Transfer Chair: Matt Archey, PE marchey@borton-lawson.com (570) 821-1994 x1257 Grassroots Government Activities Chair: A.J. Speicher, PE aspeicher@borton-lawson.com (570) 821-1994 x 303 Historian & Newsletter Editor: Walt Janus, PE wjanus@gpinet.com (570) 342-3700 x5915 Membership Promotion Chair: Gary Booth booth@epix.net (570) 814-0042 Research Promotion Co-Chair: Cory Lock clock@genairesys.com (215) 348-1497 Website Homepage Editor: Karl Grasso kgrasso@anemostat.com (570) 562-2778 Young Engineers in ASHRAE Chair: Walt Stout wstout@borton-lawson.com (570) 821-1994 x1512

President’s Message This month’s theme is Engineer’s Week. Founded in 1951 as “National Engineers Week” by the National Society of Professional Engineers (NPSE), it is among the oldest of America’s professional outreach efforts. This year’s theme is “Engineers Make a World of Difference”. A focus of this theme is to bring engineering awareness to young students who could be the Engineers of the future. There will always be a need for Engineers in our world society, and it is up to all of us to impress this importance to the young people around us. For more information on the National Engineers week, visit this link http://www.discovere.org/our-programs/engineers-week. In keeping with this month’s theme, please welcome our colleagues from the Pennsylvania Society of Professional Engineers (PSPE) to our monthly meeting. This is the month at which the Nominating Committee presents the names of the candidates, who will be vying for Chapter Officer positions, to the Chapter Secretary. These names and associated positions will be shared with the membership at the March meeting. We will also be taking nominations from the floor at that meeting. The final election will be held by ballots sent to the members through Survey Monkey at the end of March. The results will be announced at the April meeting. It is not too late to throw your name in the hat by contacting the Chapter Secretary, Max Tamasy, or any of the other board members. We would love to have you join us. Finally, Jon Keller is asking for help with the Golf Outing coming up in June. As mentioned in an email that I sent to the chapter members, Jon’s assistant from previous years has transferred out of the area. Jon and Will planned a wonderful outing last year. Jon has several ideas that will make this year’s outing even better, but he can use some help. Please consider our request for help. It will be a very rewarding experience.

Rich Karns

Chapter Website: http://anthracite.ashraechapters.org

ASHRAE ANTHRACITE CHAPTER MEETING

Tuesday February 16, 2016

Basic Electricity Theory and Safety for Non-EEs

Presented by

Mark Rutkowski, PE

Mr. Rutkowski holds Bachelor's and Master's Degrees in electrical engineering from Wilkes University. He has approximately 20 years of industrial experience in the area of communications engineering prior to joining the LCCC faculty. Since joining the faculty in 1995 he has been promoted to the rank of Professor. He is a registered Professional Engineer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Mark is active in the community. He was named “Who’s Who in NEPA” by the Northeast Business Journal in 2001. He was responsible for opening a retail store in Nanticoke that sells donated building materials to benefit Wyoming Valley Habitat for Humanity. In 2003, he was awarded the Pennsylvania Society of Professional Engineers Robert P. Eble, P.E., P.L.S. Memorial Distinguished Service Award. In 2007, he was awarded the Gottfried Csala Professional Award for his work with Habitat for Humanity. Mr. Rutkowski has done presentations on new technologies, engineering careers, nanotechnology, cyber security and other topics to local, state and national audiences. During his time with the college, Mark was responsible for developing programs in Nanofabrication Manufacturing Technology, Cyber Security Management and Sustainable Energy Technology. In addition, he authored articulation agreements with several area high schools and four year colleges. He regularly assists and advises area high schools with science and technology curriculum development. Mr. Rutkowski’s presentation will cover electricity basics, power, motors, and arc flash.

A Certificate of Attendance will be available at the registration table Location: Radisson Lackawanna Station Hotel

700 Lackawanna Avenue, Scranton, PA 18503 (570) 342-8300

Schedule: 5:00-5:45 p.m. Business Meeting (All are Welcome) 5:30-6:30 p.m. Social Hour (Cash Bar) 6:00-6:30 p.m. Program Registration 6:30-7:15 p.m. Dinner (Buffet) 7:15-8:30 p.m. Technical Presentation Cost: $ 30.00 per person FREE for Students (ASHRAE Members are encouraged to sponsor Students)

Only If You Are Planning to Attend Please Respond by NOON on FRIDAY February 12, 2016 to Walt Janus at (570) 342-3700 Ext. 286 or via e-mail at wjanus@gpinet.com

NEWS and Notes ASHRAE Webinar Planned

ASHRAE’s upcoming webcast will broadcast live on April 21 from 1:00 to 4:00 pm EDT. This FREE webcast is brought to you by the Chapter Technology Transfer Committee. “The presenters will discuss the primary technical and financial challenges in achieving net zero buildings,” said Nathan Hart, chair of the CTTC Webcast Ad Hoc Committee. “Viewers will learn the importance of, and why we should strive for, net zero in the built environment. The focus will be on realistic solutions and methods of energy conservation.” Online registration for the webcast will begin on March 21. For more information on the webcast program, sponsorship opportunities, continuing education credits, and ASHRAE resources related to net zero, visit www.ashrae.org/webcast. Technology Corner The reprint article “Plug Load Design Factors” is included at the end of this month’s edition of the NEWS, and is courtesy of the ASHRAE Journal. You may submit articles for consideration to be included in future editions to CTTC chair Matt Archey.

Thanks to Our Sponsors

`

The display of business cards in the NEWS recognizes the financial support of the Chapter by the individual or business and does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation by ASHRAE or the Anthracite Chapter.

Thanks to Our Sponsors

The display of business cards in the NEWS recognizes the financial support of the Chapter by the individual or business and does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation by ASHRAE or the Anthracite Chapter.

Thanks to Our Sponsors

The display of business cards in the NEWS recognizes the financial support of the Chapter by the individual or business and does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation by ASHRAE or the Anthracite Chapter.

ANTHRACITE CHAPTER NEWS Walt Janus, Editor c/o Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. 50 Glenmaura National Blvd, Suite 102 Scranton, PA 18505

ASHRAE MISSION

• To advance the arts and sciences of heating, ventilating, air conditioning and

refrigerating to serve humanity and promote a sustainable world.

ASHRAE VISION

• ASHRAE will be the global leader, the foremost source of technical and educational

information, and the primary provider of opportunity for professional growth in the arts

and sciences of heating, ventilating, air conditioning and refrigerating.

2014-15 Matt Archey 2005-06 Manish Patel 1996-97 Charlie Smith 1987-88 Ray Suhocki 2013-14 Matt Archey 2004-05 A.J. Lello 1995-96 Chuck Swinderman 1986-87 Jerry Peznowski 2012-13 Tracey Jumper 2003-04 Dennis Gochoel 1994-95 John Walker 1985-86 Lee Garing 2011-12 A.J. Speicher 2002-03 Phil Latinski 1993-94 Dennis McGraw 1984-85 Spence Martin 2010-11 Tom Swartwood 2001-02 Mike Moran 1992-93 Scott Harford 1983-84 Donald Brandt 2009-10 Brian Flynn 2000-01 Dennis Gochoel 1991-92 Dan Mello 1982-83 Rich Santee 2008-09 Eric Zanolini 1999-00 John Durdan 1990-91 Mark Hagen 1981-82 Bob Mugford 2007-08 Walt Janus 1998-99 Matthew Martin 1989-90 Paul Dreater 1980-81 Kerry Freeman 2006-07 John Havenstrite 1997-98 Dean Butler 1988-89 Bud Reilly

Ant

hrac

ite C

hapt

er

Pas

t-Pre

side

nts

ANTHRACITE CHAPTER 2015-2016 MEETINGS & EVENTS

Date Theme Program Speaker

Sept. 15 Membership/Bring-a-Buddy

Joint Meeting with AIA

Geisinger Clinic Tour / Building Performance Analysis for Building Performance Rating Tools

M. Dennis Knight*

Oct. 20 Research Promotion –

Donor Recognition

Heating Applications with Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Technology

Phil Latinski

Nov. 17 Students/YEA Building Information Modeling (BIM) Michael Brown

December Family Night No Meeting --

Jan. 19 Research Promotion Hybrid Heating Plant Design Luke Wonnell

Feb. 16 Engineer’s Week Joint Meeting with PSPE

Basic Electricity Theory and Safety for Non-EEs

Mark Rutkowski

Mar. 15 Nominating Night

Joint Meeting w/SMACNA Through-penetration Firestopping TBA

April 19 Students/Membership DDC Control Strategies A.J. Speicher

April 21 ASHRAE Webinar Making Net Zero Net Positive:

Solving the Efficiency & Cost Paradox Panel

May 17 Past-Presidents

Joint Meeting with ASHE Infection Control in HVAC Systems Bill Bahnfleth**

TBA Research Promotion Car Show --

June 21 Fun & Fellowship Mark A. Hagan, PE Memorial Golf Tournament --

Aug. 18-20 Chapters Regional Conf. 2016 Region III CRC - Philadelphia, PA --

*ASHRAE Fellow and Distinguished Lecturer **ASHRAE Presidential Member and Distinguished Lecturer

30 AS HRAE Jou rna l ash rae .o rg M a y 2 0 1 1

Plug loads are an important contributor to a building’s peak air-

conditioning load and energy consumption. Plug loads over time

have evolved to become a larger percentage of a building’s overall

heat gain. Two factors are responsible for this increased significance.

First, over time, computer use has continued to increase resulting in a

much larger number of personal computers in use in buildings. Second,

advances in building techniques have improved envelopes and reduced

that portion of the load/energy use.

As building envelope and system technology have improved, computer technology has advanced. Lower energy notebook computer and LCD monitor use are more widespread while at the same time, computing power, peripher-als use, and enhanced or multiple moni-tors use have increased.

The industry is moving toward a much greater focus on low energy and even net zero energy buildings. Part of this industry movement results in a need to design based on the lowest possible plug load assumptions. Every project or ap-plication is different, and engineers are often asked to apply their judgment for

plug load assumptions without the ben-efit of all the needed or available infor-mation. This article is intended to pro-vide data and recommendations that will allow engineers to make these important decisions on just how low they can go in terms of plug load assumptions for a specific project or application.

Historical PerspectiveComputer use in buildings started to be-

come prevalent and began to be a consid-eration in building air-conditioning loads in the 1980s. At that time, loads were gen-

About the AuthorsChristopher K. Wilkins, P.E., is director of engineering for Hallam-ICS in South Burlington, Vt. He is the chair of TC 4.1, Load Calculation Data and Procedures and is chair of ASHRAE’s BIM Steering Committee. Moham-mad H. Hosni, Ph.D., is professor of mechanical engi-neering and director of the Big-12 Engineering Con-sortium at Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kan. He was principal investigator for RP-1482.

By Christopher K. Wilkins, P.E., Member ASHRAE; and Mohammad H. Hosni, Ph.D., Fellow ASHRAE

Plug Load Design Factors

This article was published in ASHRAE Journal, May 2011. Copyright 2011 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Posted at www.ashrae.org. This article may not be copied and/or distributed electronically or in paper form without permission of ASHRAE. For more information about ASHRAE Journal, visit www.ashrae.org.

May 2011 ASHRAE Jou rna l 31

1.000

0.750

0.500

0.250

0.000

Ind

ex (

kWh

/ft2

·yr)

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Figure 1: Plug load index, 1990 – 2010.6

erally calculated based on the nameplate data on the computers and other electronic equipment. In the late 1980s, computer use began to become more widespread. In this era, the authors ob-served that it was not uncommon for air-conditioning systems to be sized for plug loads of 3 to 5 W/ft2 (32 to 54 W/m2).

A 1991 ASHRAE Journal article1 reported on research done in Finland where the actual load from computers and other equipment was measured and compared to nameplate data. This relatively modest effort revealed that the measured load of this equipment was typically only 20% to 30% of the nameplate data. This revelation provided the first hard evi-dence of this issue and changed the way that plug loads were considered in load and energy calculations.

Next, Wilkins and McGaffin in 19942 reported measure-ments in five U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) office buildings in the Washington, D.C. area. Their work included informal mea-surement of a large sample of individual equipment items, as well as measure-ments at panels that served computer equipment within a given area of the building. The results provided further verification of the nameplate discrep-ancy of individual equipment, provided measured data for the determination of the load factor of an area and, for the first time, allowed the load diversity factor to be derived based on measured data.

ASHRAE followed up this informal research with the execution of two re-search projects: RP-822 (1996), “Test Method for Measuring the Heat Gain and Radiant/Convective Split from Equipment in Buildings” and RP-1055 (1999), “Measurement of Heat Gain and Radiant/Convective Split from Equipment in Buildings.”3,4 The experimental results corroborated the ear-lier findings but did so in a more formal and traceable manner. All of this work led to a widely referenced ASHRAE Journal article in 2000.5 This data was incorporated into the ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals starting in 1997 and then signifi-cantly expanded in the 2001 edition.

Current ASHRAE Handbook DataData presented in the 2009 ASHRAE Handbook—Funda-

mentals, Chapter 18, Nonresidential Cooling and Heating Load Calculations, relative to office equipment loads (or plug loads) is based largely on the research and publications cit-ed previously. Data is presented in a number of formats and breakdowns but can be best summarized by considering Table 11 in Chapter 18, which states that a “medium density” of-fice building will have a plug load of 1 W/ft2 (10.8 W/m2). It is believed that this value of 1 W/ft2 (10.8 W/m2) has been widely used in the industry since the mid 1990s. The authors believe this value is, and always has been, somewhat conser-vative when used in office environments. However, its use has

proven to provide an appropriate balance to cover potential future loads while not introducing significant over-design in building systems.

Trends to DateThis approach and recommended load factor have remained

roughly the same since the mid-1990s. Computer technology has certainly changed since that time but until recently, there was no need to change the use of 1 W/ft2. In fact, a compre-hensive study was conducted by Koomey, et al,6 and reported in December 1995 where it was predicted that plug loads in office buildings would decrease modestly through at least 2010 (Figure 1).

This decrease was expected to be due to technical advances that would result from ENERGY STAR and other related pro-

grams. Their predictions were based on energy use, not peak load values, but it is believed that these trends would be simi-lar and, in fact, history has proven this to be the case. Office equipment has become more efficient, and overall plug load intensity has decreased.

Current State of Plug LoadsPredicting the future of the information technology (IT)

world is not attempted here, but recent studies, as described later, have provided new data that gives a clearer picture of the current state of plug loads. It is important to understand the current state of the equipment that contributes to plug loads and how this equipment now in use differs from equipment in use at the time 1 W/ft2 (10.8 W/m2) was found to be an ap-propriate load factor. Hosni and Beck have recently complet-ed the latest ASHRAE-sponsored research project RP-1482, “Update to Measurements of Office Equipment Heat Gain Data,”7 where measurements were obtained from an up-to-date sample of office equipment including notebook comput-ers (laptops) and flat screen (LCD) monitors.

Table 1 shows how this most recent data compare to previ-ously referenced work, as well as some other data from Kawa-

32 AS HRAE Jou rna l ash rae .o rg M a y 2 0 1 1

moto8 and Moorefield9 for some of the most common office equipment. Desktop computers show a trend toward increas-ing peak energy but the sleep mode has become much more effective over time. This increase in the desktop computer peak wattage has been offset by the lower power consump-tion of LCD monitors. Using a notebook computer, instead of a desktop computer and an LCD monitor, results in a fairly significant reduction in peak wattage. It is clear that notebook computer’s popularity, flexibility, cost, and computational power have expanded their use and is expected to result in a meaningful reduction in plug load power levels.

In the work by Moorefield, four modes of operation for computers and monitors were considered that included active, idle, sleep, and standby. These categories were determined by statistical grouping of the measured data and not based on in-ternal operation of the equipment. Power consumption during what was referred to as sleep and standby was generally low and corresponded to the findings for what was called either idle or sleep mode by Hosni in RP-1482.

For the purposes of load calculation discussions, it seems that consideration of only two modes, active and sleep is ap-propriate. Moorefield also reported periods of notebook com-puter operation with power levels as high as 75 W, but no ex-planation for what contributed to this was provided.

Notebook computers may introduce a secondary peak con-dition that could occur when the internal battery is charging while at the same time the notebook is in full use. This condi-tion may increase the power consumption by as much as 10 W during the charging period according to informal measure-ments by Hosni. The data shown in Table 1 represent the peak for fully charged battery condition.

Recognizing that computers and monitors represent the larg-est share of the plug loads in most conventional office buildings, the power reduction during idle operation will certainly have a significant impact on energy consumption and may be having an impact on the peak cooling load as well. The question to be answered in terms of peak air-conditioning load is how much of the equipment is in sleep mode at the time of peak air-condi-tioning load. To answer this, diversity factor must be considered.

Diversity FactorsDiversity factors were not presented in the work by Moore-

field, but the data that were collected did allow for an approxi-

mation of diversity factor to be calculated. Energy use data were collected from groups of individual items of equipment and then these groups of data were averaged. Diversity is then the average measured energy divided by the peak measured energy. In this case, the peak measured represents the average of the peaks for all equipment of the given type that was in the study.

Figures 2 and 3 represent detailed curves for desktop com-puters and monitors. A single week of data was chosen and presented that represents the higher end of usage. Table 2 represents a summary of this data. The diversity factor for notebook computers in Table 2 was not derived directly from measured data in the same way as was possible with desktop computers and monitors. For the purposes of the table and the

Desktop Computer(W)

LCD Monitor(W)

CRT Monitor(W)

Notebook Computer(W)

Active Sleep Active Sleep Active Sleep Active Sleep

Wilkins-McGaffin (1994) 56 56 – – 60 60 – –

Wilkins-Hosni (2000) 55 20 – – 55 0 – –

Kawamoto (2001) 55 25 – – 85 5 15 3

Moorefield (2008) 79 2 34 1 71 3 31* 2

Hosni (2010) 69 1 30 1 – – 28 1

* Referred to as idle mode in Moorefield’s study. Active mode was indicated as 75 W, which may have included battery charging.

Table 1: Office equipment loads over time.

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Div

ersi

ty

Sun. Mon. Tues. Wed. Thu. Fri. Sat. Sun.

Figure 2: Desktop computer diversity.

12 p.m. 12 p.m. 12 p.m. 12 p.m. 12 p.m. 12 p.m. 12 p.m. 12 p.m.

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Div

ersi

ty

Sun. Mon. Tues. Wed. Thu. Fri. Sat. Sun.

Figure 3: LCD monitor diversity. 12 p.m. 12 p.m. 12 p.m. 12 p.m. 12 p.m. 12 p.m. 12 p.m. 12 p.m.

34 AS HRAE Jou rna l ash rae .o rg M a y 2 0 1 1

Table 3: Plug load factors.

Type of UseLoad Factor

(W/ft2) Description

100% Notebook – Light 0.25 167 ft2/Workstation, All Notebook Use, 1 Printer per 10, Speakers and Misc.

100% Notebook – Medium 0.33 125 ft2/Workstation, All Notebook Use, 1 Printer per 10, Speakers and Misc.

50% Notebook – Light 0.40 167 ft2/Workstation, 50% Notebook/50% Desktop, 1 Printer per 10, Speakers and Misc.

50% Notebook – Medium 0.50 125 ft2/Workstation, 50% Notebook/50% Desktop, 1 Printer per 10, Speakers and Misc.

100% Desktop – Light 0.60 167 ft2/Workstation, All Desktop Use, 1 Printer per 10, Speakers and Misc.

100% Desktop – Medium 0.80 125 ft2/Workstation, All Desktop Use, 1 Printer per 10, Speakers and Misc.

100% Desktop – 2 Monitors 1.00 125 ft2/Workstation, All Desktop Use, 2 Monitors, 1 Printer Per 10, Speakers and Misc.

100% Desktop – Heavy 1.50 85 ft2/Workstation, All Desktop Use, 2 Monitors, 1 Printer Per 8, Speakers and Misc.

100% Desktop – Full On 2.00 85 ft2/Workstation, All Desktop Use, 2 Monitors, 1 Printer Per 8, Speakers and Misc., No Diversity

Factors for Office Equipment

DeviceRecommended Diversity Factor

Desktop Computer 75%

LCD Monitor 60%

Notebook Computer 75%

Table 2: Recommended diversity.

development of load factors discussed later, the diversity factor for notebooks was assumed to be the same as for desk-top computers.

Impact on Load FactorsThe most useful form of this data for

use by engineers performing load calcu-lations is when it is presented as a load factor such as watts per square foot (W/ft2). This new equipment and diversity factor data were coupled with some gen-eral assumptions and used to generate the updated load factor data presented in Table 3. It can be seen that if 100% note-book use is assumed and typical diver-sity factors are applied, plug loads could realistically be as low as 0.25 W/ft2 (2.7 W/m2). Even light and medium use of desktop computers results in plug loads below the traditional 1 W/ft2 (10.8 W/m2). More extreme scenarios can be con-sidered such as the case where all work-stations use two full-sized monitors that can result in plug load of 1 W/ft2 or more. The most extreme scenario considered assumes very dense equipment use with no diversity at all and results in a plug load factor of 2 W/ft2 (21.5 W/m2).

The load factors presented are based on hypothetical conditions with the best available data applied to them. Each of these includes a factor to account for some level of peripheral equipment such as speakers. This analysis suggests that there will be many cases where the de-sign plug load can be assumed to be be-low the traditional value of 1 W/ft2 (10.8 W/m2) without risk of under-designing

the system. There are many factors that could impact the actual plug load for a specific space or building and careful consideration must be given to the as-sumptions used for any given condition.

ConclusionsNearly all building projects today

have a goal of using the minimum en-ergy possible and having a small over-all carbon footprint. Computer equip-ment used in offices has been a part of the overall trend toward energy use reduction. It is now possible to realis-tically conceive of an office space that could have a peak plug load as low as 0.25 W/ft2 (2.7 W/m2). When this lower plug load level is coupled with the lower lighting power density targets, the result is the building internal loads are being reduced to very low levels.

Using a very low plug load assump-tion in an attempt to design ultra-low energy buildings comes with some risk. The occupant at the time of design may have fully embraced a low-energy office mentality, but in the future, there may be new occupants with less dedication or equipment with different energy con-

sumption. However, the new data sug-gests that the time has come to reexam-ine the use of 1 W/ft2 (10.8 W/m2) as the default industry norm.

References1. Wilkins, C.K., R. Kosonen, T. Laine.

1991. “An analysis of office equipment load factors.” ASHRAE Journal 33(9):38 – 44.

2. Wilkins, C.K., N. McGaff in. 1994. “Measuring computer equipment loads in off ice buildings.” ASHRAE Journal 36(8):21 – 24.

3. Hosni, M.H., B.W. Jones, J.M. Sipes, H. Xu. 1996. “Test Method for Measuring the Heat Gain and Radiant/Convective Split From Equipment in Buildings.” ASHRAE Final Report for Research Project 822-RP.

4. Hosni, M.H., B.W. Jones, Y. Xu. 1999. “Measurement of Heat Gain and Radiant/Convective Split From Equipment in Build-ings.” ASHRAE Final Report for Research Project 1055-RP.

5. Wilkins, C.K., M.H. Hosni. 2000. “Heat gain from office equipment.” ASHRAE Jour-nal 42(6):31 – 39.

6. Koomey, J., M. Cramer, M. Piette, J. Eto. 1995. “Efficiency Improvements in U.S. Of-fice Equipment: Expected Policy Impacts and Uncertainties.” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

7. Hosni, M.H., B.T. Beck. 2010. “Update to Measurements of Office Equipment Heat Gain Data.” ASHRAE Final Report for Re-search Project 1482-RP.

8. Kawamota, K., et al. 2001. “Electric-ity Used by Office Equipment and Network Equipment in U.S.: Detailed Report and Appendices.” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

9. Moorefield, L., B. Frazer, P. Bendt. 2008. “Office Plug Load Field Monitoring Report.” Durango, Colo.: Ecos.