NRCan RATINGS FOR DOUBLE DUCT HEAT PUMPS
Natural Resources Canada Framework
Under federal law, the Resources Canada (NRCan), these unique units can fall under one of two definitions. Either a Room Air Conditioner or a Heat Pump. They cannot legally be classified as a PTAC or a PTHP because they do not meet the definition under NRCan regulations.
Room Air Conditioner as defined by NRCan:
“..a single-phase electric air conditioner that has a cooling capacity of 10.55 kilowatts (36,000 Btu/h) or less. It does not include a packaged terminal air conditioner, a portable air conditioner, or a single package vertical air conditioner.”
These units meet the definition of Non-louvred with reverse cycle under 14,000 BTU and require a minimum CEER of 9.3.
It is critical to note that, effective May 26, 2026, 9.3 CEER will no longer meet the minimum legal requirements. Effective May 26, 2026, new regulations require a CEER of 13.7, representing a 47% increase in efficiency over previous requirements. It’s important to note that not a single copycat unit is listed in the database as required by law!
Heat Pump as defined by NRCan:
“…a single-phase or three-phase air-to-air central heat pump that is a single package unit and that has a cooling capacity of less than 19 kW (65,000 Btu/h), but does not include a single package vertical heat pump.”
These units meet the definition of a Heat Pump and require a minimum of 13.4 SEER2 and 5.4 HSPF2, and must consume less than 33W when on standby. It is critical to point out that SEER is not the correct legal rating. SEER is not the same as SEER2, and not only is SEER non-compliant, but it also indicates that the test data is fake, as no real lab would give a SEER rating instead of SEER2. Learn more about the difference on page xx.
PTAC/PTHP as defined by NRCan:
“…packaged terminal air conditioner means a factory-built packaged terminal air conditioner that
(a) consists of a wall sleeve and a separate unencased cooling component and is intended to cool a single room or zone; or (b) consists of a wall sleeve and a separate unencased combination of heating and cooling components and is intended to heat and cool a single room or zone. (climatiseur terminal autonome)
“ ..packaged terminal heat pump means a factory-built packaged heat pump that consists of a separate unencased refrigeration system and uses reverse cycle refrigeration as its primary heat source. (thermopompe terminale autonome)..”
These units do not meet the definition of PTHP because they lack the core characteristics of a PTAC or PTHP. They do not have a wall sleeve or a removable chassis, and the sleeve does not penetrate the wall, making PTHP classification impossible.
Illegal Misclassification by Copycat Brands
Since these products cannot be PTHPs, the PTHP efficiency tables, the PTHP minimum EER and COP thresholds, and all PTHP-specific testing procedures are inapplicable. Several copycat units produced in China by Nordica, Zymbo, and Wuxi Hammer, including DesignLine, Exinda, Silktech, Kinghome, and others, continue to publish PTHP classifications with EER and EER2, showing their lack of legal knowledge and, worse, confirming that these units are not tested at an independent lab. No certified independent lab would rate these units as a PTAC or PTHP.
Others like Williams, Multi MFG, Inspiron Air, and others will publish an SEER instead of SEER2 and COP instead of HSPF2. These wrong ratings underscore the fakeness of their data, as SEER is not the same test as SEER2, and if the test is done correctly, when you have an SEER2 for cooling, you have an HSPF2 for heating, never a COP.
Finally, Mits Air, Forrest Air, and Techno take different paths; they just don’t publish any ratings at all. They just publish the capacity BTU and input power—no CEER, no SEER2, nothing at all.
Technical Evidence of Fabricated Ratings
Copycat units, under various Nordica brands, list multiple BTU capacities and efficiencies for what is, visually and mechanically, the same hardware. The compressor, indoor and outdoor coils, refrigerant charge, and airflow path are identical, yet the published capacities range from 10,000 BTU to 12,030 BTU. Such variations with similar efficiency ratings are impossible.
The same goes for copycat units manufactured by Zymbo: The compressor, indoor and outdoor coils, refrigerant charge, and airflow path are identical, yet the published capacities range from 8.9 EER for 8,000 BTU to 11.77 EER for 8,831 BTU. How exactly is the same unit capable of achieving 32% higher efficiency with a higher capacity??!!
Wuxi Hammer units have the same issue. One brand markets the unit as a 12,000 BTU model with a claimed 11.3 EER and a 16.95 SEER (not the required SEER2), and another brand sells the same unit but with a far more conservative 9,600 BTU with a lower EER of 11.1 and a lower SEER (not the required SEER2) of 14.8. As before, how can a higher-capacity unit be more efficient? In an inverter heat pump, a higher capacity always reduces efficiency, and a lower capacity always increases efficiency. Yet, these companies publish the opposite trend, contradicting AHRI 210/240 performance curves, basic thermodynamics, and NRCan testing logic.
Capacity Manipulation and What It Demonstrates
Brands manipulate printed capacity to distort efficiency calculations. Ortech labels a Zymbo unit as 12,030 BTU to present it as a super-high 15.5 SEER2 artificially. In contrast, other brands label the same unit as 10,000 BTU with 12.3 CEER, while others label it as 12,000 BTU at 9.8 EER. An increase in capacity without any hardware changes and with similar efficiency ratings cannot occur in real equipment, proving that the data is fabricated.
The same pattern appears with other brands using Zymbo units. Williams artificially lowers efficiency and capacity, claiming the unit uses 900W at 8,000 BTU, while Zymbo, the actual manufacturer, states that 8,831 BTU requires 750W. If one does the math on the numbers presented by Zymbo, the manufacturer, the unit really has 8,831 BTU and uses only 750W, yielding an implausibly high EER of 11.77. Presenting false capacity values violates the Competition Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-34)’s prohibition on deceptive practices, NRCan certification rules requiring truthful performance reporting, and AHRI 210/240 accuracy standards, which govern energy-efficiency representations.
Mathematical Contradictions in SEER2 and EER
Published data from these brands often contradict each other mathematically for the same unit. A specification from Applied Comfort’s Coolflow 32 shows 10,000 BTU of cooling with 535 watts of input power produces a calculated EER of 18.7, yet Applied Comfort states a calculated EER of 8.9. These numbers cannot coexist: accurate wattage would yield an EER of 18.7; accurate EER would require roughly 1,123 watts; and if neither matches, the entire specification sheet is inaccurate.
These contradictions appear across multiple brands that use EER instead of CEER or SEER2. They use COP/COP2 instead of HSPF2. Such inconsistencies make it clear that the published efficiency claims are not based on valid laboratory testing.
CEER or SEER2/HSPF2 are the only legal ratings
CEER as a room air conditioner or SEER2 and HSPF2 as a heat pump ratings under AHRI 210/240, with ASHRAE 37 testing, are the only legally valid ratings for this class of heat pump for cooling and heating.
For a heat pump, the minimum required efficiencies are 13.4 SEER2 for cooling and 5.4 HSPF2 for heating. For room air conditioners, until May 2026, the minimum CEER is 9.3; after May, it will increase by almost 47% to 13.7. Any other metric is an illegal, non-compliant rating that, on its own, renders a unit illegal to use and sell.
Compliance Table
Here, one can see very clearly that, according to the numbers that companies publish (most are fake anyhow), they are bad fakes, because the numbers do not comply with the required standards.
Of all the units, only Applied Comfort’s Coolflow meets the 12.3 CEER requirement; however, effective May 2026, this rating will no longer be compliant, as it will need to be 13.7 CEER. Side note, the 12.3 CEER is fake as well.
For units rated according to SEER2 and HSPF2, the only compliant ratings are from Ortech, Dubbll, and Nordica. This does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean their purported numbers are real; it just means that what they (falsely) claim is at least compliant.
None of the other brands has compliant ratings. Designline, Silktech, Zymbo, and Kinghome only display an EER and COP, neither of which is legal. Williams, Inspiron Air, and Multi MFG all publish non-compliant SEER (instead of SEER2) and COP (instead of HSPF2).
Using a COP instead of HSPF2 means they never did any real tests and just made up numbers, because the SEER and SEER2 test methods include a heating test, and the heating test output is HSPF and HSPF2, not COP.
Forrest Air while publishing a COP, does not publish a SEER2, HSPF2, but rather made up their own REER rating. This REER apears multiple times in all their documents. Perhaps they meant CEER. But with a 7.2 if fails all requirements. Forrest Air shows the “REER” rating is (BTU/W*hr) which is EER.
Finally, Mits Air, and Techno publish no ratings at all.
None of the copycat brands publishes a lawful SEER2. Some publish SEER2; however, that SEER2 rating is fake and cannot be replicated in a lab test. Others cannot realistically achieve 13.4 SEER2 based on their claimed capacity.
When they fail to publish SEER2 or CEER, every alternative rating they publish, SEER, EER, EER2, COP, or COP2, is a violation of Energy Efficiency Regulations, 2016, the Competition Bureau truth-in-advertising rules, AHRI 210/240, and federal law under the Energy Efficiency Act. The combination of legal requirements, technical analysis, and mathematical inconsistencies shows that the published ratings are fabricated and the products are being misrepresented in the Canadian market.
How is CEER different from EER?
The CEER is not just another code name for EER; it is fundamentally different and yields a much lower rating than the same unit’s EER.
The Combined Energy Efficiency Ratio (CEER) is the standard metric for measuring the energy efficiency of room air conditioners. Unlike the older EER, which measured efficiency only while the unit was cooling, CEER accounts for energy consumed when the unit is in standby or off mode.
To calculate CEER, you must factor in the cooling capacity, the active power consumption, and the “phantom” power draw during the rest of the year.
EER is simply calculated by dividing the power draw by the BTU. EER = Capacity ÷ Watts.
The CEER Formula
The standard calculation is:
CEER = \frac{Capacity \times Hours_{active}}{(Watts_{active} \times Hours_{active}) + (Watts_{standby} \times Hours_{standby})
Where:
Step-by-Step Calculation Example
Let’s calculate the CEER for a window AC unit with the following specifications:
1. Calculate Total Cooling Output
First, determine the total BTUs delivered during the active cooling season (750 hours):
8,000 \text{ BTU/h} \times 750 \text{ h} = 6,000,000 \text{ BTUs}
2. Calculate Total Energy Consumed
Next, calculate the total Watt-hours ($Wh$) consumed both while active and while in standby:
Capacity Manipulation and What It Demonstrates
3. Divide Output by Total Input
Finally, divide the total BTU output by the total Watt-hour input:
CEER = 11.26.
Most importantly, CEER is always lower than EER. In the above case, the CEER is 11.26; the EER would be 11.43
HOW IS SEER2 different from SEER
SEER2 is not the same as SEER.
The transition from SEER to SEER2 represents the most significant change in HVAC efficiency standards in over a decade. This shift, which officially took effect in January 2023, changed how air conditioners and heat pumps are tested and rated.
Defining the Terms
SEER (Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio)
SEER measures the cooling efficiency of an air conditioner over an entire cooling season. It is calculated by dividing the total cooling output (in BTUs) by the total electric energy input (in Watt-hours) used during that same period.
SEER = \frac{\text{Total Cooling Output (BTU)}}{\text{Total Electrical Input (Wh)}}
SEER2 (Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio 2)
SEER2 is the updated version of this metric. It uses the same fundamental calculation but is based on a new testing procedure (M1) that more accurately reflects real-world conditions.
The Core Difference: Static Pressure
The primary technical difference lies in the external static pressure used during the laboratory testing of the units.
Because the fan has to work much harder to overcome this higher pressure, the efficiency numbers drop when using the SEER2 testing method.
Impact on Efficiency and Ratings
It is important to understand that a unit’s physical efficiency doesn’t necessarily change; rather, the measurement becomes more honest.
The “Math” of the Switch
A SEER2 rating is typically about 4.5% lower than a SEER rating for the exact same piece of equipment.
The Performance Impact
Summary
The move to SEER2 was designed to close the gap between laboratory ratings and actual home performance. By increasing test pressure by 500%, the industry now provides a more transparent view of how an HVAC system will perform under the stress of a real home’s ventilation system. Publishing a SEER instead of the correct SEER2 indicates that the data is based on outdated testing methods and cannot be legally used today.
Most importantly, it means the ratings are illegal because ratings must be updated and published.
