### ANALYTICAL RESULTS IN SUPPORT OF STAKEHOLDER NEGOTIATIONS ON AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS, RESIDENTIAL REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS AND FREEZERS, AND ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS

Update to May 4 and 5, 2010 Results

May 20, 2010

The following analytical results have been ge nerated by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and Navigant Consulting, Inc. (NCI) to support stakeholder ne gotiations concerning amended energy conservation standards for residen tial clothes washers, residential refrigeratorsfreezers and freezers, and room air conditioners. Th e analytical results pr esented here are an update to results provided on April 15, May 4, and May 5, 2010. The results provided here, as well as those provided earlier on the above dates, are based on inputs (e.g., manufacturer selling prices as a function of efficiency) and analytical tools which are still und er review. Therefore, the following information may not reflect final results to be publishe d in subsequent DOE rulemaking documents.

CLOTHES WASHERS

Life-cycle cost (LCC), payback period (PBP), a nd national impact analysis (NIA) results were requested for the following efficiency levels.

Table 1. Clothes Washer Efficiency Levels: Stakeholder Requested
Level Modified Energy Factor (MEF) Water Factor (WF) Older Energy Star 1.42 9.0 Old Energy Star 1.72 8.0 Energy Star ®

/ CEE Tier 1 1.80 7.5 CEE Tier 2 2.00 6.0 CEE Tier 3 2.20 4.5 New higher tier 2.40 4.0 Notes: The Energy Star ®

level will shift to CEE Tier 2 level effective 1/1/2011. California’s pendi ng petition for waiver from preemption would require a maximum 6.0 water factor.



### Analyses have been designed for DOE to analyze most of the requested efficiency levels. In addition, standby power limitations have also been considered. The efficiency levels and standby power limits are listed in the table below.

1

### Table 2. Clothes Washer Efficiency Levels: ‘S takeholder Requested’ and ‘Analyzed for DOE’ Requested Levels Top-Loading Washers Front-Loading Washers

MEF WF Effcy Level MEF WF Standby Power Effcy Level MEF WF Standby Power Baseline 1.26 9.50 0.00 Baseline 1.72 8.00 2.30
1.42 9.0 1 1.40 9.50 0.00

- - -

1.72 8.0 2 1.72 8.00 0.00 1 1.72 8.00 1.70
2 1.72 8.00 0.08

1.80 7.5 3 1.80 7.50 2.30 3 1.80 7.50 0.08 4 1.80 7.50 1.70
5 1.80 7.50 0.08 2.00 6.0 6 2.00 6.00 0.08 4 2.00 6.00 0.08 2.20 4.5 7 2.26 4.48 0.08 5 2.20 4.50 0.08 2.40 4.0

- - - - 6 2.40 4.20 0.08

- - - - - - 7 2.60 3.80 0.08

- - - - - - 8 2.89 3.36 0.08



### The following LCC, PBP, and NIA results are base d on the efficiency levels that have been analyzed for DOE.

Technology Description

The following tables list the tec hnologies that comprise the MEF/WF efficiency levels that were considered for top-loading and front-loading washers.

Table 3. Top-Loading Clothes Washer Technologies by Efficiency Level Efficiency Level MEF/WF Design Options

1 1.40/9.5  Thermistor Temperature Control

 Pressure Sensor for Fill Level Control

 Two-Speed Motor

2 1.72/8.0 Efficiency Level 1 Design Options +

 Thermistor Temperature Control with Additional Setpoints

 Electronic Pressure Sensor and Flowmeter for Fill Level Control

 Increased Capacity

 Fabric Softener Option

 Spray Rinse

3, 4, 5 1.80/7.5 Efficiency Level 2 Design Options +

 Floating Basket/Back EMF Fill Level Control

 Separate Solenoid Water Flow Control

 Increased Capacity

 Direct-Drive Motor

 Electronic Controls

 Stainless Steel Wash Basket

 Water Recirculation

6 2.00/6.0 Efficiency Levels 3/4/5 Design Options +

 Increased Capacity

 Low-Profile Agitator

 Multiple Spin Speeds



### 27 2.26/4.48 Efficiency Level 6 Design Options +

 Increased Capacity

 Internal Water Heating 

### Table 4. Front-Loading Clothes Washer Technologies by Efficiency Level Efficiency Level MEF/WF Design Options 3 1.80/7.5  None (same as baseline)

4 2.00/6.0 Efficiency Level 3 Design Options +

 Increased Capacity

 Internal Water Heating

 Thermistor Temperature Control

 Increased Maximum Spin Speed

5 2.20/4.5 Efficiency Level 4 Design Options +

 Increased Capacity

 Electronic Pressure Sensor and Flowmeter for Fill Level Control

 Increased Maximum Spin Speed

 Improved Control Scheme

 Direct-Drive Motor

6 2.40/4.2 Efficiency Level 5 Design Options +

 Increased Capacity

 Increased Maximum Spin Speed

 Further Improvements in Control Scheme

7 2.60/3.8 Efficiency Level 6 Design Options +

 Increased Capacity

 Increased Maximum Spin Speed

 Further Improvements in Control Scheme

 Water Recirculation

8 2.89/3.36 Efficiency Level 6 Design Options +

 Increased Capacity

 Increased Maximum Spin Speed

 Further Improvements in Control Scheme



### LCC and PBP Results

The following LCC and PBP results were calculated separately for top-load ing and front-loading clothes washers. Top-loading results in the ‘May 4’ version were generated for two different scenarios. The scenarios differed based on the assumptions regarding the base-case efficiency distribution. The base-case effici ency distribution represents the distribution of products by efficiency in the absence of new standards in the year 2015 (the year in which standards are assumed to be effective). The scenarios are iden tified as C and D to maintain consistency with how results were identified in the ‘April 16’ and ‘May 4’ versions. Each scenario is based on manufacturing costs developed by DOE. As desc ribed in the ‘May 4’ version of the results, forecasted water and wastewater prices were revise d to reflect the historical trend observed from 1975 to 2008. The ‘April 15’ version had used higher forecasted prices based on the relatively steeper price gain observed since 2004.

Top-Loading Scenario C: Manufacturer Costs: DOE. Base Case Efficiency Distribu tion: AHAM; Same as the year 2008.
Top-Loading Scenario D: Manufacturer Costs: DOE.

3

### Base Case Efficiency Distribution: Migration of products to 1.72 MEF by 2015.

The LCC and PBP result shown in Tables 5, 6C, a nd 6D are identical to th e results in the ‘May 4’ version.

Table 5. Front-Loading Washers: LCC and PBP Results

Effcy Level 2015 Base Case Effcy Distr MEF WF Standby Power Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Households that Experience Median Average cu.ft./ kWh/cyc gal / cu.ft watt Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit 0 0.0% 1.72 8.00 2.30 1 0.0% 1.72 8.00 1.70 $0 0% 100% 0% NA NA 2 0.0% 1.72 8.00 0.08 $0 0% 100% 0% NA NA 3 4.3% 1.80 7.50 0.08 $0 0% 100% 0% NA NA 4 24.0% 2.00 6.00 0.08 $6 0% 96% 4% 0.9 1.1 5 48.9% 2.20 4.50 0.08 $78 0% 72% 27% 1.2 1.6 6 11.4% 2.40 4.20 0.08 $198 7% 23% 70% 2.7 3.7 7 11.4% 2.60 3.80 0.08 $229 11% 12% 77% 3.4 4.7 8 0.0% 2.89 3.36 0.08 $371 13% 0% 87% 3.2 4.7



### Table 6C. Top-Loading Washers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario C

Effcy Level 2015 Base Case Effcy Distr MEF WF Standby Power Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Households that Experience Median Average cu.ft./ kWh/cyc gal / cu.ft watt Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit 0 43.60% 1.26 9.50 0.00 1 43.60% 1.40 9.50 0.00 -$35 43% 56% 1% 0.4 0.3 2 1.85% 1.72 8.00 0.00 $137 9% 13% 78% 2.3 4.0 3 0.62% 1.80 7.50 2.30 $16 54% 11% 35% 11.4 17.5 4 0.62% 1.80 7.50 1.70 $16 54% 11% 35% 11.1 17.7 5 0.62% 1.80 7.50 0.08 $35 48% 10% 42% 10.4 17.2 6 4.55% 2.00 6.00 0.08 $203 21% 9% 70% 4.5 8.1 7 4.55% 2.26 4.48 0.08 $348 19% 5% 76% 4.2 7.5



### Table 6D. Top-Loading Washers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario D

Effcy Level 2015 Base Case Effcy Distr MEF WF Standby Power Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Households that Experience Median Average cu.ft./ kWh/cyc gal / cu.ft watt Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit 0 0.00% 1.26 9.50 0.00 1 0.00% 1.40 9.50 0.00 $0 0% 100% 0% NA NA 2 89.05% 1.72 8.00 0.00 $0 0% 100% 0% NA NA 3 0.62% 1.80 7.50 2.30 $16 54% 11% 35% 11.4 17.5 4 0.62% 1.80 7.50 1.70 $16 54% 11% 35% 11.1 17.7 5 0.62% 1.80 7.50 0.08 $35 48% 10% 42% 10.4 17.2 6 4.55% 2.00 6.00 0.08 $203 21% 9% 70% 4.5 8.1 7 4.55% 2.26 4.48 0.08 $348 19% 5% 76% 4.2 7.5



### 4

### NIA Results

The following NIA results provide the national energy savings (NES), national water savings (NWS), and net present value (NPV) for the requested efficiency levels.

As was done for the ‘April 15’ and ‘May 4’ versi ons of the results, the NIA was conducted using a cross-elasticity of demand to determine the change in market share of top- and front-loaders based on changes in the incremental price increase for e ach product class due to in creased standards. For example, if the incremental pri ce increase due to standards is la rger for top-loaders than frontloaders, then front-loading washers are forecasted to gain market share. Shifts in market share between top- and front-loaders explains the negative NES and NWS for front-loaders, i.e., increased market share and shipments of front-loaders forecasted under the standards case results in increased front-loader national energy consump tion relative to the front-loader base-case. Of course, the increase in front-loader shipments has a correspo nding decrease in top-loader shipments, and the decreased shipments of top-loaders forecasted unde r the standards case results in an even further decrease in top-loader national energy consum ption relative to the top-loader base-case.

The NIA results below are based on the same tw o scenarios considered in the LCC and PBP analysis. The MEF and WF pairings that were analyzed along with thei r corresponding top- and front-loader efficiency leve ls and standby power limits are presented in Table 7.

Table 7. Front- and Top-Loaders Effici ency Levels for MEF and WF pairs Efficiency Pairing Top-Loader Front-Loader

MEF WF Efficiency Level Standby Power watt Efficiency Level Standby Powe r watt 1.40 9.5 1 0.00 0 1.70
1.72 8.0 2 0.00 2 0.08 1.80 7.5 5 2.30 3 0.08 2.00 6.0 6 0.08 4 0.08 2.20 4.5 7 ** 0.08 5 0.08 2.40 4.2 7 ** 0.08 6 0.08 ** Top-loading washers analyzed as 2.26 MEF / 4.48 WF.



### With the exception of the efficiency pairing of 2.20 MEF/4.5 WF, the NIA results presented in Tables 8C and 8D are identical to the results in the ‘May 4’ vers ion. In the ‘May 4’ version, the efficiency pairing of 2.20 MEF/4.5 WF was based on e fficiency level 6 for top-loaders, rather than efficiency level 7.

5

### Table 8C. NIA Results, Scenario C 1.40 MEF / 9.5 WF 1.72 MEF / 8.0 WF 1.80 MEF / 7.5 WF
FL TL ALL FL TL ALL FL TL ALL NES (quad) 0.00 0.03 0.03 -0.23 1.2 2 0.98 -0.85 1.89 1.04 NWS (trillion gal.) 0.00 -0.46 -0.46 -0.41 1. 93 1.51 -1.50 3.41 1.91 NPV @ 7% (bill $) -0.04 -1.13 -1.16 -5.45 11.10 5.65 -19.81 20.19 0.38 NPV @ 3% (bill $) -0.08 -2.75 -2.84 -11.52 26.77 15.25 -41. 89 48.14 6.25 Mkt Shr in 2015 54% 46% 57% 43% 65% 35% Mkt Shr in 2030 56% 44% 59% 41% 67% 33% 2.00 MEF / 6.0 WF 2.20 MEF / 4.5 WF** 2.40 MEF / 4.2 WF**

FL TL ALL FL TL ALL FL TL ALL NES (quad) -0.77 2.07 1.30 -1.01 2.70 1.69 -0.81 2.59 1.78 NWS (trillion gal.) -1.11 4.64 3.52 -1.16 6.71 5.55 -0.88 6.51 5.63 NPV @ 7% (bill $) -17.73 24.05 6.32 -23.90 33.84 9.94 -22.81 32.03 9.22 NPV @ 3% (bill $) -37.07 57.68 20.61 -49.50 80.83 31.33 -46.55 76.85 30.30 Mkt Share in 2015 64% 36% 68% 32% 67% 33% Mkt Share in 2030 67% 33% 71% 29% 70% 30% ** Top-loading washers analyzed as 2.26 MEF / 4.48 WF.



### Table 8D. NIA Results, Scenario D 1.40 MEF / 9.5 WF 1.72 MEF / 8.0 WF 1.80 MEF / 7.5 WF
FL TL ALL FL TL ALL FL TL ALL NES (quad) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.59 0.61 0.03 NWS (trillion gal.) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.03 1.33 0.30 NPV @ 7% (bill $) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -13.67 7.90 -5.77 NPV @ 3% (bill $) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -28.91 18.93 -9.98 Mkt Shr in 2015 54% 46% 54% 46% 61% 39% Mkt Shr in 2030 56% 44% 56% 44% 64% 36% 2.00 MEF / 6.0 WF 2.20 MEF / 4.5 WF** 2.40 MEF / 4.2 WF**

FL TL ALL FL TL ALL FL TL ALL NES (quad) -0.51 0.85 0.34 -0.74 1.53 0.79 -0.54 1.42 0.88 NWS (trillion gal.) -0.67 2.88 2.22 -0.71 5.28 4.57 -0.44 5.09 4.65 NPV @ 7% (bill $) -11.69 13.29 1.61 -17.55 24.30 6.75 -16.41 22.50 6.09 NPV @ 3% (bill $) -24.31 31.26 6.95 -36.11 56.44 20.33 -33.10 52.51 19.41 Mkt Share in 2015 61% 39% 65% 35% 63% 37% Mkt Share in 2030 63% 37% 67% 33% 66% 34% ** Top-loading washers analyzed as 2.26 MEF / 4.48 WF.



### 6

### REFRIGERATORS

Life-cycle cost (LCC), payback period (PBP), a nd national impact analysis (NIA) results were requested for the following product cla sses (PC) efficiency levels (EL).

Table 9. Refrigerator and Freezer Effi ciency Levels: Stakeholder Requested
Product EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6 EL7 EL8 PC3: Top Mount 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% PC 5: Bottom Mount 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% PC 7: Side by Sides 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%** PC 9: Vertical freezers 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% PC 10: Chest units 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% PC 11: Compact fridge 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% PC 18: Compact freezers 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% ** Maximum EL considered in DOE’ s Preliminary Analysis = 40%.



### As reported in the ‘April 15’ and ‘May 4’ vers ions, the maximum reductions in annual energy use specified in the preliminary analys is have been reevaluated. As a result of the reevaluation, these maximum reductions have tentatively been determ ined to be overestimated. The table below identifies the efficiency levels which are likely to be analyzed for the next phase of the standards rulemaking.

Table 10. Refrigerator and Freezer Efficiency Levels: ‘Analyzed for DOE’
Product EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6 EL7 EL8 PC3: Top Mount 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 31.7%

- - PC 5: Bottom Mount 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 33.3%

- - PC 7: Side by Sides 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 31%

- - PC 9: Vertical freezers 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 43.2% PC 10: Chest units 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

- - PC 11: Compact fridge 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% PC 18: Compact freezers 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

-


### Also as reported in the ‘April 15’ and ‘May 4’ versions, in additi on to the adjustments made to the maximum reductions in annual energy use, revisions have been made to the manufacturer selling price vs. efficiency relationships. In all cases, the incremental cha nges in manufacturer selling price to achieve reductions in energy use have increased relative to the estimates in the preliminary analysis.

The following LCC, PBP, and NIA results are ba sed on the efficiency levels likely to be analyzed for DOE in the next phase of the standards rulemaking.

Technology Description

The following figures identify the technologies that comprise the efficiency levels that were considered for refrigerators and freezers. Because each efficiency level is comprised of several

7

### technology options, the figures disp lay the range of efficiencies for which each major type of technology applies. Of the set of technologies identifie d, variable-speed co mpressors (VSC) and vacuum insulated panels (VIP) are the most adva nced. For standard-sized refrigerators, VSCs and VIPs are estimated to be necessary starting at efficiency level 3 (20% lower energy use than the baseline). For standard-sized freezers, VS Cs are estimated to be necessary starting at efficiency level 5 (30%) while VIPs are estimated to be necessary starting at efficiency level 6 (35%). For compact refrigerators and freezers, VSCs are estimated to be necessary starting at efficiency level 4 (25%) while VIPs are estimated to be necessary starting at efficiency level 6 (35%).

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%



### Modest

‐ Cost Options (compressor, fans, heat exchanger)

Controls (adaptive defrost, variable anti

‐ sweat)

Variable Speed Compressor

Vacuum Insulation Panels



### Figure 1. Standard-Size Refrigerator Technologies by Efficiency Level

8

### 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%



### Modest

‐ Cost Options (compressor, fans, heat exchanger)

Controls (adaptive defrost)

Wall Thickness Increases

Variable Speed Compressor

Vacuum Insulation Panels



### Figure 2. Standard-Size Freezer Technologies by Efficiency Level

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%



### Modest

‐ Cost Options (compressor, fans, heat exchanger)

Wall Thickness Increases

Variable Speed Compressor

Vacuum Insulation Panels



### Figure 3. Compact Refrigerator and Freezer Technologies by Efficiency Level

LCC and PBP Results

Usage Adjustment Factor (UAF)

9

### As described in the ‘April 15’ and ‘May 4’ versions, for the preliminary analysis, usage adjustment factors (UAF) were developed to conv ert the rated or test energy consumption of a standard-sized refrigerator or freezer into a fi eld-based value. UAF values determined in the preliminary analysis were greater than one. In the “May 4’ version, it was reported that an evaluation of seven metered refrigerator and fre ezer end-use studies cons isting of over 1,600 data points demonstrated that UAFs on average are closer to one. Therefore, only the scenario based on UAFs normalized to a weighted -average value of 1.0, i.e., field energy consumption equals rated energy consumption (scenario B) was retained and analyzed. In gene ral, this is still the case for the results presented below (i.e., the we ighted-average UAF is close to 1.0), although the implementation of the field-based UAFs have b een incorporated so that household-specific values are a function of certain characteristics of the household.

Non-HFC Blowing Agent

As reported in the ‘May 4’ version, also unde r evaluation is the impact of non-HFC blowing agents on the production of foam insulation due to possible climate change legislation that may phase-out the use of HFCs. The potential move from the current blowing agent, HFC-245fa, to cyclopentane has the effect of re ducing the resistivity of the foam insulation, thereby increasing refrigerator and freezer energy use. Therefore, for the same sets of design options, a lower efficiency gain is achievable with cyclopentane blown insulati on. Table 11 shows the non-HFC

based efficiency levels that correspond with the HFC-based efficiency levels.

Table 11. Refrigerator and Freezer Effici ency Levels: HFC and Non-HFC Levels
Product EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6 EL7 EL8
PC3: Top Mount HFC 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 31.7%

- - Non-HFC 5.5% 10.8% 16% 21.3% 26.5% 28.3%

- -
PC 5: Bottom Mount HFC 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 33.3%

- - Non-HFC 5.5% 10.8% 16% 21.3% 26.5% 30%

- - PC 7: Side by Sides HFC 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 31%

- - Non-HFC 5.5% 10.8% 16% 21.3% 26.5% 27.6%

- - PC 9: Vertical freezers HFC 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 43.2% Non-HFC 5.5% 10.8% 16% 21. 3% 26.5% 31.8% 37% 40.4%

PC 10: Chest units HFC 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

- - Non-HFC 5.5% 10.8% 16% 21.3% 26.5% 31.8%

- - PC 11: Compact fridge HFC 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Non-HFC 5.5% 10.8% 16% 21. 3% 26.5% 31.8% 37% 42.3% PC 18: Compact freezers HFC 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

- Non-HFC 5.5% 10.8% 16% 21.3% 26.5% 31.8% 37%



### The costs of attaining current standard levels (i .e. 0% efficiency level) while using cyclopentane have not been included in this analysis. Hen ce, the incremental cost s for design of products using cyclopentane have been adjust ed so that the incremental cost is $0 at 0% efficiency level). Additional costs associated with the conversion, assuming climate change legislation is enacted, would be considered as part of the cumulativ e regulatory burden in th e refrigeration product rulemaking.

10

### Note, the use of non-HFC-based refrigerants, in particular, isobutane (R-600a), was not considered for most of the product classes two reasons: (1) while allowing the use of hydrodcarbons such as isobutane in residential refrigeration sy stems is under consideration by both UL and the EPA, the proposed limits are clos e to 60 grams, which is not sufficient for most product classes without the availa bility of new heat exchanger technology to significantly reduce the refrigerant charge amounts, and (2) the expect ation that proposed allowances for use of HFCs (for example in the Waxman-Markey Bill, H.R. 2454, which was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on June 26, 2009) would be suffi cient for use of HFC-134a by the residential refrigeration industry, since the majority of HFC consumption is currently used for insulation. Isobutane was considered as a design op tion for compact refrigerators (PC 11).

CO 2 

### Cap-and-Trade

As described in an addendum to the ‘May 4’ vers ion, potential U.S. legislation to create a cap

and-trade program to limit CO 2 

### emissions was assessed by determining its impact on forecasted electricity prices. Forecasted incr eases in electricity prices were an alyzed as a sensitivity as part of determining the life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and payback periods (PBP). In the addendum to the ‘May 4’ version, the sensitivity was performed only for product class 3 (top-mount refrigerators) and product class 5 (side-mount re frigerators). The results presented below are provided for all product classes. Scenarios

Taking into consideration the i ssues discussed above pertaini ng to the UAF, non-HFC blowing agents, and potential CO 2 

### cap-and-trade programs, the following LCC and PBP results were calculated based on three different efficiency scenar ios. The scenarios are identified as B1, B2, and B3 to maintain consistency with how the re sults were identified in the ‘April 16’ and ‘May 4’ versions.

HFC Scenario B1: UAF: Developed on a household basis resulti ng in a weighted-average UAF close to 1.0. Efficiency: Based on the use of HFC-blown insulation (HFC-245fa). Forecasted electricity prices: AEO2010 Reference Case.

Non-HFC Scenario B2: UAF: Developed on a household basis resulti ng in a weighted-average UAF close to 1.0. Efficiency: Based on the use of non-HF C-blown insulation (cyclopentane). Forecasted electricity prices: AEO2010 Reference Case.

HFC with ‘CO2 Cap-and-Trade’ Scenario B3: UAF: Developed on a household basis resulti ng in a weighted-average UAF close to 1.0. Efficiency: Based on the use of HFC-blown insulation (HFC-245fa). Forecasted electricity prices: AEO2010 Reference Case adjusted to account for CO 2 

### cap-and

trade program.

The results presented below incorporate further ch anges not accounted for in the ‘May 4’ version including: (1) incorporation of repair cost s; (2) as described above, changes in the

11

### implementation of the UAF; (3) AEO2010 electric ity price forecasts; and (4) changes in the base-case efficiency distribution (i.e., the distribu tion of products by efficiency in the absence of new standards in the year 2014 (the year in which standards are assumed to be effective)). The above changes were made so that the results pr esented below will more closely match the results DOE will eventually publish for the next phase of the standards rulemaking.

12

### Table 12B1. PC 3, Top-Mount Refrigerators : LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B1 Efficiency Level ( % less than

baseline energy use ) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with
Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit

Baseline

1 (10) $49 0.9% 22.4% 76.7% 2.3 2.6 2 (15) $73 1.5% 18.3% 80.3% 2.7 3.0 3 (20) $45 34.4% 8.9% 56.8% 8.1 10.9 4 (25) $42 45.8% 0.0% 54.2% 9.6 11.8 5 (30) -$10 65.8% 0.0% 34.2% 13.5 16.0 6 (32) -$36 71.6% 0.0% 28.4% 15.0 19.4



### Table 12B2. PC 3, Top-Mount Refrigerators : LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B2 Efficiency Level ( % less than

baseline energy use ) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with
Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit

Baseline

1 (6) $27 0.8% 22.4% 76.8% 2.2 2.5 2 (11) $53 1.5% 18.3% 80.3% 2.7 3.0 3 (16) $26 40.9% 8.9% 50.2% 9.4 12.0 4 (21) $25 50.8% 0.0% 49.2% 10.5 12.5 5 (27) -$24 69.7% 0. 0% 30.3% 14.4 16.9 6 (28) -$50 75.1% 0. 0% 24.9% 16.0 19.4



### Table 12B3. PC 3, Top-Mount Refrigerators : LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B3 Efficiency Level ( % less than

baseline energy use ) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with
Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit

Baseline

1 (10) $56 0.7% 22.4% 76.9% 2.1 2.4 2 (15) $83 1.2% 18.3% 80.6% 2.4 2.7 3 (20) $58 31.1% 8.9% 60.1% 7.4 9.8 4 (25) $59 41.4% 0.0% 58.6% 8.7 10.6 5 (30) $12 60.5% 0.0% 39.5% 12.2 14.5 6 (32) -$14 66.8% 0.0% 33.2% 13.6 16.5



### 13

### Table 13B1. PC 5, Bottom-Mount Refrigerators : LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B1 Efficiency Level ( % less than

baseline energy use ) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with
Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit

Baseline

1 (10) $10 0.0% 87.2% 12.8% 2.0 2.2 2 (15) $15 0.1% 87.1% 12.9% 2.1 2.4 3 (20) $24 3.2% 68.0% 28.8% 4.4 5.2 4 (25) $9 65.3% 0.0% 34.7% 14.2 17.4 5 (30) -$43 80.3% 0. 0% 19.7% 19.4 23.9 6 (33) -$63 81.6% 0. 0% 18.4% 19.7 25.4



### Table 13B2. PC 5, Bottom-Mount Refrigerators : LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B2 Efficiency Level ( % less than

baseline energy use ) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with
Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit

Baseline

1 (6) $6 0.0% 87.2% 12.8% 1.9 2.2 2 (11) $11 0.1% 87.1% 12.9% 2.1 2.4 3 (16) $20 3.0% 68.0% 29.1% 4.4 5.1 4 (21) $8 63.6% 0.0% 36.4% 13.5 16.4 5 (27) -$42 79.6% 0. 0% 20.4% 18.5 22.5 6 (30) -$60 80.7% 0. 0% 19.3% 18.8 23.6



### Table 13B3. PC 5, Bottom-Mount Refrigerators : LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B3 Efficiency Level ( % less than

baseline energy use ) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with
Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit

Baseline

1 (10) $12 0.0% 87.2% 12.8% 1.8 2.0 2 (15) $17 0.0% 87.1% 12.9% 1.9 2.1 3 (20) $27 2.7% 68.0% 29.3% 4.0 4.7 4 (25) $18 60.7% 0.0% 39.3% 12.8 15.4 5 (30) -$29 76.2% 0. 0% 23.8% 17.4 26.3 6 (33) -$46 77.6% 0. 0% 22.4% 17.7 21.9



### 14

### Table 14B1. PC 7, Side-Mount Refrigerators : LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B1 Efficiency Level ( % less than

baseline energy use ) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with
Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit

Baseline

1 (10) $21 0.20% 78. 08% 21.72% 2.4 2.7 2 (15) $44 0.50% 52. 16% 47.34% 2.4 2.8 3 (20) $58 7.80% 37. 26% 54.94% 3.7 6.5 4 (25) $55 41.52% 0. 02% 58.46% 5.6 12.0 5 (30) -$30 72.23% 0. 00% 27.77% 9.8 20.9 6 (31) -$51 75.29% 0. 00% 24.71% 10.7 21.2



### Table 14B2. PC 7, Side-Mount Refrigerators : LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B2 Efficiency Level ( % less than

baseline energy use ) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with
Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit

Baseline

1 (6) $12 0.18% 78.08% 21.74% 2.4 2.6 2 (11) $36 0.42% 52. 14% 47.44% 2.4 2.7 3 (16) $52 7.10% 37. 24% 55.66% 3.7 6.1 4 (21) $52 39.45% 0. 00% 60.55% 5.6 11.2 5 (27) -$31 71.74% 0. 00% 28.26% 9.8 19.5 6 (28) -$50 74.96% 0. 00% 25.04% 10.7 20.4



### Table 14B3. PC 7, Side-Mount Refrigerators : LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B3 Efficiency Level ( % less than

baseline energy use ) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with
Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit

Baseline

1 (10) $24 0.15% 78. 07% 21.78% 2.2 2.5 2 (15) $50 0.38% 52. 13% 47.49% 2.2 2.5 3 (20) $68 6.72% 37. 23% 56.05% 4.6 5.7 4 (25) $71 37.31% 0. 00% 62.69% 8.6 10.5 5 (30) -$8 67.58% 0. 00% 32.42% 14.9 18.1 6 (31) -$27 70.84% 0. 00% 29.16% 15.8 19.0



### 15

### Table 15B1. PC 9, Upright Freezers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B1 Efficiency Level ( % less than

baseline energy use ) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with
Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit

Baseline

1 (10) $62 1.7% 19.9% 78.4% 2.3 3.2 2 (15) $84 9.9% 1.7% 88.5% 4.4 6.6 3 (20) $111 11.3% 0.6% 88.1% 4.9 10.2 4 (25) $129 15.7% 0.5% 83.8% 5.8 8.0 5 (30) $149 17.8% 0.2% 82.0% 6.3 8.6 6 (35) $129 30.9% 0.0% 69.1% 8.5 12.1 7 (40) $84 46.4% 0.0% 53.6% 11.3 16.7 8 (43) -$50 68.6% 0. 0% 31.4% 17.1 31.5



### Table 15B2. PC 9, Upright Freezers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B2 Efficiency Level ( % less than

baseline energy use ) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with
Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit

Baseline

1 (6) $33 1.9% 19.9% 78.2% 2.2 4.1 2 (11) $58 11.5% 1.7% 86.7% 4.9 7.3 3 (16) $87 13.0% 0.6% 86.4% 5.2 7.6 4 (21) $107 17.1% 0.5% 82.4% 6.2 9.2 5 (27) $130 19.2% 0.2% 80.6% 6.5 8.9 6 (32) $112 33.0% 0.0% 67.0% 8.8 15.9 7 (37) $69 48.1% 0.0% 51.9% 11.6 17.5 8 (40) -$62 70.6% 0. 0% 29.4% 17.7 28.5



### Table 15B3. PC 9, Upright Freezers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B3 Efficiency Level ( % less than

baseline energy use ) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with
Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit

Baseline

1 (10) $70 1.5% 19.9% 78.7% 2.0 2.8 2 (15) $98 8.2% 1.7% 90.1% 3.9 5.6 3 (20) $130 9.7% 0.6% 89.7% 4.3 6.1 4 (25) $154 13.4% 0.5% 86.1% 5.2 7.3 5 (30) $180 15.2% 0.2% 84.6% 5.6 7.5 6 (35) $165 27.0% 0.0% 73.0% 7.5 11.4 7 (40) $125 41.4% 0.0% 58.6% 9.9 15.1 8 (43) -$5 62.9% 0. 0% 37.1% 15.1 22.9



### 16

### Table 16B1. PC 10, Chest Freezers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B1 Efficiency Level ( % less than

baseline energy use ) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with
Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit

Baseline

1 (10) $39 0.8% 1.1% 98.1% 2.2 2.2 2 (15) $55 1.3% 0.2% 98.5% 3.5 3.6 3 (20) $71 24.6% 0.2% 75.2% 4.2 4.4 4 (25) $51 27.0% 0.2% 72.8% 8.7 9.0 5 (30) $58 53.9% 0.0% 46.2% 9.1 9.4 6 (35) $15 70.9% 0.0% 29.1% 13.3 13.8



### Table 16B2. PC 10, Chest Freezers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B2 Efficiency Level ( % less than

baseline energy use ) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with
Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit

Baseline

1 (6) $21 0.7% 1.1% 98.2% 2.1 2.1 2 (11) $39 1.5% 0.2% 98.3% 3.8 3.9 3 (16) $56 30.3% 0.2% 69.5% 4.6 4.7 4 (21) $38 31.2% 0.2% 68.6% 9.6 9.8 5 (27) $46 58.1% 0.0% 41.9% 9.8 10.0 6 (32) $5 74.5% 0.0% 25.5% 14.3 14.6



### Table 16B3. PC 10, Chest Freezers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B3 Efficiency Level ( % less than

baseline energy use ) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with
Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit

Baseline

1 (10) $44 0.5% 1.1% 98.4% 1.9 1.9 2 (15) $64 1.0% 0.2% 98.8% 3.1 3.2 3 (20) $83 20.2% 0.2% 79.6% 3.8 3.9 4 (25) $66 22.4% 0.2% 77.4% 7.7 8.1 5 (30) $76 46.7% 0.0% 53.3% 8.1 8.3 6 (35) $37 63.6% 0.0% 36.4% 11.8 12.2



### 17

### Table 17B1. PC 11, Compact Refrigerators: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B1 Efficiency Level ( % less than

baseline energy use ) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with
Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit

Baseline

1 (10) $10 11.4% 1.6% 87.0% 2.0 1.9 2 (15) $13 16.5% 1.4% 82.1% 2.3 2.3 3 (20) $15 24.4% 1.4% 74.2% 2.8 2.7 4 (25) $10 42.9% 0.9% 56.2% 3.9 3.8 5 (30) $8 50.0% 0.8% 49.2% 4.4 4.3 6 (35) -$14 76.9% 0. 0% 23.1% 6.7 6.7 7 (40) -$14 75.5% 0. 0% 24.5% 6.6 6.4 8 (45) -$42 87.2% 0. 0% 12.8% 8.7 8.5



### Table 17B2. PC 11, Compact Refrigerators: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B2 Efficiency Level ( % less than

baseline energy use ) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with
Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit

Baseline

1 (6) $5 10.4% 1.6% 88.0% 1.9 1.8 2 (11) $9 17.4% 1.4% 81.2% 2.4 2.3 3 (16) $11 26.4% 1.4% 72.2% 2.9 2.8 4 (21) $7 47.0% 0.9% 52.1% 4.2 4.1 5 (27) $6 53.3% 0.8% 45.9% 4.6 4.5 6 (32) -$16 79.7% 0. 0% 20.3% 7.1 7.0 7 (37) -$16 77.7% 0. 0% 22.3% 6.9 6.7 8 (42) -$43 88.4% 0. 0% 11.6% 9.1 8.8



### Table 17B3. PC 11, Compact Refrigerators: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B3 Efficiency Level ( % less than

baseline energy use ) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with
Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit

Baseline

1 (10) $11 10.6% 1.6% 87.8% 1.9 1.8 2 (15) $15 15.6% 1.4% 83.0% 2.2 2.2 3 (20) $17 22.8% 1.4% 75.8% 2.7 2.6 4 (25) $13 40.7% 0.9% 58.4% 3.8 3.7 5 (30) $11 47.4% 0.8% 51.8% 4.2 4.1 6 (35) -$10 74.2% 0. 0% 25.9% 6.5 6.4 7 (40) -$10 72.7% 0. 0% 27.3% 6.3 6.1 8 (45) -$37 85.7% 0. 0% 14.3% 8.3 8.1



### 18

### Table 18B1. PC 18, Compact Freezers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B1 Efficiency Level ( % less than

baseline energy use ) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with
Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit

Baseline

1 (10) $9 12.5% 4.7% 82.9% 2.8 2.7 2 (15) $5 44.7% 0.0% 55.3% 4.9 5.1 3 (20) -$31 92.9% 0. 0% 7.1% 11.5 11.7 4 (25) -$32 90.3% 0. 0% 9.7% 10.5 10.6 5 (30) -$38 91.0% 0. 0% 9.0% 10.9 10.9 6 (35) -$37 87.9% 0. 0% 12.1% 10.0 10.0 7 (39) -$87 96.5% 0. 0% 3.5% 13.9 14.0



### Table 18B2. PC 18, Compact Freezers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B2 Efficiency Level ( % less than

baseline energy use ) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with
Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit

Baseline

1 (6) $4 14.6% 4.7% 80.7% 3.0 3.0 2 (11) $1 57.2% 0.0% 42.8% 6.0 6.0 3 (16) -$35 96.3% 0. 0% 3.7% 13.7 13.8 4 (21) -$36 93.8% 0. 0% 6.1% 11.9 11.9 5 (27) -$41 93.6% 0. 0% 6.4% 12.0 12.0 6 (32) -$39 90.3% 0. 0% 9.7% 10.7 10.7 7 (37) -$89 97.2% 0. 0% 2.8% 14.8 14.8



### Table 18B3. PC 18, Compact Freezers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B3 Efficiency Level ( % less than

baseline energy use ) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with
Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit

Baseline

1 (10) $10 11.4% 4.7% 83.9% 2.6 2.6 2 (15) $6 41.7% 0.0% 58.4% 4.7 4.8 3 (20) -$29 91.1% 0. 0% 8.9% 10.9 11.1 4 (25) -$30 88.1% 0. 0% 11.9% 10.0 10.1 5 (30) -$35 88.6% 0. 0% 11.4% 10.3 10.4 6 (35) -$33 85.3% 0. 0% 14.7% 9.5 9.5 7 (39) -$83 95.4% 0. 0% 4.6% 13.2 13.2



### 19

### NIA Results

The following NIA results provide the national en ergy savings (NES) and net present value (NPV) for the requested efficiency levels. The NIA resu lts below are based on only scenarios B1 and B2.

Table 19. Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers: NES Results (quads)

Efficiency Level

(% less than baseline energy use) Top-Mount RefrigeratorFreezer* Bottom-Mount RefrigeratorFreezer** Side-by-Side RefrigeratorFreezer***

B1 B2 Scen B1 Scen B2 Scen B1 Scen B2 Scen B1 Scen B2 1 (10) 1 (6) 0.89 0.49 0.04 0.02 0.21 0.12 2 (15) 2 (11) 1.36 0.98 0.06 0.05 0.44 0.36 3 (20) 3 (16) 1.85 1.51 0.12 0.10 0.75 0.68 4 (25) 4 (21) 2.39 2.08 0.28 0.27 1.22 1.18 5 (30) 5 (27) 2.88 2.60 0.44 0.44 1.68 1.66 6 (31-33) 6 (28-30) 3.03 2.77 0.55 0.56 1.77 1.75

* Includes product classes 1, 1A, 2, 3A, and 6 as well as product class 3. ** Includes product class 5A as well as product class 5. *** Includes product class 4 as well as product class 7.


### Table 20. Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers: NPV Results (billion $) Efficiency Level (% less than

baseline) Top-Mount RefrigeratorFreezer* Bottom-Mount RefrigeratorFreezer** Side-by-Side RefrigeratorFreezer***

7% Disc Rt 3% Disc Rt 7% Disc Rt 3% Disc Rt 7% Disc Rt 3% Disc Rt

B1 B2 Scen B1 Scen B2 Scen B1 Scen B2 Scen B1 Scen B2 Scen B1 Scen B2 Scen B1 Scen B2 Scen B1 Scen B2 1 (10) 1 (6) 2.95 1.64 8.47 4.68 0. 15 0.08 0.42 0.22 0.69 0.38 2.01 1.10 2 (15) 2 (11) 4.31 3.10 12.53 9.02 0.21 0.15 0.62 0.44 1.43 1.17 4.19 3.42 3 (20) 3 (16) 1.56 0.47 8.69 5.52 0.32 0.27 0.99 0.84 1.75 1.55 5.75 5.16 4 (25) 4 (21) 0.73 -0.22 8.82 6.00 -0 .10 -0.12 0.66 0.61 1.15 1.06 6.00 5.68 5 (30) 5 (27) -3.67 -4.49 1.96 -0.50 -1.16 -1.14 -0.95 -0.91 -2. 89 -2.88 -0.49 -0.54 6 (31­

33) 6 (28­ 30) -5.75 -6.52 -1.68 -4.01 -1.59 -1.55 -1.52 -1.41 -3.82 -3.79 -2.01 -2.01

* Includes product classes 1, 1A, 2, 3A, and 6 as well as product class 3. ** Includes product class 5A as well as product class 5. *** Includes product class 4 as well as product class 7.



### 20

### Table 21. Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers: NES Results (quads) Efficiency Level (% less than baseline energy use) Upright Freezers* Chest Freezers**
B1 B2 Scenario B1 Scenario B2 Scenario B1 Scenario B2 1 (10) 1 (6) 0.19 0.10 0.13 0.07 2 (15) 2 (11) 0.32 0.23 0.21 0.15 3 (20) 3 (16) 0.44 0.36 0.29 0.23 4 (25) 4 (21) 0.56 0.49 0.36 0.31 5 (30) 5 (27) 0.68 0.61 0.43 0.39 6 (35) 6 (32) 0.79 0.73 0.49 0.45 7 (40) 7 (37) 0.88 0.83

- - 8 (43.2) 8 (40) 0.90 0.86

- -

* Includes product class 9 only. ** Includes product classes 8 and 10A as well as product class 10.


### Table 22. Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers: NPV Results (billion $)

Efficiency Level

(% less than

baseline) Upright Freezers* Chest Freezers**

7% Disc Rt 3% Disc Rt 7% Disc Rt 3% Disc Rt

B1 B2 Scen B1 Scen B2 Scen B1 Scen B2 Scen B1 Scen B2 Scen B1 Scen B2 1 (10) 1 (6) 0.70 0.36 2. 06 1.04 0.48 0.25 1.39 0.72 2 (15) 2 (11) 0.93 0.62 2.96 2.02 0.67 0.47 2.07 1.45 3 (20) 3 (16) 1.20 0.92 3.94 3.09 0.85 0.66 2.70 2.14 4 (25) 4 (21) 1.35 1.10 4.68 3.92 0.52 0.35 2.34 1.84 5 (30) 5 (27) 1.53 1.31 5.48 4.81 0.57 0.42 2.71 2.26 6 (35) 6 (32) 1.17 0.98 5. 13 4.55 -0.02 -0.15 1.72 1.33 7 (40) 7 (37) 0.50 0.35 4.15 3.65

- - - - 8 (43.2) 8 (40) -1.16 -1.30 1.03 0.59

- - - -

* Includes product class 9 only. ** Includes product classes 8 and 10A as well as product class 10.



### 21

### Table 23. Compacts: NES Results (quads) Efficiency Level (% less than baseline energy use) Compact Refrigerators* Compact Freezers**
B1 B2 Scenario B1 Scenario B2 Scenario B1 Scenario B2 1 (10) 1 (6) 0.14 0.08 0.03 0.02 2 (15) 2 (11) 0.20 0.15 0.04 0.03 3 (20) 3 (16) 0.27 0.22 0.05 0.04 4 (25) 4 (21) 0.33 0.28 0.07 0.06 5 (30) 5 (27) 0.38 0.34 0.08 0.07 6 (35) 6 (32) 0.42 0.38 0.09 0.08 7 (40-39) 7 (37) 0.47 0.43 0.09 0.09

8 (45) 8 (40) 0.48 0.46

- -

* Includes product classes 11A, 12, 13, 13A, 14, and 15 as well as product class 11 ** Includes product classes 16 and 17 as well as product class 18


### Table 24. Compacts: NPV Results (billion $)

Efficiency Level

(% less than

baseline) Compact Refrigerators* Compact Freezers**

7% Disc Rt 3% Disc Rt 7% Disc Rt 3% Disc Rt

B1 B2 Scen B1 Scen B2 Scen B1 Scen B2 Scen B1 Scen B2 Scen B1 Scen B2 1 (10) 1 (6) 0.32 0.18 0. 77 0.43 0.07 0.04 0.17 0.09 2 (15) 2 (11) 0.42 0.30 1.05 0.74 0.04 0.02 0.13 0.07 3 (20) 3 (16) 0.47 0.36 1.19 0.92 -0.17 -0.19 -0.24 -0.30 4 (25) 4 (21) 0.30 0.20 0.92 0.68 -0.17 -0.19 -0.24 -0.29 5 (30) 5 (27) 0.22 0.14 0.82 0.62 -0.20 -0.22 -0.29 -0.33 6 (35) 6 (32) -0.45 -0.52 -0. 47 -0.65 -0.19 -0.21 -0.25 -0.29 7 (40-39) 7 (37) -0.46 -0.51 -0. 43 -0.57 -0.43 -0.44 -0.68 -0.71

8 (45) 8 (40) -1.18 -1.23 -1.83 -1.95

- - - -

* Includes product classes 11A, 12, 13, 13A, 14, and 15 as well as product class 11 ** Includes product classes 16 and 17 as well as product class 18



### 22

### ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS

At the April 15, 2010 meeting, stakeh olders requested life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) results for room air conditioners.

LCC and PBP Results

Cabinet Size Constraints

As described in the ‘May 4’ version of the results, two scenarios are currently under consideration: (1) two sets of cabinet size increases as was considered for the preliminary analysis and (2) one cabinet size increase assuming that cabinet constraints are more severe than assumed for the preliminary analysis. To provi de an indication of th e impact of room air conditioner cabinet size increa ses, the weight and volume co rresponding to baseline, a single cabinet size increase, and two cabinet size in creases are presented below for the three product classes with louvered sides that were analyzed in depth by DOE.

Table 25. Room Air Conditioner Weight and Volume based on Cabinet Size Increase

Design Description Weight (lb) Volume (ft3) PC 1: < 6000 Btu/h with Louvers Baseline 38.6 1.3 First Size Increase 42.7 1.9 Second Size Increase 46.8 2.8 PC 3: 8000-13,999 Btu/h with Louvers 8000 Btu/h Size Unit Baseline 49.4 2.1 First Size Increase 55.7 3.1 Second Size Increase 63.6 4.8 12,000 Btu/h Size Unit

Baseline 76.5 4.6 First Size Increase 81.2 5.5 Second Size Increase 87.6 7.1 PC 5: ≥ 20,000 Btu/h with Louvers Baseline 129.2 7.6 First Size Increase 136.4 8.9 Second Size Increase 156.5 11.9



### Scenarios

The following LCC and PBP results were calcu lated based on the above two cabinet size increase scenarios as well as the CO 2 

### cap-and-trade scenario analyzed for refrigerators. The scenarios are identified as A1, B, and A2 to maintain consistency with how the results were identified in the ‘May 4’ version.

23

### Cabinet Constraint Scenario A1 (two size increase): Preliminary analysis assumptions where two sets of cabinet size increases were considered for window un its (i.e. product classes 1, 3, and 5, with louvered sides).

Cabinet Constraint Scenario B (one size increase): More severe cabinet constraints where only one cabinet size increase is assumed.

Cabinet Constraint (two size increase) with ‘CO 2 

### Cap-and-Trade’ Scenario A2: Same as cabinet constraint scenario A1 but with AEO2009 Reference Case forecasted electricity prices adjusted to account for CO 2 

### cap-and-trade program.

Note that for product class 8, 8000- 13,999 Btu/h, without louvered side s, no size increases were considered for the preliminary analysis due to the dominance of the replacement market for these units, and the fixed size of wall sleeves.

As described in the ‘May 4’ version, the followi ng results are presented in terms of integrated EER (IEER), which integrates activ e and standby mode energy use, as required by the EPCA as modified by the Energy Independence and Securi ty Act of 2007. The IEER is calculated as follows:



## 750 h  Capacity ( Btu / hr ) IEER  

#  750 h  Power ( W ) 

#   

#  5,115 h  Power ( W ) 

# 

Active Stndby



### The baseline IEER is defined assuming that the baseline standby load is 1.4W. The baseline IEER is lower than the current energy standa rd for EER, because of the additional energy use associated with standby mode. Higher-than-baseline e fficiency levels have b een chosen at levels represented by numbers with signifi cant digits extending to tenths of Btu/hr-W (i.e. 10.6) rather than corresponding directly to cu rrent EER-based efficiency leve l descriptors such as “ENERGY STAR”. Hence, while efficiency level 2 corr esponds roughly to the current ENERGY STAR level, its active mode EER would be slightly different. This has b een done to avoid future IEER standards represented by numbers with significant digi ts extending to the hundredths of Btu/hrW.

24

### Table 26A1. PC 1, <6000 Btu/h, with Louv ers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario A1

Energy Efficiency Level IEER Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)
Average Savings Consumers with Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Baseline 9.52 1 10.1 $25 15% 4% 81% 0.9 5.9 2 10.6 $41 20% 4% 76% 1.6 12.2 3 11.1 $51 31% 0% 69% 2.5 13.4 4 11.6 $57 37% 0% 63% 3.1 16.0 5 12.0 $63 39% 0% 61% 3.5 17.6



### Table 26B. PC 1, <6000 Btu/h, with Louv ers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B

Energy Efficiency Level IEER Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)
Average Savings Consumers with Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Baseline 9.52 1 10.1 $25 15% 4% 81% 0.9 5.9 2 10.5 $39 18% 4% 77% 1.5 8.2 3 10.9 -$18 75% 0% 25% 7.4 41.9



### Table 26A2. PC 1, <6000 Btu/h, with Louv ers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario A2

Energy Efficiency Level IEER Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)
Average Savings Consumers with Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Baseline 9.52 1 10.1 $28 14% 4% 82% 0.9 5.9 2 10.6 $46 19% 4% 77% 1.6 12.2 3 11.1 $57 29% 0% 71% 2.5 13.4 4 11.6 $65 35% 0% 65% 3.1 16.0 5 12.0 $72 36% 0% 64% 3.5 17.6



### 25

### Table 27A1. PC 3, 8000-13,999 Btu/h, with Louv ers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario A1

Energy Efficiency Level IEER Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)
Average Savings Consumers with Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Baseline 9.7 1 10.3 $15 13% 48% 39% 1.5 8.2 2 10.8 $23 16% 47% 37% 2.4 11.4 3 11.3 $24 52% 3% 45% 6.6 22.2 4 11.5 -$24 69% 1% 30% 10.9 45.6



### Table 27B. PC 3, 8000-13,999 Btu/h, with Louv ers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B

Energy Efficiency Level IEER Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)
Average Savings Consumers with Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Baseline 9.7 1 10.3 $14 14% 48% 38% 1.6 8.7 2 10.8 $23 16% 47% 37% 2.4 11.7 3 11.3 -$45 82% 3% 15% 18.6 70.1



### Table 27A2. PC 3, 8000-13,999 Btu/h, with Louv ers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario A2

Energy Efficiency Level IEER Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)
Average Savings Consumers with Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Baseline 9.7 1 10.3 $16 12% 48% 39% 1.5 8.2 2 10.8 $26 16% 47% 38% 2.4 11.4 3 11.3 $30 50% 3% 47% 6.6 22.2 4 11.5 -$18 67% 1% 32% 10.9 45.6



### 26

### Table 28A1. PC 5, ≥ 20,000 Btu/h, with Louver: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario A1

Energy Efficiency Level IEER Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)
Average Savings Consumers with Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Baseline 8.47 1 9.0 $20 14% 63% 23% 3.2 7.2 2 9.4 $31 20% 57% 23% 5.6 7.7 3 9.8 $39 63% 1% 36% 11.8 14.6 4 10.0 $15 71% 0% 29% 16.1 21.1



### Table 28B. PC 5, ≥ 20,000 Btu/h, with Louver: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B

Energy Efficiency Level IEER Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)
Average Savings Consumers with Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Baseline 8.47 1 9.0 $17 17% 63% 20% 4.3 9.6 2 9.4 -$28 35% 57% 8% 20.5 31.2 3 9.7 -$333 97% 1% 3% 99.8 151.7



### Table 28A2. PC 5, ≥ 20,000 Btu/h, with Louver: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario A2

Energy Efficiency Level IEER Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)
Average Savings Consumers with Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Baseline 8.47 1 9.0 $23 13% 63% 24% 3.2 7.2 2 9.4 $36 20% 57% 24% 5.6 7.7 3 9.8 $47 61% 1% 38% 11.8 14.6 4 10.0 $25 70% 0% 30% 16.1 21.1



### 27

### Table 29-1. PC 8, 8000-13,999 Btu/h, with out Louver: LCC and PBP Results

Energy Efficiency Level IEER Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)
Average Savings Consumers with Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Baseline 8.4 1 8.9 $14 3% 61% 37% 0.8 2.6 2 9.3 $24 4% 61% 35% 1.1 4.0 3 9.8 $38 39% 0% 61% 4.7 13.7



### Table 29-2. PC 8, 8000-13,999 Btu/h, without Louver: LCC and PBP Results with ‘CO 2 

### Cap

and-Trade’

Energy Efficiency Level IEER Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)
Average Savings Consumers with Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Baseline 8.4 1 8.9 $16 3% 61% 37% 0.8 2.6 2 9.3 $26 4% 61% 35% 1.1 4.0 3 9.8 $43 37% 0% 63% 4.7 13.7



### 28