### ANALYTICAL RESULTS IN SUPPORT OF STAKEHOLDER NEGOTIATIONS ON AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHE S WASHERS AND RESIDENTIAL REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS AND FREEZERS

April 15, 2010

The following analytical results have been generated by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and Navigant Consulting, Inc. (NCI) to support stakeholder negotiations concerning amended energy conservation standards for re sidential clothes washers and residential refrigerators-freezers and freezers. The analytical results presented here are based on inputs (e.g., manufacturer selling prices as a function of efficien cy) and analytical tools which are still under review. Therefore, the following information may not reflect final results to be published in subsequent DOE rulemaking documents.

CLOTHES WASHERS

Life-cycle cost (LCC), payback period (PBP), and 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 Facto r (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 pending 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: ‘Stakeholder Requested’ and ‘Analyzed for DOE’ Requested Levels Top-Loading Washers Front-Loading Washers

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

- - -
1.72 8.0 1.72 8.00 0.00 1.72 7.50 1.70 1.72 7.50 0.08

1.80 7.5 1.80 7.50 2.30 1.80 7.50 0.08 1.80 7.50 1.70 1.80 7.50 0.08 2.00 6.0 2.00 6.00 0.08 2.00 6.00 0.08 2.20 4.5 2.26 4.48 0.08 2.20 4.50 0.08 2.40 4.0

- - - 2.40 4.20 0.08

- ­ ­ - - 2.60 3.80 0.08

- ­ ­ - - 2.89 3.36 0.08



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

LCC and PBP Results

The following LCC and PBP results were calculated separately for top-loading and front-loading clothes washers.

Top-loading results were generated for four different scenarios . The scenarios differed based on the source of the manufacturing costs (AHAM or DOE) and assumptions regarding the base-case efficiency distribution. The base-case efficiency 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 four scenarios which were analyzed are:

Top-Loading Scenario A: Manufacturer Costs: AHAM. Base Case Efficiency Distribution: AHAM; Same as the year 2008.

Top-Loading Scenario B: Manufacturer Costs: AHAM. Base Case Efficiency Distribution: Migration of products to 1.72 MEF by 2015.

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

Top-Loading Scenario D: Manufacturer Costs: DOE. Base Case Efficiency Distribution: Migration of products to 1.72 MEF by 2015.

2

### Table 3. 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./k Wh/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 7.50 1.70 $0 0% 100% 0% NA NA 2 0.0% 1.72 7.50 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 $8 0% 96% 4% 0.7 0.9 5 48.9% 2.20 4.50 0.08 $104 0% 72% 27% 0.9 1.4 6 11.4% 2.40 4.20 0.08 $273 5% 23% 72% 2.2 3.1 7 11.4% 2.60 3.80 0.08 $321 8% 12% 80% 2.7 3.9 8 0.0% 2.89 3.36 0.08 $503 9% 0% 91% 2.6 4.0



### Table 4A. Top-Loading Washers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario A

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./k Wh/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 -$49 43% 56% 0% 2.3 2.7 2 1.85% 1.72 8.00 0.00 $174 2% 13% 85% 0.8 1.5 3 0.62% 1.80 7.50 2.30 $111 12% 11% 77% 1.8 2.8 4 0.62% 1.80 7.50 1.70 $112 13% 11% 77% 2.3 3.6 5 0.62% 1.80 7.50 0.08 $131 7% 10% 83% 1.8 3.0 6 4.55% 2.00 6.00 0.08 $324 5% 9% 86% 1.4 2.5 7 4.55% 2.26 4.48 0.08 $521 8% 5% 87% 2.1 3.8



### Table 4B. Top-Loading Washers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B

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./k Wh/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 $111 12% 11% 77% 1.8 2.8 4 0.62% 1.80 7.50 1.70 $112 13% 11% 77% 2.3 3.6 5 0.62% 1.80 7.50 0.08 $131 7% 10% 83% 1.8 3.0 6 4.55% 2.00 6.00 0.08 $324 5% 9% 86% 1.4 2.5 7 4.55% 2.26 4.48 0.08 $521 8% 5% 87% 2.1 3.8



### 3

### Table 4C. 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./k Wh/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 -$47 43% 56% 0% 0.2 0.3 2 1.85% 1.72 8.00 0.00 $158 8% 13% 79% 2.1 3.6 3 0.62% 1.80 7.50 2.30 $30 50% 11% 39% 10.1 15.9 4 0.62% 1.80 7.50 1.70 $30 50% 11% 39% 10.6 16.4 5 0.62% 1.80 7.50 0.08 $48 45% 10% 46% 9.4 16.0 6 4.55% 2.00 6.00 0.08 $263 16% 9% 75% 3.9 7.0 7 4.55% 2.26 4.48 0.08 $465 15% 5% 81% 3.5 6.3



### Table 4D. 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./k Wh/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 $30 50% 11% 39% 10.1 15.9 4 0.62% 1.80 7.50 1.70 $30 50% 11% 39% 10.6 16.4 5 0.62% 1.80 7.50 0.08 $48 45% 10% 46% 9.4 16.0 6 4.55% 2.00 6.00 0.08 $263 16% 9% 75% 3.9 7.0 7 4.55% 2.26 4.48 0.08 $465 15% 5% 81% 3.5 6.3



### 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.

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 each product class due to increased standards. For example, if the increm ental price increase due to standards is larger for top-loaders than front-loaders, 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 frontloaders, i.e., increased market share and shipments of front-loaders forecasted under the standardscase results in increased front-loader national energy consumption relative to the front-loader basecase. Of course, the increase in front-loader shipments has a corresponding decrease in top-loader shipments, and the decreased shipments of top-loaders forecasted under the standards case results in an even further decrease in top-loader national energy consumption rel ative to the top-loader basecase.

4

### The NIA results below are based on the same four scenarios considered in the LCC and PBP analysis.

Table 5A. NIA Results, Scenario A
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) -0.02 0.05 0.04 -0.08 1.02 0.94 -0.14 0.95 0.81 NWS (trillion gal.) -0.03 -0.41 -0.44 -0.13 1.47 1.33 -0.25 1.26 1.01 NPV @ 7% (bill $) -0.40 -0.88 -1.28 -1.77 8.76 6.99 -3.29 8.19 4.90 NPV @ 3% (bill $) -0.85 -2.17 -3.02 -3.74 21.14 17.39 -6.95 19.67 12.72 Mkt Shr in 2015 54% 46% 55% 45% 56% 44% Mkt Shr in 2030 56% 44% 57% 43% 58% 42% 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) -0.25 1.44 1.18 -0.56 2.19 1.63 -0.37 2.09 1.71 NWS (trillion gal.) -0.23 3.36 3.13 -0.42 5.86 5.43 -0.16 5.67 5.51 NPV @ 7% (bill $) -5.74 16.43 10.68 -13.47 27.77 14.29 -12.30 26.08 13.78 NPV @ 3% (bill $) -11.78 39.73 27.95 -27.52 66.87 39.35 -24.47 63.15 38.68 Mkt Share in 2015 57% 43% 62% 38% 61% 39% Mkt Share in 2030 60% 40% 65% 35% 64% 36% ** Top-loading washers analyzed as 2.26 MEF / 4.48 WF.



### Table 5B. NIA Results, Scenario B
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 -0.06 -0.07 -0.13 NWS (trillion gal.) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.11 -0.22 -0.33 NPV @ 7% (bill $) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.49 -0.63 -2.12 NPV @ 3% (bill $) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.16 -1.61 -4.77 Mkt Shr in 2015 54% 46% 54% 46% 55% 45% Mkt Shr in 2030 56% 44% 56% 44% 57% 43% 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) -0.17 0.42 0.25 -0.48 1.18 0.70 -0.29 1.08 0.79 NWS (trillion gal.) -0.10 1.92 1.83 -0.28 4.46 4.17 -0.03 4.28 4.25 NPV @ 7% (bill $) -3.91 7.71 3.80 -11.51 19.09 7.58 -10.32 17.42 7.10 NPV @ 3% (bill $) -7.91 18.72 10.81 -23.38 46.00 22.61 -20.32 42.32 22.01 Mkt Share in 2015 56% 44% 61% 39% 60% 40% Mkt Share in 2030 59% 41% 64% 36% 62% 38% ** Top-loading washers analyzed as 2.26 MEF / 4.48 WF.



### 5

### Table 5C. 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 1.21 0.98 -0.83 1.86 1.03 NWS (trillion gal.) 0.00 -0.46 -0.46 -0.40 1.90 1.50 -1.45 3.32 1.87 NPV @ 7% (bill $) -0.04 -1.16 -1.20 -5.30 11.12 5.82 -19.26 19.92 0.67 NPV @ 3% (bill $) -0.08 -2.84 -2.92 -11.21 26.80 15.59 -40.76 47.54 6.78 Mkt Shr in 2015 54% 46% 57% 43% 64% 36% Mkt Sh r 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) -0.74 2.04 1.29 -0.98 2.66 1.68 -0.78 2.55 1.77 NWS (trillion gal.) -1.07 4.57 3.50 -1.10 6.64 5.54 -0.83 6.45 5.62 NPV @ 7% (bill $) -17.20 23.97 6.77 -23.12 33.78 10.66 -22.01 32.02 10.00 NPV @ 3% (bill $) -35.97 57.51 21.54 -47.87 80.76 32.89 -44.91 76.90 31.99 Mkt Share in 2015 64% 36% 68% 32% 67% 33% Mkt Share in 2030 66% 34% 71% 29% 69% 31% ** Top-loading washers analyzed as 2.26 MEF / 4.48 WF.



### Table 5D. 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 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.86 0.86 -0.57 0.60 0.03 NWS (trillion gal.) 0.00 -0.46 -0.46 0.00 1.16 1.16 -1.00 1.31 0.31 NPV @ 7% (bill $) 0.00 -1.20 -1.20 0.00 5.98 5.98 -13.32 7.90 -5.41 NPV @ 3% (bill $) 0.00 -2.93 -2.93 0.00 15.05 15.05 -28.18 18.73 -9.44 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) -0.49 0.81 0.32 -0.71 1.45 0.74 -0.52 1.35 0.82 NWS (trillion gal.) -0.64 2.71 2.07 -0.67 4.90 4.24 -0.41 4.72 4.32 NPV @ 7% (bill $) -11.34 12.52 1.18 -16.97 22.48 5.50 -15.83 20.74 4.91 NPV @ 3% (bill $) -23.60 30.11 6.50 -34.91 53.84 18.93 -31.90 50.03 18.13 Mkt Share in 2015 60% 40% 64% 36% 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), and national impact analysis (NIA) results were requested for the following product classes (PC) efficiency levels (EL).

Table 6. Refrigerator and Freezer Efficiency 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%.



### The maximum reductions in annual energy use specified in the preliminary analysis have been reevaluated. As a result of the reevaluation, these maximum reductions have tentatively been determined to be over estimated. The ta ble below identifies the effici ency levels which are likely to be analyzed for the next phase of the standards ruleamaking.

Table 7. Refrigerator and Freezer Effi ciency 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% 39%

-



### In addition 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 changes in manufacturer selling price to achieve reductions in energy use have increased relative to the estimates in the pr eliminary analysis.

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

LCC and PBP Results

The field energy consumption estima tes in the preliminary analysis are also being reevaluated. For the preliminary analysis, usage adjustment factors (UAF) were developed to convert the rated or test energy consumption of a standard-sized refrigerator or feezer into a field-based value. UAF values determine d in the preliminary analysis were greater than one. The

7

### reevaluation of the UAFs is still ongoing. There fore, the following LCC and PBP results were calculated based on two different UAF scenarios.

UAF Scenario A: Preliminary Analysis UAFs, i.e., fiel d energy consumption > rated energy consumption. Weighted-average UAFs: PC3 = 1.23; PC5 = 1.08; PC7 = 1.44; PC9 = 1.37; PC10 = 1.48.

UAF Scenario B: UAFs normalized to a weighted-average value of 1.0, i.e., field energy consumption = rated energy consumption.

For the preliminary analysis, compact refrigerato rs and freezers were determined with a UAF set equal to one. Therefore, a single set of LCC and PBP results are presented for compacts.

Table 8A. PC 3, Top-Mount Refrigerators: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario A

Energy Efficiency Level Efficiency Index Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Baseline 1.00 1 1.10 $59 0.6% 19.0% 80.4% 2.2 2.5 2 1.15 $89 1.0% 13.3% 85.8% 2.4 2.8 3 1.20 $71 21.7% 13.3% 65.0% 6.9 8.0 4 1.25 $75 33.6% 0.0% 66.4% 8.1 9.4 5 1.30 $32 55.3% 0.0% 44.7% 11.6 13.3 6 1.32 $12 60.5% 0.0% 39.5% 12.8 14.6



### Table 8B. PC 3, Top-Mount Refrigerators: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B

Energy Efficiency Level Efficiency Index Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Baseline 1.00 1 1.10 $47 1.2% 18.9% 79.9% 2.6 3.0 2 1.15 $71 2.0% 13.0% 85.1% 3.0 3.4 3 1.20 $46 31.0% 13.0% 56.1% 8.4 9.6 4 1.25 $42 45.1% 0.0% 54.9% 10.0 11.4 5 1.30 -$9 66.1% 0.0% 33.9% 14.1 16.2 6 1.32 -$32 71.3% 0.0% 28.7% 15.5 17.7



### 8

### Table 9A. PC 5, Bottom-Mount Refrigerators: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario A

Energy Efficiency Level Efficiency Index Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Baseline 1.00 1 1.10 $8 0.1% 88.8% 11.1% 2.2 2.5 2 1.15 $12 0.1% 88.8% 11.1% 2.4 2.8 3 1.20 $15 0.4% 88.8% 10.8% 3.4 3.9 4 1.25 $3 68.5% 0.0% 31.6% 15.0 17.3 5 1.30 -$42 80.7% 0.0% 19.3% 19.4 22.5 6 1.33 -$59 81.6% 0.0% 18.5% 19.6 22.7



### Table 9B. PC 5, Bottom-Mount Refrigerators: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B

Energy Efficiency Level Efficiency Index Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Baseline 1.00 1 1.10 $8 0.1% 88.5% 11.4% 2.3 2.7 2 1.15 $12 0.2% 88.4% 11.5% 2.5 2.9 3 1.20 $15 0.4% 88.4% 11.2% 3.5 4.1 4 1.25 $0 71.8% 0.0% 28.2% 16.3 18.7 5 1.30 -$48 83.3% 0.0% 16.7% 21.1 24.3 6 1.33 -$67 84.2% 0.0% 15.8% 21.2 24.4



### 9

### Table 10A. PC 7, Side-Mount Refrigerators: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario A

Energy Efficiency Level Efficiency Index Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Baseline 1.00 1 1.10 $31 0.0% 74.5% 25.5% 1.9 2.1 2 1.15 $72 0.2% 31.4% 68.5% 1.9 2.2 3 1.20 $98 2.4% 31.4% 66.3% 3.6 4.0 4 1.25 $114 20.9% 0.0% 79.1% 6.3 7.2 5 1.30 $49 51.7% 0.0% 48.3% 11.1 12.5 6 1.31 $32 56.3% 0.0% 43.7% 11.9 13.4



### Table 10B. PC 7, Side-Mount Refrigerators: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B

Energy Efficiency Level Efficiency Index Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Baseline 1.00 1 1.10 $19 0.3% 75.2% 24.5% 2.8 3.1 2 1.15 $45 0.9% 31.6% 67.6% 2.9 3.2 3 1.20 $55 8.3% 31.6% 60.2% 5.3 5.9 4 1.25 $48 41.7% 0.0% 58.4% 9.3 10.7 5 1.30 -$40 74.1% 0.0% 25.9% 16.2 18.5 6 1.31 -$62 77.7% 0.0% 22.3% 17.4 19.8



### 10

### Table 11A. PC 9, Upright Freezers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario A

Energy Efficiency Level Efficiency Index Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Baseline 1.00 1 1.10 $111 0.0% 19.7% 80.3% 1.2 1.5 2 1.15 $166 1.0% 1.5% 97.5% 2.4 2.9 3 1.20 $223 1.4% 0.5% 98.2% 2.7 3.2 4 1.25 $271 2.6% 0.4% 97.0% 3.3 3.9 5 1.30 $321 3.4% 0.2% 96.3% 3.5 4.2 6 1.35 $339 7.4% 0.0% 92.6% 4.6 5.6 7 1.40 $334 14.4% 0.0% 85.6% 6.0 7.2 8 1.43 $250 30.9% 0.0% 69.1% 8.7 10.5



### Table 11B. PC 9, Upright Freezers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B

Energy Efficiency Level Efficiency Index Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Baseline 1.00 1 1.10 $77 0.1% 19.7% 80.3% 1.7 2.1 2 1.15 $111 3.2% 1.6% 95.2% 3.3 4.0 3 1.20 $147 3.9% 0.5% 95.6% 3.7 4.4 4 1.25 $174 6.7% 0.5% 92.8% 4.5 5.4 5 1.30 $204 8.6% 0.2% 91.2% 4.9 5.8 6 1.35 $201 16.6% 0.0% 83.4% 6.4 7.6 7 1.40 $175 27.7% 0.0% 72.3% 8.3 9.9 8 1.43 $69 50.2% 0.0% 49.8% 12.1 14.5



### 11

### Table 12A. PC 10, Chest Freezers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario A

Energy Efficiency Level Efficiency Index Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Baseline 1.00 1 1.10 $71 0.0% 15.2% 84.8% 1.6 1.8 2 1.15 $108 0.4% 0.8% 98.8% 2.2 2.5 3 1.20 $120 7.7% 0.2% 92.1% 4.7 5.5 4 1.25 $159 4.9% 0.2% 95.0% 4.2 4.8 5 1.30 $160 14.1% 0.2% 85.8% 6.0 7.0 6 1.35 $153 23.7% 0.0% 76.3% 7.7 8.9



### Table 12B. PC 10, Chest Freezers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B

Energy Efficiency Level Efficiency Index Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Baseline 1.00 1 1.10 $45 0.3% 15.7% 84.0% 2.3 2.6 2 1.15 $67 1.9% 1.1% 97.0% 3.3 3.8 3 1.20 $63 19.4% 0.3% 80.3% 7.0 8.2 4 1.25 $88 13.9% 0.3% 85.7% 6.2 7.2 5 1.30 $73 31.0% 0.3% 68.7% 9.0 10.4 6 1.35 $51 44.9% 0.0% 55.1% 11.5 13.2



### 12

### Table 13. PC 11, Compact Refrigerators: LCC and PBP Results

Energy Efficiency Level Efficiency Index Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Baseline 1.00 1 1.10 $8 18.9% 2.9% 78.3% 2.5 2.4 2 1.15 $13 15.8% 2.5% 81.7% 2.3 2.2 3 1.20 $11 33.8% 2.5% 63.7% 3.4 3.3 4 1.25 $3 58.0% 1.6% 40.4% 5.0 4.9 5 1.30 $9 49.1% 0.0% 50.9% 4.3 4.2 6 1.35 -$3 66.4% 0.0% 33.6% 5.6 5.4 7 1.40 -$11 73.2% 0.0% 26.8% 6.3 6.1 8 1.45 -$46 88.4% 0.0% 11.6% 8.9 8.6



### Table 14. PC 18, Compact Freezers: LCC and PBP Results

Energy Efficiency Level Efficiency Index Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average Savings Consumers with Median Average Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Baseline 1.00 1 1.10 $12 6.3% 4.7% 89.0% 2.0 2.0 2 1.15 -$13 83.0% 0.0% 17.1% 8.8 9.3 3 1.20 -$22 87.4% 0.0% 12.6% 9.6 9.8 4 1.25 -$41 92.9% 0.0% 7.1% 11.4 11.5 5 1.30 -$31 86.5% 0.0% 13.5% 9.5 9.5 6 1.35 -$71 95.3% 0.0% 4.8% 12.7 12.7 7 1.40 -$97 96.9% 0.0% 3.1% 14.0 14.0



### NIA Results

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

For standard-sized refrigerators and freezers, the NIA results below are based on the same two scenarios considered in the LCC and PBP analysis.

13

### Table 15. Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers: NES Results (quads) Efficiency Level (% less than

baseline energy use) Top-Mount Refrigerato r Freezer* Bottom-Mount Refrigerato r Freezer** Side-by-Side Refrigerato r Freezer***

Scenario A Scenario B Scenario A Scenario B Scenario A Scenario B

1 (10) 1.10 0.89 0.04 0.03 0.31 0.21 2 (15) 1.58 1.37 0.05 0.05 0.57 0.50 3 (20) 2.31 1.88 0.19 0.18 1.30 0.90 4 (25) 2.90 2.36 0.30 0.28 1.78 1.23 5 (30) 3.42 2.79 0.34 0.32 2.20 1.52 6 (31-33) 3.59 2.92 0.37 0.34 2.28 1.58
* 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 16. Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers: NPV Results (billion $) Efficiency Level (% less

than baseline) Top-Mount Refrigerato r Freezer* Bottom-Mount Refrigerato r Freezer** Side-by-Side Refrigerato r Freezer*** 7% Disc Rt 3% Disc Rt 7% Disc Rt 3% Disc Rt 7% Disc Rt 3% Disc Rt Scen

A Scen B Scen A Scen B Scen A Scen B Scen A Scen B Scen A Scen B Scen A Scen B 1 (10) 4.42 3.44 12.12 9.56 0.15 0.14 0.42 0.38 1.25 0.79 3.48 2.27 2 (15) 7.60 5.10 18.27 14.33 0.27 0.20 0.62 0.57 3.11 1.87 8.21 5.35 3 (20) 4.63 2.55 16.54 11.13 -0.32 -0.38 -0.06 -0.25 3.23 1.30 10.59 5.45 4 (25) 4.47 1.86 18.20 11.41 -0.64 -0.75 -0.33 -0.61 3.40 0.77 12.48 5.49 5 (30) 1.25 -1.82 13.89 5.89 -0.92 -1.04 -0.63 -0.95 1.19 -2.08 9.76 1.13 6 (31-33) -0.18 -3.40 11.73 3.34 -1.03 -1.16 -0.72 -1.07 0.63 -2.77 8.98 0.02
* 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.



### 14

### Table 17. Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers: NES Results (quads) Efficiency Level

(% less than baseline energy use) Upright Freezers* Chest Freezers**

Scenario A Scenario B Scenario A Scenario B

1 (10) 0.34 0.25 0.23 0.16 2 (15) 0.54 0.39 0.36 0.25 3 (20) 0.75 0.54 0.49 0.33
4 (25) 0.94 1.08 0.62 0.90
5 (30) 1.14 0.82 0.73 0.50 6 (35) 1.31 0.95 1.06 0.72 7 (40) 1.46 1.06

- - 8 (43.2) 1.54 1.12

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



### Table 18. 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

Scen A Scen B Scen A Scen B Scen A Scen B Scen A Scen B 1 (10) 1.52 1.06 4.39 3.10 1.02 0.65 2.95 1.92 2 (15) 2.24 1.50 6.64 4.58 1.50 0.92 4.44 2.81 3 (20) 2.96 1.95 8.89 6.07 1.68 0.90 5.34 3.15 4 (25) 3.56 3.56 10.88 7.31 2.16 2.16 6.80 4.03 5 (30) 4.11 2.57 12.75 8.45 2.10 0.93 7.17 3.90 6 (35) 4.18 2.41 13.64 8.68 3.81 2.13 12.22 7.45 7 (40) 3.82 1.84 13.55 8.03

- ­ ­ ­ 8 (43.2) 2.73 0.65 11.85 6.02

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



### 15

### Table 19. Compacts: NES Results (quads) Efficiency Level (% less than baseline energy use) Compact Refrigerators* Compact Freezers** 1 (10) 0.13 0.03 2 (15) 0.20 0.04 3 (20) 0.26 0.05 4 (25) 0.31 0.06 5 (30) 0.37 0.08 6 (35) 0.41 0.08 7 (40-39) 0.45 0.09

8 (45) 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 20. 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
1 (10) 0.32 0.78 0.09 0.22 2 (15) 0.51 1.23 -0.06 -0.05 3 (20) 0.44 1.16 -0.10 -0.11 4 (25) 0.17 0.69 -0.20 -0.27 5 (30) 0.38 1.16 -0.14 -0.14 6 (35) 0.03 0.53 -0.32 -0.48 7 (40-39) -0.19 0.14 -0.43 -0.66

8 (45) -1.06 -1.53

- - * 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



### 16