### 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 April 15, 2010 Results

May 4, 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 initial results provide d on April 15, 2010. The results provided here, as well as those provided earlier on April 15 th 

### , are based on inputs (e.g., manufacturer selling prices as a function of efficiency) 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), 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 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 8.00 1.70 1.72 8.00 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 base d 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-load ing and front-loading clothes washers.

Top-loading results in the initial ‘April 15’ version 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 di stribution. The base-case efficiency distribution represents the distri bution of products by efficiency in the absence of new standards in the year 2015 (the year in which standards are assumed to be effective). Afte r consultation with AHAM, the ‘DOE’ manufacturing costs are currently best believed to represent the cost-efficiency relationship for top-loading washer s. Therefore, as listed below, only the ‘DOE’ cost scenarios (C and D) were retained and analyzed.

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

In addition to retaining only the ‘DOE’ cost scen arios, forecasted water and wastewater prices were revised to reflect the hi storical 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.

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 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 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 -$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 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 $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



### 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.

As was done for the ‘April 15’ version of the resu lts, 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 incremental price increase due to standards is larg er for top-loaders than front-loaders, then frontloading washers are forecasted to gain market share. Shifts in market shar e between top- and frontloaders explains the negative NES and NWS for fr ont-loaders, i.e., increased market share and shipments of front-loaders forecasted under the st andards case results in increased front-loader national energy consumption relative to the front-loader base-case. Of course, the increase in frontloader shipments has a correspondi ng decrease in top-loader shipme nts, and the decreased shipments of top-loaders forecasted under the standards case resu lts in an even further decrease in top-loader national energy consumption 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 5.

Table 5. 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 6 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.



### 4

### Table 6C. 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 -0.67 2.04 1.37 -0.81 2.59 1.78 NWS (trillion gal.) -1.11 4.64 3.52 -0.60 4.58 3.98 -0.88 6.51 5.63 NPV @ 7% (bill $) -17.73 24.05 6.32 -15.97 23.58 7.61 -22.81 32.03 9.22 NPV @ 3% (bill $) -37.07 57.68 20.61 -32.83 56.61 23.78 -46.55 76.85 30.30 Mkt Share in 2015 64% 36% 64% 36% 67% 33% Mkt Share in 2030 67% 33% 66% 34% 70% 30% ** Top-loading washers analyzed as 2.26 MEF / 4.48 WF.



### Table 6D. 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 -0.41 0.82 0.41 -0.54 1.42 0.88 NWS (trillion gal.) -0.67 2.88 2.22 -0.18 2.83 2.65 -0.44 5.09 4.65 NPV @ 7% (bill $) -11.69 13.29 1.61 -9.99 12. 83 2.84 -16.41 22.50 6.09 NPV @ 3% (bill $) -24.31 31.26 6.95 -20.23 30.20 9.97 -33.10 52.51 19.41 Mkt Share in 2015 61% 39% 60% 40% 63% 37% Mkt Share in 2030 63% 37% 63% 37% 66% 34% ** Top-loading washers analyzed as 2.26 MEF / 4.48 WF.



### 5

### 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 7. 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’ ve rsion, 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 overestimated. The table below identifies the efficiency levels which are likely to be analyzed for the next ph ase of the standards rulemaking.

Table 8. Refrigerator and Freezer E fficiency 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%

-


### Also as reported in the ‘April 15’ version, in addition to the adjustments made to the maximum reductions in annual energy use, revisions have b een made to the manufacturer selling price vs. efficiency relationships. In all cases, the incr emental changes in manufact urer selling price to achieve reductions in energy use ha ve 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.

LCC and PBP Results

As described in the ‘April 15’ version, for the preliminary anal ysis, usage adjustment factors (UAF) were developed to convert the rated or test energy cons umption of a standard-sized refrigerator or freezer into a field-based value. UAF values determined in the preliminary

6

### analysis were greater than one. At the time of the ‘April 15’ version of the results, the UAFs developed for the preliminary analysis were unde r reevaluation. As a re sult, two UAF scenarios were considered in the ‘April 15’ version: (1 ) Scenario A based on UAFs from the preliminary analyses and (2) Scenario B based on UAFs normaliz ed to a weighted-average value of 1.0, i.e., field energy consumption equals rated energy co nsumption. Based on an evaluation of seven metered refrigerator and freezer end-use studies consisting of over 1,600 data points, it has been tentatively concluded that UAFs on average are closer to one. Therefore, only UAF scenario B was retained and analyzed.

Also under evaluation is the impact of non-HF C blowing agents on the production of foam insulation due to possible climate change legislat ion that may phase-out the use of HFCs. The potential move from the current blowing agent, HFC-245fa, to cyclopent ane has the effect of reducing the resistivity of the foam insulation, th ereby increasing refriger ator and freezer energy use. Therefore, for the same sets of design opt ions, a lower efficiency gain is achievable with cyclopentane blown insulation. Table 9 shows the non-HFC-based efficiency levels that correspond with the HFC-based efficiency levels.

Table 9. Refrigerator and Freezer Effi ciency 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% 39%

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



### Therefore, the following LCC and PBP results were calculated based on two different efficiency scenarios.

HFC Scenario B1: UAF: Normalized to a weighted-average value of 1.0. Efficiency: Based on the use of HFC-blown insulation (HFC-245fa).

Non-HFC Scenario B2: UAF: Normalized to a weighted-average value of 1.0. Efficiency: Based on the use of non-HF C-blown insulation (cyclopentane).

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

7

### 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.

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).

Table 10B1. 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) $47 1.2% 18.9% 79.9% 2.6 3.0 2 (15) $71 2.0% 13.0% 85.1% 3.0 3.4 3 (20) $46 31.0% 13.0% 56.1% 8.4 9.6 4 (25) $42 45.1% 0.0% 54.9% 10.0 11.4 5 (30) -$9 66.1% 0. 0% 33.9% 14.1 16.2 6 (32) -$32 71.3% 0. 0% 28.7% 15.5 17.7



### Table 10B2. 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) $26 1.0% 19.4% 79.6% 2.5 2.9 2 (11) $51 2.0% 13.0% 85.0% 3.0 3.4 3 (16) $27 37.6% 13.0% 49.4% 9.6 11.1 4 (21) $25 50.1% 0.0% 49.9% 10.8 12.4 5 (27) -$24 69.9% 0. 0% 30.1% 15.1 17.3 6 (28) -$47 74.3% 0. 0% 25.7% 16.5 19.0



### 8

### Table 11B1. 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) $8 0.1% 88.5% 11.4% 2.3 2.7 2 (15) $12 0.2% 88.4% 11.5% 2.5 2.9 3 (20) $15 0.4% 88.4% 11.2% 3.5 4.1 4 (25) $0 71.8% 0.0% 28.2% 16.3 18.7 5 (30) -$48 83.3% 0. 0% 16.7% 21.1 24.3 6 (33) -$67 84.2% 0. 0% 15.8% 21.2 24.4



### Table 11B2. 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) $5 0.1% 87.9% 12.0% 2.2 2.5 2 (11) $9 0.1% 87.8% 12.1% 2.5 2.9 3 (16) $12 0.6% 87.8% 11.6% 3.7 4.3 4 (21) -$2 70.4% 0. 0% 29.6% 15.5 18.2 5 (27) -$48 82.4% 0. 0% 17.6% 20.2 23.7 6 (30) -$64 82.5% 0. 0% 17.5% 19.9 23.3



### 9

### Table 12B1. 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) $19 0.3% 75.2% 24.5% 2.8 3.1 2 (15) $45 0.9% 31.6% 67.6% 2.9 3.2 3 (20) $55 8.3% 31.6% 60.2% 5.3 5.9 4 (25) $48 41.7% 0.0% 58.4% 9.3 10.7 5 (30) -$40 74.1% 0. 0% 25.9% 16.2 18.5 6 (31) -$62 77.7% 0. 0% 22.3% 17.4 19.8



### Table 12B2. 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) $22 0.1% 75.0% 24.9% 1.5 1.7 2 (11) $47 0.6% 31.8% 67.7% 2.5 2.8 3 (16) $56 7.6% 31.8% 60.6% 5.1 5.7 4 (21) $49 40.9% 0.0% 59.1% 9.3 10.6 5 (27) -$40 74.4% 0. 0% 25.6% 16.2 18.4 6 (28) -$62 77.9% 0. 0% 22.1% 17.4 19.7



### 10

### Table 13B1. 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) $77 0.1% 19.7% 80.3% 1.7 2.1 2 (15) $111 3.2% 1.6% 95.2% 3.3 4.0 3 (20) $147 3.9% 0.5% 95.6% 3.7 4.4 4 (25) $174 6.7% 0.5% 92.8% 4.5 5.4 5 (30) $204 8.6% 0.2% 91.2% 4.9 5.8 6 (35) $201 16.6% 0.0% 83.4% 6.4 7.6 7 (40) $175 27.7% 0.0% 72.3% 8.3 9.9 8 (43) $69 50.2% 0.0% 49.8% 12.1 14.5



### Table 13B2. 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) $43 0.1% 20.0% 79.9% 1.6 2.0 2 (11) $80 4.0% 1.6% 94.4% 3.7 4.4 3 (16) $119 4.8% 0.5% 94.7% 3.9 4.7 4 (21) $149 8.1% 0.5% 91.5% 4.7 5.6 5 (27) $181 9.6% 0.2% 90.2% 5.0 6.0 6 (32) $181 17.8% 0.0% 82.2% 6.5 7.9 7 (37) $158 29.7% 0.0% 70.3% 8.4 10.2 8 (40) $35 55.3% 0.0% 44.7% 12.8 15.5



### 11

### Table 14B1. 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) $45 0.3% 15.7% 84.0% 2.3 2.6 2 (15) $67 1.9% 1.1% 97.0% 3.3 3.8 3 (20) $63 19.4% 0.3% 80.3% 7.0 8.2 4 (25) $88 13.9% 0.3% 85.7% 6.2 7.2 5 (30) $73 31.0% 0.3% 68.7% 9.0 10.4 6 (35) $51 44.9% 0.0% 55.1% 11.5 13.2



### Table 14B2. 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) $26 0.0% 15.1% 84.8% 1.8 2.0 2 (11) $49 2.2% 1.1% 96.7% 3.3 3.8 3 (16) $70 4.0% 0.3% 95.7% 3.9 4.5 4 (21) $57 27.1% 0.3% 72.6% 8.3 9.6 5 (27) $69 28.2% 0.3% 71.6% 8.5 9.7 6 (32) $43 46.4% 0.0% 53.6% 11.5 13.2



### 12

### Table 15B1. 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) $8 18.9% 2.9% 78.3% 2.5 2.4 2 (15) $13 15.8% 2.5% 81.7% 2.3 2.2 3 (20) $11 33.8% 2.5% 63.7% 3.4 3.3 4 (25) $3 58.0% 1.6% 40.4% 5.0 4.9 5 (30) $9 49.1% 0.0% 50.9% 4.3 4.2 6 (35) -$3 66.4% 0.0% 33.6% 5.6 5.4 7 (40) -$11 73.2% 0. 0% 26.8% 6.3 6.1 8 (45) -$46 88.4% 0. 0% 11.6% 8.9 8.6



### Table 15B2. 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) $6 9.5% 2.9% 87.6% 1.8 1.8 2 (11) $10 15.6% 2.5% 82.0% 2.2 2.2 3 (16) $12 23.3% 2.5% 74.2% 2.8 2.7 4 (21) $8 43.6% 1.7% 54.7% 4.0 4.0 5 (27) $7 50.9% 0.0% 49.1% 4.5 4.4 6 (32) -$12 76.3% 0. 0% 23.7% 6.7 6.5 7 (37) -$12 74.3% 0. 0% 25.8% 6.4 6.3 8 (42) -$37 86.2% 0. 0% 13.8% 8.3 8.1



### 13

### Table 16B1. 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) $12 6.3% 4.7% 89.0% 2.0 2.0 2 (15) -$13 83.0% 0. 0% 17.1% 8.8 9.3 3 (20) -$22 87.4% 0. 0% 12.6% 9.6 9.8 4 (25) -$41 92.9% 0. 0% 7.1% 11.4 11.5 5 (30) -$31 86.5% 0. 0% 13.5% 9.5 9.5 6 (35) -$71 95.3% 0. 0% 4.8% 12.7 12.7 7 (39) -$97 96.9% 0. 0% 3.1% 14.0 14.0



### Table 16B2. 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) $6 7.9% 4.3% 87.8% 2.3 2.3 2 (11) $3 45.6% 0.0% 54.4% 5.2 5.2 3 (16) -$31 95.0% 0. 0% 5.0% 12.5 12.5 4 (21) -$32 92.2% 0. 0% 7.8% 11.0 11.0 5 (27) -$33 89.3% 0. 0% 10.7% 10.2 10.2 6 (32) -$31 85.6% 0. 0% 14.4% 9.3 9.3 7 (37) -$80 96.2% 0. 0% 3.8% 13.1 13.1



### 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 re sults below are based on the same two scenarios considered in the LCC and PBP analysis.

14

### Table 17. 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 0.03 0.03 0.21 0.21 2 (15) 2 (11) 1.37 0.99 0.05 0.05 0.50 0.49 3 (20) 3 (16) 1.88 1.54 0.18 0.18 0.90 0.89 4 (25) 4 (21) 2.36 2.05 0.28 0.28 1.23 1.21 5 (30) 5 (27) 2.79 2.50 0.32 0.32 1.52 1.50 6 (31-33) 6 (28-30) 2.92 2.65 0.34 0.34 1.58 1.55

* 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 18. 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) 3.44 1.91 9.56 5.30 0. 14 0.14 0.38 0.39 0.79 0.89 2.27 2.44 2 (15) 2 (11) 5.10 3.70 14.33 10.39 0.20 0.20 0.57 0.57 1.87 1.94 5.35 5.46 3 (20) 3 (16) 2.55 1.29 11.13 7.57 -0. 38 -0.38 -0.25 -0.24 1.30 1.33 5.45 5.45 4 (25) 4 (21) 1.86 0.73 11.41 8.19 -0. 75 -0.74 -0.61 -0.59 0.77 0.77 5.49 5.41 5 (30) 5 (27) -1.82 -2.82 5.89 3.00 -1. 04 -1.03 -0.95 -0.93 -2.08 -2.11 1.13 0.98 6 (31­

33) 6 (28­ 30) -3.40 -4.36 3.34 0.57 -1.16 -1.15 -1 .07 -1.04 -2.77 -2.81 0.02 -0.15

* 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.



### 15

### Table 19. 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) 0.25 0.14 0.15 0.09 2 (15) 2 (11) 0.39 0.29 0.24 0.18 3 (20) 3 (16) 0.54 0.45 0.33 0.27 4 (25) 4 (21) 0.68 0.60 0.41 0.36 5 (30) 5 (27) 0.82 0.74 0.49 0.45 6 (35) 6 (32) 0.95 0.88 0.56 0.52 7 (40) 7 (37) 1.06 0.99

- - 8 (43.2) 8 (40) 1.12 1.01

- -

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


### Table 20. 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) 1.06 0.59 3. 10 1.71 0.67 0.37 1.94 1.08 2 (15) 2 (11) 1.50 1.07 4.58 3.31 0.96 0.70 2.90 2.11 3 (20) 3 (16) 1.95 1.56 6.07 4.91 1.18 0.94 3.67 2.97 4 (25) 4 (21) 2.28 1.93 7.31 6.26 0.98 0.77 3.65 3.04 5 (30) 5 (27) 2.57 2.25 8.45 7.51 1.06 0.88 4.13 3.59 6 (35) 6 (32) 2.41 2.14 8.68 7.86 0.64 0.49 3.61 3.15 7 (40) 7 (37) 1.84 1.57 8.03 7.21

- - - - 8 (43.2) 8 (40) 0.65 0.21 6.02 4.74

- - - -

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



### 16

### Table 21. 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) 0.13 0.07 0.03 0.02 2 (15) 2 (11) 0.20 0.14 0.04 0.03 3 (20) 3 (16) 0.26 0.21 0.05 0.04 4 (25) 4 (21) 0.32 0.27 0.06 0.06 5 (30) 5 (27) 0.37 0.33 0.08 0.07 6 (35) 6 (32) 0.41 0.37 0.08 0.08 7 (40-39) 7 (37) 0.45 0.42 0.09 0.09

8 (45) 8 (40) 0.47 0.45

- -

* 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 22. 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) 0.37 0.21 0. 89 0.50 0.09 0.05 0.22 0.11 2 (15) 2 (11) 0.51 0.36 1. 23 0.88 -0.06 0.03 -0.05 0.11 3 (20) 3 (16) 0.56 0.43 1.40 1.10 -0.10 -0.16 -0.11 -0.24 4 (25) 4 (21) 0.43 0.32 1.21 0.94 -0.20 -0.16 -0.27 -0.21 5 (30) 5 (27) 0.38 0.29 1.17 0.94 -0.14 -0.15 -0.14 -0.19 6 (35) 6 (32) -0.20 -0.28 0.06 -0.13 -0.32 -0.14 -0.48 -0.13 7 (40-39) 7 (37) -0.19 -0.25 0. 15 -0.01 -0.43 -0.36 -0.66 -0.55

8 (45) 8 (40) -0.82 -0.88 -1.07 -1.21

- - - -

* 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



### 17

### 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

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 th e preliminary analysis. Therefore, the following LCC and PBP results were calculated based on th e above two cabinet size increase scenarios.

Cabinet Increase Constraint Scenario A: Preliminary analysis assumptions where two sets of cabinet size increases were c onsidered for window units (i.e. product classes 1, 3, and 5, with louvered sides).

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

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.

The results are presented in terms of integrated EER (IEER), which integrates active and standby mode energy use, as required by the EPCA as modified by the Energy Independence and Security 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.

18

### Table 23A. PC 1, <6000 Btu/h, with Louv ers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario A

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 $26 15% 4% 81% 0.9 6.3 2 10.6 $42 20% 4% 76% 1.6 11.6 3 11.1 $51 30% 0% 70% 2.4 14.0 4 11.6 $57 36% 0% 64% 3.1 17.1 5 12.0 $63 38% 0% 62% 3.4 23.5



### Table 23B. 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



### 19

### Table 24A. PC 3, 8000-13,999 Btu/h, with Louv ers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario A

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% 49% 37% 1.6 10.4 2 10.8 $23 17% 47% 36% 2.5 11.9 3 11.3 $24 53% 3% 44% 6.7 33.1 4 11.5 -$24 69% 1% 30% 11.2 79.1



### Table 24B. 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



### 20

### Table 25A. PC 5, ≥ 20,000 Btu/h, with Louver: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario A

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 $21 14% 63% 23% 3.2 7.3 2 9.4 $33 21% 57% 23% 5.5 7.6 3 9.8 $40 63% 1% 37% 11.8 14.5 4 10.0 $17 71% 0% 29% 15.8 20.9



### Table 25B. 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 26B. PC 8, 8000-13,999 Btu/h, without Louv er: 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 8.4 1 8.9 $14 3% 61% 36% 0.8 2.6 2 9.3 $23 4% 61% 35% 1.1 3.7 3 9.8 $37 39% 0% 61% 4.7 17.9



### 21