## TECHNICAL REPORT:

Analysis of Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Refrigerator

-Freezers

October 2005

U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Building Technologies Program Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards Washington, DC 20585 

# TECHNICAL REPORT: Analysis ofAmended Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Refrigerator-Freezers

October 2005

U.S. Department ofEnergy Assistant Secretary Office ofEnergyEfficiency and Renewable Energy Building Technologies Program Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards Washington, DC 20585 

# #4.7

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. ES-1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................1-1 CHAPTER 2. MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ...................................2-1 2.1 MARKET ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 ENERGY PERFORMANCE .......................................................................................2-2 2.3 DESIGN OPTIONS TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCY ......................................................2-4 2.4 TEST PROCEDURE STATUS ....................................................................................2-6 2.4.1 Credit for a more efficient defrost system ......................................................... 2-6 2.4.2 Change in electric refrigerator definition to exclude wine coolers .....................2-6 2.4.3 Repeatability issues for testing compact refrigerators ........................................2-6 2.4.4 Harmonizing with international standards .........................................................2-7 CHAPTER 3. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS .....................................................................3-1 3.1 REVIEW OF 1995 TSD ...............................................................................................3-1 3.1.1 Top-Mount Refrigerators .................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.2 Side-Mount Refrigerators .................................................................................3-2 3.1.3 DOE 1995 TSD Cost Analyses .........................................................................3-3 3.2 AHAM DATA SUBMITTAL AND CONSOLIDATION ............................................3-4 3.2.1 Comparison of AHAM Cost Data with TSD Cost Estimates ............................3-5 3.3 MANUFACTURER INTERVIEWS ............................................................................3-6 3.3.1 15 Percent Energy Use Reduction .....................................................................3-6 3.3.2 25 Percent Energy Use Reduction .....................................................................3-7 3.3.3 Bottom-Mount Refrigerators ............................................................................. 3-7 3.3.4 Platform Changes .............................................................................................3-7 3.3.5 Intellectual Property ......................................................................................... 3-7 CHAPTER 4. LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS

................ 4-9 4.1 LIFE-CYCLE COST METHODOLOGY .....................................................................4-9 4.2 CONSUMER RETAIL PRICE ...................................................................................4-11 4.2.1 Baseline Retail Price

....................................................................................... 4-11 4.2.2 Incremental Retail Prices based on Incremental Manufacturing Costs .............4-14 4.2.2.1 Incremental Manufacturing Costs ..................................................... 4-14 4.2.2.2 Manufacturer

-to-Consumer Markup ................................................. 4-15 4.2.2.3 Resultant Incremental Retail Prices ..................................................4-15 4.2.3 Incremental Retail Prices based on Regression Analysis .................................4-16 4.2.4 Comparison of Manufacturing Cost-Based and Regression Analysis Retail Prices .............................................................................................................. 4-18 4.2.5 Focused Matched Pair Analysis ......................................................................4-20 4.3 LIFETIME ELECTRICITY COST ............................................................................4-23 4.3.1 Annual Electricity Cost ...................................................................................4-23 4.3.1.1 Annual Electricity Consumption ......................................................4-23 

# #4.7 TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................ES-l 

### CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................1-1 CHAPTER2. MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT........•...............•..........2-1 2.1 MARKET ASSESSMENT

...........................................................................................2-1 2.2 ENERGY PERFORMANCE

.......................................................................................2-2 2.3 DESIGN OPTIONS TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCy

......................................................2-4 2.4 TEST PROCEDURE STATUS

....................................................................................2-6 2.4.1 Credit for a more efficient defrost system
.........................................................2-6 2.4.2 Change in electric refrigerator definition to exclude wine coolers

.....................2-6 2.4.3 Repeatability issues for testing compact refrigerators

........................................2-6 2.4.4 Harmonizing with international standards

.........................................................2-7 CHAPTER 3. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

.....................................................................3-1 3.1 REVIEW OF 1995 TSD

...............................................................................................3-1 3.1.1 Top-Mount Refrigerators

..................................................................................3-1 3.1.2 Side-Mount Refrigerators

.................................................................................3-2 3.1.3 DOE 1995 TSD Cost Analyses

.........................................................................3-3 3.2 AHAM DATA SUBMITTAL AND CONSOLIDATION

............................................3-4 3.2.1 Comparison ofAHAM Cost Data with TSD Cost Estimates

.............................3-5 3.3 MANUFACTURER INTERVIEWS

............................................................................3-6 3.3.1 15 Percent Energy Use Reduction

.....................................................................3-6 3.3.2 25 Percent Energy Use Reduction

.....................................................................3-7 3.3.3 Bottom-Mount Refrigerators

.............................................................................3-7 3.3.4 Platform Changes

.............................................................................................3-7 3.3.5 Intellectual Property

.........................................................................................3-7 CHAPTER4. LIFE-CYCLE COSTAND PAYBACK PERIOD 

### ANALYSIS

................4-9 4.1 LIFE-CYCLE COST METHODOLOGY

.....................................................................4-9 4.2 CONSUMER RETAIL PRICE

...................................................................................4-11 4.2.1 Baseline Retail Price

.......................................................................................4-11 4.2.2 Incremental Retail Prices based on Incremental Manufacturing Costs

.............4-14 4.2.2.1 Incremental Manufacturing Costs

.....................................................4-14 4.2.2.2 Manufacturer-to-Consumer Markup

.................................................4-15 4.2.2.3 Resultant Incremental Retail Prices

..................................................4-15 4.2.3 Incremental Retail Prices based on Regression Analysis

.................................4-16 4.2.4 Comparison ofManufacturing Cost-Based and Regression Analysis Retail Prices

..............................................................................................................4-18 4.2.5 Focused Matched Pair Analysis

......................................................................4-20 4.3 LIFETIME ELECTRICITY COST

............................................................................4-23 4.3.1 Annual Electricity Cost..

.................................................................................4-23 4.3.1.1 Annual Electricity Consumption

......................................................4-234.3.1.2 Electricity Prices ..............................................................................4-27 4.3.2 Product Lifetime ............................................................................................. 4-27 4.3.3 Discount Rate ................................................................................................. 4-28 4.3.4 Electricity Price Trends ..................................................................................4-29 4.4 PAYBACK PERIOD METHODOLOGY ..................................................................4-30 4.5 RESULTS OF THE LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS ..4-30 CHAPTER 5. NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ...........................................................5-1 5.1 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS CALCULATION ..................................................5-1 5.2 NET PRESENT VALUE CALCULATION .................................................................5-3 5.3 INPUTS TO THE NES AND NPV CALCULATIONS ................................................ 5-5 5.3.1 Shipments ......................................................................................................... 5-5 5.3.1.1 Historical Shipments ..........................................................................5-5 5.3.1.2 Projected Shipments ........................................................................... 5-6 5.3.1.3 Product Class Market Shares and Project Shipments by Product Class5-7 5.3.2 Unit Electricity Consumption and Consumer Retail Prices ..............................5-10 5.3.2.1 Weighted-Average Unit Electricity Consumption and Per-Unit Consumer Retail Price for Baseline, 15 percent less energy, and 25 percent less energy Products ...............................................................5-10 5.3.2.2 Base Case and Standards Case Market Shares ..................................5-11 5.3.2.3 Base Case and Standards Case Unit Electricity Consumption and Consumer Retail Prices ................................................................................... 5-14 5.3.3 Product Lifetime ............................................................................................. 5-22 5.3.4 Electricity Price .............................................................................................. 5-22 5.3.5 Site-to-Source Energy Conversion Factors ......................................................5-23 5.3.6 Discount Rate ................................................................................................. 5-24 5.3.7 Analysis Period ..............................................................................................5-25 5.4 NES AND NPV RESULTS ........................................................................................5-25 CHAPTER 6

. MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS ...............................................6-1 6.1 IMPACT ON FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE ............................................................ 6-1 6.1.1 Conversion Costs .............................................................................................. 6-1 6.1.2 Profitability ......................................................................................................6-2 6.1.3 Impact on Export Sales .............................................................. .......................6-3 6.2 IMPACT ON U.S. PRODUCTION AND JOBS ...........................................................6-3 6.2.1 Industry Consolidation ...................................................................................... 6-4 6.3 IMPACT ON PRODUCT UTILITY AND INNOVATION ..........................................6-4 6.4 CUMULATIVE BURDEN ..........................................................................................6-5 6.4.1 Existing Energy Efficiency Standard for. Refrigerator-Freezers ......................... 6-6 6.4.2 Insulation Blowing Agent Phase Out ................................................................6-7 6.4.3 Energy Conservation Standards for Other Products Made by the Manufacturers of Refrigerator-Freezers ............................................................6-7 6.4.4 State Energy Conservation Standards ................................................................6-7 6.4.5 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 .........................................................................6-7 6.4.6 International Energy Efficiency Regulations ..................................................... 6-9 6.4.7 Waste Disposal and Recycling Requirements ....................................................6-9

ii 

# #4.7 4.3.1.2 Electricity Prices

..............................................................................4-27 4.3.2 ProductLifetime

.............................................................................................4-27 4.3.3 Discount Rate

.................................................................................................4-28 4.3.4 Electricity Price Trends

..................................................................................4-29 4.4 PAYBACK PERIOD METHODOLOGY

..................................................................4-30 4.5 RESULTS OF THELIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS

..4-30 

### CHAPTER 5. NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ...........................................................5-1 5.1 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS CALCULATION

..................................................5-1 5.2 NET PRESENT VALUE CALCULATION

.................................................................5-3 5.3 INPUTS TO THENES AND NPV CALCULATIONS

................................................5-5 5.3.1 Shipments

.........................................................................................................5-5 5.3.1.1 Historical Shipments

..........................................................................5-5 5.3.1.2 Projected Shipments

...........................................................................5-6 5.3.1.3 Product Class Market Shares and Project Shipments by Product Class5-7 5.3.2 Unit Electricity Consumption and Consumer Retail Prices

..............................5-1O 5.3.2.1 Weighted-Average Unit Electricity Consumption and Per-Unit Consumer Retail Price for Baseline, 15 percent less energy, and 25 percent less energy Products

...............................................................5-10 5.3.2.2 Base Case and Standards Case Market Shares

..................................5-11 5.3.2.3 Base Case and Standards Case Unit Electricity Consumption and Consumer Retail Prices

...................................................................................5-14 5.3.3 ProductLifetime

.............................................................................................5-22 5.3.4 Electricity Price

..............................................................................................5-22 5.3.5 Site-to-Source Energy Conversion Factors

......................................................5-23 5.3.6 Discount Rate

.................................................................................................5-24 5.3.7 Analysis Period

..............................................................................................5-25 5.4 NES AND NPV RESULTS

........................................................................................5-25 

### CHAPTER 6. MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS...............................................6-1 6.1 IMPACT ON FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

............................................................6-1 6.1.1 Conversion Costs

..............................................................................................6-1 6.1.2 Profitability

......................................................................................................6-2 6.1.3 Impact on Export Sales

.....................................................................................6-3 6.2 IMPACT ON U.S. PRODUCTION AND JOBS

...........................................................6-3 6.2.1 Industry Consolidation

......................................................................................6-4 6.3 IMPACT ON PRODUCT UTILITY AND INNOVATION

..........................................6-4 6.4 CUMULATIVE BURDEN

..........................................................................................6-5 6.4.1 Existing Energy Efficiency Standard for Refrigerator-Freezers

.........................6-6 6.4.2 Insulation Blowing Agent Phase Out

................................................................6-7 6.4.3 Energy Conservation Standards for Other Products Made by the Manufacturers ofRefrigerator-Freezers

............................................................6-7 6.4.4 State Energy Conservation Standards

................................................................6-7 6.4.5 The Energy Policy Act of2005

.........................................................................6-7 6.4.6 International Energy Efficiency Regulations

.....................................................6-9 6.4.7 Waste Disposal and Recycling Requirements

....................................................6-9

ii

# #4.
6.4.8 Restriction of Hazardous Substances ..............................................................6-10 6.4.9 Microwave Oven Radio Frequency Emission Regulations ..............................6-11 6.4.10 Arc-Fault Protection for Window Air-Conditioning Unit Power Cords ...........6-11 6.4.11 Flammable Vapor Resistance Standard for Water Heaters ..............................6-11 6.4.12 Water Factor Standards for Clothes Washers ..................................................6-11 6.4.13 Indoor Air Quality Regulations for Ranges and Ovens....................................6-12 6.4.14 Impact of Cumulative Burden on Small Manufacturers...................................6-12 APPENDIX A. ARAM DATA SUBMITTAL REQUEST ............................................... A-i APPENDIX B. CONSUMER RETAIL PRICE DATASET: SUMMARY DATA AND

REGRESSION ANALYSIS DETAILS................................................... B-i APPENDIX C. DETAILS OF FOCUSED MATCHED PAIRS ...................................... C-i APPENDIX D. MANUFACTURER INTERVIEW GUIDE ........................................... D-i

111 

# #4.7 6.4.8 Restriction ofHazardous Substances

..............................................................6-10 6.4.9 Microwave Oven Radio FrequencyEmission Regulations

..............................6-11 6.4.10 Arc-Fault Protection for Window Air-Conditioning Unit Power Cords

...........6-11 6.4.11 Flammable Vapor Resistance Standard for Water Heaters

..............................6-11 6.4.12 Water Factor Standards for Clothes Washers

..................................................6-11 6.4.13 Indoor Air Quality Regulations for Ranges and Ovens

....................................6-12 6.4.14 Impact ofCumulative Burden on Small Manufacturers

...................................6-12 APPENDIX A. AHAM DATA SUBMITTAL REQUEST...............................................A-1 APPENDIX B. CONSUMER RETAIL PRICE DATASET: SUMMARY DATA AND REGRESSION ANALYSIS DETAILS................................................... B-1 APPENDIX C. DETAILS OF FOCUSED MATCHED PAIRS ...................................... C-1 APPENDIX D. MANUFACTURER INTERVIEW GUIDE ...........................................D-1

iii

### LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1. Energy Consumption of Residential Refrigeration Equipment ................................2-1 Table 2-2. Residential Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freezer Unit Shipment Data ...................2-2 Table 2-3. Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer, and Freezer Energy Efficiency Standards .........2-3 Table 2-4. Maximum UEC Values for Refrigerator-Freezers with Different Specifications ..... 2-4 Table 3-1. TSD Energy Use Calculations ................................................................................3-1 Table 3-2. DOE 1995 TSD Manufacturing Cost Analysis Summary (1992$) ..........................3-4 Table 3-3. Incremental Manufacturing Costs for Top-Mounted Refrigerator-Freezers without Through-the-Door Features .............................................................................................. 3-5 Table 3-4. Incremental Manufacturing Costs for Side-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers with Through-the-Door Features .............................................................................................. 3-5 Table 3-5. Comparison of 1995 TSD and AHAM Manufacturing Cost Premium Estimates ....3-6 Table 4-1. Baseline Retail Prices: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service ................................................................................................ 4-13 Table 4-2. Baseline Retail Prices: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service ............................................................................................................. 4-14 Table 4-3. Incremental Manufacturing Costs: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service ............................................................................. 4-14 Table 4-4. Incremental Manufacturing Costs: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service ..................................................................................4-14 Table 4-5. Manufacturer-to-Consumer Markups for Refrigerator-Freezers ............................4-15 Table 4-6. Manufacturing Cost-Based Incremental Retail Prices: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service ..........................................................4-15 Table 4-7. Manufacturing Cost-Based Incremental Retail Prices: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service ...............................................................4-15 Table 4-8. Regression Analysis Results on the Incremental Retail Price of Energy Star ........4-16Table 4-9. Regression Analysis Incremental Retail Prices: Refrigerator-Freezers with TopMount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service ..................................................................4-18Table 4-10. Regression Analysis Incremental Retail Prices: Refrigerator-Freezers with SideMount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service .......................................................................4-18 Table 4-11. Comparison of Matched Pairs: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service ........................................................................................4-22 Table 4-12. Comparison of Matched Pairs: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service ..............................................................................................4-22 Table 4-1.3. Freezer-Volume-to-Total-Refrigerated-Volume: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service ..........................................................4-24 Table 4-14. Freezer-Volume-to-Total-Refrigerated-Volume: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service ...............................................................4-24 Table 4-15. Adjusted Total Volumes: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service ................................................................................................ 4-25 Table 4-16. Adjusted Total Volumes: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service ..................................................................................................... 4-25 Table 4-17. Annual Electricity Consumption: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service ............................................................................. 4-26

iv 

# #4.7 LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Energy Consumption ofResidential Refrigeration Equipment..

..............................2-1 Table 2-2. Residential Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freezer Unit Shipment Data

...................2-2 Table 2-3. Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer, and FreezerEnergyEfficiency Standards

.........2-3 Table 2-4. Maximum DEC Values for Refrigerator-Freezers with Different Specifications

.....2-4 Table 3-1. TSDEnergy Use Calculations

................................................................................3-1 Table 3-2. DOE 1995 TSD Manufacturing Cost Analysis Summary (1992$)

..........................3-4 Table 3-3. IncrementalManufacturing Costs for Top-Mounted Refrigerator-Freezers without Through-the-DoorFeatures

.......................................................................:......................3-5 Table 3-4. IncrementalManufacturing Costs for Side-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers with Through-the-DoorFeatures

..............................................................................................3-5 Table 3-5. Comparison of 1995 TSD and AHAM Manufacturing Cost Premium Estimates

....3-6 Table 4-1. Baseline Retail Prices: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

................................................................................................4-13 Table 4-2. Baseline Retail Prices: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTDIce Service

.............................................................................................................4-14 Table4-3. IncrementalManufacturing Costs: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TID Ice Service

.............................................................................4-14 Table 4-4. IncrementalManufacturing Costs: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

..................................................................................4-14 Table 4-5. Manufacturer-to-Consumer Markups for Refrigerator-Freezers

............................4-15 Table 4-6. Manufacturing Cost-Based Incremental Retail Prices: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

..........................................................4-15 Table 4-7. Manufacturing Cost-Based Incremental Retail Prices: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

...............................................................4-15 Table 4-8. Regression Analysis Results on the Incremental Retail Price ofEnergy Star

........4-16 Table 4-9. Regression Analysis Incremental Retail Prices: Refrigerator-Freezers with TopMount Freezer and without TID Ice Service

..................................................................4-18 Table 4-10. Regression Analysis Incremental Retail Prices: Refrigerator-Freezers with SideMount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

.......................................................................4-18 Table 4-11. Comparison ofMatched Pairs: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

........................................................................................4-22 Table 4-12. Comparison ofMatched Pairs: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

..............................................................................................4-22 Table 4-13. Freezer-Volume-to-Total-Refrigerated-Volume: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

..........................................................4-24 Table 4-14. Freezer-Volume-to-Total-Refrigerated-Volume: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

...............................................................4-24 Table 4-15. Adjusted Total Volumes: Refi:igerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

................................................................................................

### 4-25 Table 4-16. Adjusted Total Volumes: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

.....................................................................................................4-25 Table 4-17. Annual ElectlicityConsumption: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

.............................................................................4-26

iv

# #4.7

Table 4-18. Annual Electricity Consumption: Refrigerator

-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service ..................................................................................4-26 Table 4-19. Average Residential Retail Price of Electricity, 2000-2003 ................................4-27 Table 4-20. After

-Tax Real Interest or Return Rates for Household Debt and Equity Types..4-29 Table 4

-21. Consumer Retail Price and Retail Price Increases : Refrigerator

-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service ..........................................................4-32 Table 4-22. First-Year and Lifetime Electricity Costs and Electricity Cost Savings: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service ................4-32 Table 4-23. LCC, LCC Savings, and Payback Periods: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service ..........................................................4-32 Table 4-24. Consumer Retail Price and Retail Price Increases : Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service ...............................................................4-33 Table 4-25

. First-Year and Lifetime Electricity Costs and Electricity Cost Savings: Refrigerator

-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service.....................4-33 Table 4-26. LCC, LCC Savings, and Payback Periods: Refrigerator

-Freezers with SideMount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service .......................................................................4-33 Table 5-1. Historical Refrigerator

-Freezer Shipments .............................................................5-5 Table 5-2. Projected Refrigerator

-Freezer Shipments ..............................................................5-7 Table 5-3. Market Share of Refrigerator

-Freezer Product Classes

........................................... 5-8 Table 5-4. Refrigerator

-Freezer Shipments Used in the Analysis

............................................. 5-9 Table 5-5

. Weighted

-Average UECs and Retail Prices: Refrigerator

-Freezers with TopMount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service ..................................................................5-10 Table 5-6. Weighted

-Average UECs and Retail Prices: Refrigerator-Freezers with SideMount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service .......................................................................5-10 Table 5-7. Market Share of Baseline and Current Energy Star Refrigerator

-Freezers

............. 5-11 Table 5-8. Standards Case Market Share Scenarios : Refrigerator

-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service ............................................................................. 5-12 Table 5-9. Standards Case Market Share Scenarios : Refrigerator

-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service ..................................................................................5-13 Table 5-10. Base Case and Standards Case Average UECs for New Product Shipments: Refrigerator

-Freezers with Top

-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service ................5-15 Table 5-11. Base Case and Standards Case Average UECs for New Product Shipments: Refrigerator

-Freezers with Side

-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service.....................5-17 Table 5-12. Base Case and Standards Case Average Per-Unit Consumer Retail Prices for New Product Shipments : Refrigerator

-Freezers with Top

-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service .............................................................................................................5-19 Table 5-13. Base Case and Standards Case Average Per-Unit Consumer Retail Prices for New Product Shipments : Refrigerator

-Freezers with Side

-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service .............................................................................................................5-21 Table 5-14. Historical and Forecasted Electricity Prices ........................................................5-23 Table 5-15. Site-to

-Source Conversion Factors .....................................................................5-24Table 5-16. National Energy Savings and Net Present Value of Standards for RefrigeratorFreezers with Top

-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service & with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service (2010

-2035) ............................................................. 5-26 Table 6-1. Estimated Investments and Expenses to Reach Various Efficiency Levels, from 1993 Standard Levels .......................................................................................................6-6

V 

# #4.7
Table 4-18. AnnualElectricity Consumption: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

..................................................................................4-26 Table 4-19. Average Residential Retail Price ofElectricity, 2000-2003

................................4-27 Table 4-20. After-Tax Real Interest orReturn Rates for Household Debt and Equity Types

..4-29 Table 4-21. Consumer Retail Price and Retail Price Increases: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TID Ice Service

..........................................................4-32 Table 4-22. First-Year and Lifetime Electricity Costs and Electricity Cost Savings: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

................4-32 Table 4-23. LCC, LCC Savings, and PaybackPeriods: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-MountFreezer and without TID Ice Service

..........................................................4-32 Table 4-24. Consumer Retail Price and Retail Price Increases: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

...............................................................4-33 Table 4-25. First-Year and Lifetime Electricity Costs and Electricity Cost Savings: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

.....................4-33 Table 4-26. LCC, LCC Savings, and Payback Periods: Refrigerator-Freezers with SideMount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

.......................................................................4-33 Table 5-1. Historical Refrigerator-Freezer Shipments

.............................................................5-5 Table 5-2. Projected Refrigerator-Freezer Shipments

..............................................................5-7 Table 5-3. Market Share ofRefrigerator-Freezer Product Classes

...........................................5-8 Table 5-4. Refrigerator-Freezer Shipments Used in the Analysis

.............................................5-9 Table 5-5. Weighted-Average UECs and Retail Prices: Refrigerator-Freezers with TopMount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

..................................................................5-10 Table 5-6. Weighted-Average UECs and Retail Prices: Refrigerator-Freezers with SideMount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

.......................................................................5-10 Table 5-7. Market Share ofBaseline and Current Energy Star Refrigerator-Freezers

.............5-11 Table 5-8. Standards Case Market Share Scenarios: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

.............................................................................5-12 Table 5-9. Standards Case Market Share Scenarios: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

..................................................................................5-13 Table 5-10. Base Case and Standards Case Average UECs for New Product Shipments: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

................5-15 Table 5-11. Base Case and Standards Case Average UECs for New Product Shipments: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

.....................5-17 Table 5-12. Base Case and Standards Case Average Per-Unit Consumer Retail Prices for New Product Shipments: Refrigerator-Freezers withTop-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

.............................................................................................................5-19 Table 5-13. Base Case and Standards Case Average Per-Unit Consumer Retail Prices for New Product Shipments: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

.............................................................................................................5-21 Table 5-14. Historical and ForecastedElectricity Prices

........................................................5-23 Table 5-15. Site-to-Source Conversion Factors

.....................................................................5-24 Table 5-16. National Energy Savings and Net Present Value ofStandards for RefrigeratorFreezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service & with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service (2010-2035)

.............................................................5-26 Table 6-1. Estimated Investments and Expenses to Reach Various Efficiency Levels, from 1993 Standard Levels

.......................................................................................................6-6

vTable

-2.Product and Equipment Measures Overview ............................................................6-8

Table 6-3. Refrigerator

-Freezer Tax Incentives .......................................................................6-8 Table B

- 1. Variable Statistics for Basic Side-Mount and Top-Mount Refrigerator

-Freezers. B-1 Table B

-2. Details of the "Long" Regression Analysis to determine the Energy Star Retail

Price Increment: Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers ............................................. B-2 Table B

-3. Details of the "Long" Regression Analysis to determine the Energy Star Retail

Price Increment: Side-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers

............................................ B-3 Table C

- l. Top

-Mount Refrigerator-Freezer Matched Pairs ................................................. C-2 Table C-2. Side-Mount Refrigerator

-Freezer Matched Pairs ................................................. C-6

vi 

# #4.7 Table 6-2.Product and Equipment Measures Overview

............................................................6-8 Table 6-3. Refrigerator-Freezer Tax Incentives

.......................................................................6-8 Table B-1. Variable Statistics for Basic Side-Mount and Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers. B-1 Table B-2. Details ofthe "Long" Regression Analysis to determine the Energy Star Retail Price Increment: Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers

............................................. B-2 Table B-3. Details ofthe "Long" Regression Analysis to determine the Energy Star Retail Price Increment: Side-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers

............................................ B-3 Table C-L Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezer Matched Pairs

................................................. C-2 Table C-2. Side-Mount Refrigerator-Freezer Matched Pairs

................................................. C-6

vi

# #4,7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4-1. Illustration of LCC for Baseline and Standards ...................................................4-10 Figure 4-2. Flow Diagram of Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis .........................4-11 Figure 4-3. Sales by Retail Price: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer................4-12 Figure 4-4. Sales by Retail Price: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer ...............4-13 Figure 4-5. Retail Prices for Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service .............................................................................................................4-19 Figure 4-6. Retail Prices for Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service .....................................................................................................................4-20 Figure 4-7. Forecasted Electricity Prices ...............................................................................4-29 Figure 4-8. Life-Cycle Costs: Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers without TTD Ice Service 4-34 Figure 4-9. Life-Cycle Costs: Side-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers with TTD Ice Service........4-34 Figure 5-1. Flow Diagram of National Energy Savings Calculation ........................................5-2 Figure 5-2. Flow Diagram of Net Present Value Calculation ...................................................5-4 Figure 5-3. Projection of Refrigerator-Freezer Shipments to 2035...........................................5-6 Figure 5-4. Base Case and Standards Case Average UECs for New Product Shipments: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service ................5-16 Figure 5-5. Base Case and Standards Case Average UECs for New Product Shipments: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service.....................5-18 Figure 5-6. Base Case and Standards Case Average Per-Unit Consumer Retail Prices for New Product Shipments: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service .............................................................................................................5-20 Figure 5-7. Base Case and Standards Case Average Per-Unit Consumer Retail Prices for New Product Shipments: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service .............................................................................................................5-22Figure 5-8. National Energy Savings from Standards for Refrigerator-Freezers with TopMount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service & with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service .............................................................................................................5-26 Figure 5-9. Net Present Value from Standards for Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service & with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service ........................................................................................................................... 5-27

vii 

# #4.7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4-1. Illustration ofLCC for Baseline and Standards

...................................................4-10 Figure 4-2. Flow Diagram ofLife-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

.........................4-11 Figure 4-3. Sales by Retail Price: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer.

...............4-12 Figure 4-4. Sales by Retail Price: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer

...............4-13 Figure 4-5. Retail Prices for Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

.............................................................................................................4-19 Figure 4-6. Retail Prices for Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

.....................................................................................................................4-20 Figure 4-7. ForecastedElectricity Prices

...............................................................................4-29 Figure 4-8. Life-Cycle Costs: Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers without TTD Ice Service

....4-34 Figure 4-9. Life-Cycle Costs: Side-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers with TTD Ice Service

........4-34 Figure 5-1. Flow Diagram ofNational Energy Savings Calculation

........................................5-2 Figure 5-2. Flow Diagram ofNet Present Value Calculation

...................................................5-4 Figure 5-3. Projection ofRefrigerator-Freezer Shipments to 2035

...........................................5-6 Figure 5-4. Base Case and Standards Case Average UECs for New Product Shipments: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

................5-16 Figure 5-5. Base Case and Standards Case Average UECs for New Product Shipments: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

.....................5-18 Figure 5-6. Base Case and Standards Case Average Per-Unit Consumer Retail Prices for New Product Shipments: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

.............................................................................................................5-20 Figure 5-7. Base Case and Standards Case Average Per-Unit Consumer Retail Prices for New Product Shipments: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

.............................................................................................................5-22 Figure 5-8. National Energy Savings from Standards for Refrigerator-Freezers with TopMount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service & with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

.............................................................................................................5-26 Figure 5-9. Net Present Value from Standards for Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service & with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

...........................................................................................................................5-27

vii

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of the analysis contained in this report is to provide the Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) with updated information to use in scheduling a new amended standards rulemaking for refrigerator-freezers in the 2006 appliance standards schedule setting process. Congress initially established conservation standards for refrigerators-freezers that became effective in 1990. The Department amended the standards with new standards that went into effect in 1993, followed by the current amended standards that went into effect in 2001. This analysis examines the technological and economic feasibility of new amended standards setat existing Energy Star levels for the two most popular product classes of refrigerators: topmount refrigerator-freezers without through-the-door features and side-mount refrigeratorfreezers with through-the-door features. This technical report contains six chapters: Introduction Market and Technology Assessment Engineering Analysis Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis National Impact Analysis Manufacturer Impact Analysis The executive summary provides an overview of the analysis and results presented in Chapter 2 through Chapter 6 of this report. Recently, Congress and the President passed and signed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005). This report summarizes some of the energy-efficient product provisions in EPACT 2005, but does not attempt to project the impact of these new provisions. Market and Technology Assessment Chapter 2 of this report presents the results of the market and technology assessment. Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (including compact refrigerators) currently have an installed base in the United States of 183 million units and, collectively, have estimated national annual energy consumption in 2004 of over one quad. Two product classes represent a large proportion of total product shipments: (1) refrigerator-freezers with top-mount freezers and without through-the-door (TTD) service and (2) refrigerator-freezers with side-mount freezers and with TDD service. Consequently, the Department's assessment in this technical report focuses on these top-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers product classes. Table ES-1 shows the unit energy consumption (UEC) of typically-sized top-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers. UECs are shown based on current DOE energy efficiency standards as well as those that correspond to existing voluntary efficiency programs, including Energy Star, the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), and the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE).

ES-1 

# #4.7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose ofthe analysis contained in this report is to provide the Department of Energy (DOE orthe Department) with updated information to use in scheduling a new amended standards rulemaking for refrigerator-freezers in the 2006 appliance standards schedule setting process. Congress initially established conservation standards for refrigerators-freezers that became effective in 1990. The Department amended the standards with new standards that went into effect in 1993, followed by the current amended standards that went into effect in 2001. This analysis examines the technological and economic feasibility ofnew amended standards set at existing Energy Starlevels for the two most popularproduct classes ofrefrigerators: topmount refrigerator-freezers without through-the-door features and side-mount refrigeratorfreezers with through-the-door features. This technical report contains six chapters:

• Introduction • Market and Technology Assessment • Engineering Analysis • Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis • National Impact Analysis • Manufacturer Impact Analysis The executive summary provides an overview ofthe analysis and results presented in Chapter 2 through Chapter 6 ofthis report. Recently, Congress and the President passed and signed into law the Energy Policy Act of2005 (EPACT 2005). This report summarizes some ofthe energy-efficient productprovisions in EPACT 2005, but does not attempt to project the impact ofthese new provisions. Market and Technology Assessment Chapter 2 ofthis report presents the results ofthe market and technology assessment. Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (including compact refrigerators) currently have an installed base in the United States of 183 million units and, collectively, have estimated national annual energy consumption in 2004 ofover one quad. Two product classes represent a large propOltion oftotalproduct shipments: (1) refrigerator-freezers with top-mount freezers and without through-the-door (TTD) service and (2) refrigerator-freezers with side-mount freezers and with TDD service. Consequently, the Department's assessment in this technical report focuses on these top-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers product classes. Table ES-l shows the unit energy consumption (UEC) oftypically-sized top-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers. UECs are shown based on current DOE energy efficiency standards as well as those that correspond to existing voluntary efficiency programs, including Energy Star, the FederalEnergy Management Program (FEMP), and the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE).

ES-l

# ®7
Table ES-i. Maximum UEC Values for Refrigerator

-Freezers with Different Specifications

DOE Efficiency Standard 486 671 FEMP 460 620 Current Energy Star (15% decrease) 413 570 CEE Tier 1 (20% decrease) 389 537 CEE Tier 2 (25% decrease) 364 503 CEE Tier 3 (30% decrease) 340 -469 * Auto defrost, no through-the-door features, 18.2 Cu. ft. total volume, and 21.4 Cu. ft. adjusted volume. ** Auto defrost, through-the-door features, 21.7 cu. ft. total volume, and 26.2 cu. ft. adjusted volume.
Technologies used to increase the energy efficiency of refrigerator-freezers include: highefficiency compressors; variable-capacity compressors; high-efficiency evaporator and condenser fans; high-efficiency evaporator and condenser fan motors; eliminating thermal shorts; improved door face frame/gasket design; smart defrost technology; added cabinet insulation; lower-conductivity insulation; and vacuum panel insulation.

Engineering Analysis Chapter 3 of this report presents the engineering analysis. The engineering analysis addressed the design changes and the added manufacturing cost of producing more efficient refrigerator-freezers. The Department analyzed two energy use reduction standard levels: (1) a product with 15 percent less annual energy consumption than a product meeting current energy conservation standards and (2) a product with 25 percent less annual energy consumption. Refrigerator-freezers with 15 percent less energy consumption correspond to products meeting current Energy Star requirements. Refrigerator-freezers with 25 percent less energy consumption correspond to products meeting potential future Energy Star levels, assuming new minimum efficiency standards are set at existing Energy Star levels. The manufacturing cost assessment for the two improved efficiency levels primarily relies upon information from three sources: • The Department's initial review of the DOE 1995 Technical Support Document (TSD); Industry-average data collected in May 2005, from refrigerator manufacturers by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (ARAM) and provided to DOE; and • Information provided by individual refrigerator manufacturers during interviews. Analysis focused on top

-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers, the two most popular product classes.

ES-2 

# #4.7
Table ES-l. Maximum VEC Values for Refrigerator-Freezers with Different Specifications

413 389 537 364 503 

### * Auto defrost, no through-the-door features, 18.2 cu. ft. total volume, and 21.4 cu. ft. adjusted volume. 

### ** Auto defrost, through-the-door features, 21.7 cu. fL total volume, and 26.2 cu. ft. adjusted volume.
Technologies used to increase the energy efficiency ofrefrigerator-freezers include: highefficiency compressors; variable-capacity compressors; high-efficiency evaporator and condenser fans; high-efficiency evaporator and condenser fan motors; eliminating thermal shorts; improved door face frame/gasket design; smart defrost technology; added cabinet insulation; lower-conductivity insulation; and vacuumpanel insulation.

Engineering Analysis Chapter 3 ofthis report presents the engineering analysis. The engineering analysis addressed the design changes and the added manufacturing cost ofproducing more efficient refrigerator-freezers. The Depmtment analyzed two energy use reduction standard levels: (1) a product with 15 percent less annual energy consumption than a product meeting current energy conservation standards and (2) a product with 25 percent less annual energy consumption. Refrigerator-freezers with 15 percent less energy consumption correspondto products meeting CUlTent Energy Star requirements. Refrigerator-freezers with 25 percent less energy consumption correspond to products meeting potential future Energy Starlevels, assuming new minimum efficiency standards are set at existing Energy Star levels. The manufacturing cost assessment for the two improved efficiency levels primarily relies upon information from three sources:

• The Department's initialreview ofthe DOE 1995 Technical Support Document (TSD);

• Industry-average data collected in May 2005, from refrigerator manufacturers by the Association ofHorne Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) and provided to DOE; and

• Informationprovided by individualrefrigerator manufacturers during interviews. Analysis focused on top-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers, the two most popular product classes.

ES-2Achieving 15 percent energy use reduction can be done with many typical refrigeratorfreezers through the use of higher-efficiency components. In order to achieve 25 percent energy use reduction, significant cabinet load reduction is generally required, leading to entire redesign of the units. While these changes are typical for many products, in many cases achieving the targeted energy use can be more difficult, thus leading to more drastic changes for 15 percent reduction and/or making redesign for 25 percent reduction impractical. The manufacturing costs of achieving 15 percent and 25 percent energy use reductions for typical 18.2 cu. ft. top-mount and 21.7 cu. ft. side-mount refrigerator-freezers, as reported in the 1995 TSD (DOE 1995) and by the AHAM 2005 data collection effort, are summarized in Table ES-2. The average AHAM cost premiums are production volume-weighted averages.

Table ES-2. 1995 TSD and AHAM Manufacturing Cost Estimates 15% Reduction (current Energy Star) Note 1 1995 TSD Cost Premium [$1992] $26 $40 2005 AHAM Cost Premium (min.-avg.-max.) $8 - $17 - $400 $5-$27-$95 25% Reduction Note 2 1995 TSD Cost Premium [$1992] No data $53 2005 AHAM Cost Premium (min.-avg.-max.) $18 - $54 - $141 $6 - $126 - $219 * Auto defrost, no through-the-door features, 18.2 cu. ft. total volume, and 21. 4 cu. ft. adjusted volume ** Auto defrost, through-the-door features, 21.7 cu. ft. total volume, and 26.2 cu. ft. adjusted volume. Note 1: The energy use of this design package for the TSD cost premium estimate is 2 percent above Energy Star. Note 2: The energy use of this design package for the TSD cost premium is 1 percent above the energy use target.
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis Chapter 4 presents the life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) analysis. The LCC and PBP analysis provide the Department with information on the economic impact of potential energy conservation standards on consumers for refrigerator-freezers with 15 percent less annual energy consumption than baseline products as well as refrigerator-freezers with 25 percent less annual energy consumption than the baseline product. The Department calculated the LCC by adding the consumer retail price for the refrigerator-freezer, plus lifetime electricity costs (discounted and summed over the life of the refrigerator-freezer). The analysis compares the LCC of baseline products and more-efficient products. The Department also calculated the PBP, which is the ratio of the increase in consumer retail price due to a potential standard divided by the annual savings in electricity cost savings. The Department calculated consumer retail prices based on the incremental manufacturing costs determined from the engineering analysis as well as from a regression analysis of price data from a large dataset of refrigerator-freezer sales data. Table ES-3 and Table ES-4 show the consumer retail prices of top-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers, respectively. Note that the retail prices based on the regression analysis were determined only at the 15 percent less energy use level. 

# #4.7 Achieving 15 percent energy use reduction canbe done with many typical refrigeratorfreezers through the use ofhigher-efficiency components. Inorderto achieve 25 percent energy usereduction, significant cabinet load reduction is generallyrequired, leading to entireredesign ofthe units. While these changes are typical for manyproducts, in many cases achieving the targeted energy use canbe more difficult, thus leading to more drastic changes for 15 percent reduction and/or making redesign for 25 percentreduction impractical. The manufacturing costs ofachieving 15 percent and 25 percent energyuse reductions for typical 18.2 cu. ft. top-mount and 21.7 cu. ft. side-mount refrigerator-freezers, as reported in the 1995 TSD (DOE 1995) and by the AHAM 2005 datacollection effort, are summarized in Table ES-2. The average AHAM costpremiums are production volume-weighted averages. TableES-2. 1995 TSD and AHAM Manufacturing Cost Estimates**:;:~~%** ;:',</a , 

# I 1'op-Motfiit 

### * 

# I " Side-Mount 

### **", 15%Reduction (current Energy Star) Note 1 1995 TSD Cost Premium [$1992] $26 $40 2005 AHAM Cost Premium (min.-avg.-max.) $8

- $17

- $400 $5

- $27

- $95 25% Reduction Note 2 1995 TSD Cost Premium [$1992] No data $53 2005 AHAM Cost Premium (min.-avg.-max.) $18

- $54

- $141 $6

- $126

- $219 

### * Auto defrost, no through-the-door features, 18.2 cu. ft. total volume, and 21.4 cu. ft. adjusted volume 

### ** Auto defrost, through-the-door features, 21.7 cu. ft. total volume, and 26.2 cu. ft. adjusted volume. Note 1: The energy use ofthis design package for the TSD cost premium estimate is 2 percent above Energy Star. Note 2: Theenergy use ofthis design package for the TSD cost premium is 1percent above the energy use target. Life-Cycle Cost and PaybackPeriod Analysis Chapter 4 presents the life-cycle cost (LCC) and paybackperiod (PBP) analysis. The LCC and PBP analysis provide the Department with information onthe economic impact of potential energy conservation standards on consumers for refrigerator-freezers with 15 percent less annual energy consumption thanbaselineproducts as well as refrigerator-freezers with 25 percent less annual energy consumption than the baseline product. The Department calculated the LCC by adding the consumer retail price for the refrigerator-freezer, plus lifetime electricity costs (discounted and summed over the life ofthe refrigerator-freezer). The analysis compares the LCC ofbaseline products and more-efficient products. The Department also calculatedthe PBP, which is theratio ofthe increase in consumer retail price due to apotential standard divided by the annual savings in electricity cost savings. The Department calculated consumerretail prices based on the incremental manufacturing costs determined from the engineering analysis as well as from a regression analysis ofprice data from a large dataset ofrefrigerator-freezer sales data. Table ES-3 and Table ES-4 show the consumerretail prices oftop-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers, respectively. Notethat the retailprices based onthe regression analysis were determined only at the 15 percent less energyuse level.

ES-3

# #4®7

Table ES-3. Consumer Retail Price and Retail Price Increases: Refrigerator-Freezers with

Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service 21-22 cu. ft. Mfg. t6s^Based 

### -51 r F " j. ^' II RETAIL PRICE (2005$) Baseline $329 $386 $457 15% less energy $345 $367 $381 $356 $402 $420 $1186 $434 $477 '`$499 $531 $520 25% less energy $457 $704 $1047 NA $422 $494 $668 NA $537 $613 $735 NA RETAIL PRICE INCREASE (2005$) 15% less energy $16 $38 $52 $28 $16 $35 $800 $49 $20 $42 $74 $63 25% less energy $128 $376 $718 NA $36 $108 $282 NA $80 $157 $278 NA
Table ES-4. Consumer Retail Price and Retail Price Increases: Refrigerator-Freezers with

Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

_.. ^

• 1 ".t t i tW, 27-30 cu. ft.

. 77 UML M ll x. min-T Avg. RETAIL PRICE (2005$) Baseline $702 $789 $926 15% less energy $712 $756 $892 $750 $799 $824 $999 $855 $10081 $1110 $1136 $1014 25% less energy $714 $955 $1140 NA $849 $988 $1399 NA Insufficient Data NA RETAIL PRICE INCREASE (2005$) 15% less energy $10 $54 $190 $47 $10 $35 $210 $66 $82 $184 $210 $88 25% less energy $12 $253 $438 NA $60 $199 $610 NA Insufficient Data NA

Table ES-5 and ES-6 show the LCCs, LCC savings, and PBPs for the 15 percent and 25 percent less energy use standard levels for top-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers. LCC presented in these tables is based on a discount rate of 6.7 percent and product lifetime of 19 years. Table ES-5. LCC, LCC Savings, and Payback Periods: Refrigerator

-Freezers with TopMount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service 

# MIT" L ",-MAR ) 

# " F X,
LCC (2005$) Baseline $754 $849 $951 15% less energy $706 $729 $742 $718 $795 $814 $1579 $828 $897 $919 $951 $940 25% less energy $776 $1023 $1366 NA $769 $841 $1015 NA $907 $984 $1105 NA LCC SAVINGS (2005$) 15% less energy $48 $26 $12 $36 $53 $35 (`S73 1) $21 $54 $32 $0 $11 25% less energy $22) ($269) (`'612) NA $80 $8 'S i (S NA $43 ($33) ($155) NA PAYBACK PERIOD (years) 15% less energy 2.9 6.9 9.5 5.0 2.7 5.8 133.9 8.1 3.1 6.7 11.6 10.0 25% less energy 14.0 41.1 78.5 NA 3.6 10.9 28.3 NA 7.5 14.7 26.2 NA

ES-4 Table ES-3. ConsumerRetail Price and Retail Price Increases: Refrigerator-FreezerS}With Top-Mount Freezer and withoutTTD Ice Service

Table ES-4. ConsumerRetail Price and Retail Price Increases: Refrigerator-FreezersWith Side-MountFreezerand with TTD Ice Service

Table ES-5 and ES-6 show the LCCs, Lee savings, and PBPs for the 15 percent and 25 percent less energy use standard levels for top-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers. Lee presented in these tables is based on a discount rate of6.7 percent and product lifetime of 19 years.

Table ES-S. LCC, LCC Savings, and PaybackPeriods: Refrigerator-Freezers with TopMount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service
"" !&¢ 

### (j**~?~ 4""~**  14-1'icp.. ft>0 "**~ ~;;** **~ 'llf~**  '2**18-20lbt~" ~**  21-22 cu. ft ');:i**~0** Regress.; Regress.- Mfg. Cost-Based**Reg~ss- ~1%**  x 0**,,~** Min. Avg.**~lMin. ~**  Based "0 Min. Avg. 

## Max. Based Min. Avg. Max. Based**~** LCC (2005$) Baseline $754 $849 $951 15% less energy $706 

## I $729 

## I $742 

## I $718 $7951 $814 

## I$1579 

## I $828 $8971 $919 

## I$951 

## I $940 25% less energy $776 

## I $1023 

## I $1366 

## I NA $7691 $841 

## I$1015 

## I NA $9071 $984 1$11051 

### NA LCC SAVINGS (2005$) 15% less energy $48 

## I $26 

## I $12 

## I $36 

## II $53 

## I $35 

## I($731) 

## I $21 $54 

## I $32 

## I $0 

## I $11 25% less energ}' ($22) 

## I ($269) 

## I (1;612) 

## I NA $80 

## I $8 

## I 'S"(, 

## I (,; hn) 

### NA $43 

## I ($33) 1($[55)1 

### NA PAYBACK PERIOD (years) 15% less energy 2.9 

## I 6.9 

## I 9.5 

## I 5.0 2.7 

## I 5.8 

## I 133.9 

## I 8.1 3.1 

## I 6.7 

## I 11.6 

## I 10.0 25% less energy 14.0 

## I 41.1 

## I 78.5 

## I NA 3.6 

## I 10.9 

## I 28.3 

## I NA 7.5 

## I 14.7 1 26

.2 

## I NA

ES-4

# #4o7

Table ES-6. LCC, LCC Savings, and Payback Periods: Refrigerator

-Freezers with SideMount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

Baseline $1338 $1463 $1641 15% less energy $1253 $1296 $1433 $1290 $1372 $1398 $1572 $1428 $1615 $1717 $1743 $1621 25% less energy $1191 $1432 $1617 NA $1355 $1494 $1905 NA Insufficient Data NA LCC SAVINGS (2005$) 15% less energy $85 $42 (S95) $48 $91 $66 (5.109) $35 $25 ($77) ($.103) $19 25% less energy $147 ($94) ($279) NA $109 ($31) ($4.41) NA Insufficient Data NA PAYBACK PERIOD (years) 15% less energy 1.2 6.6 23.2 5.8 1.1 4.1 24.1 7.6 8.9 19.9 22.8 9.6 25% less energy 0.9 18.5 32.1 NA 4.1 13.7 42.1 NA 1 1 Insufficient Data NA

Reviewing the results of the LCC and PBP analysis, the Department identified the following: • With certain exceptions, LCC savings are generally realized at the 15 percent less energy use standard level; • With certain exceptions, LCC savings are not achieved at the 25 percent less energy use standard level; • With certain exceptions, PBPs of less than half the lifetime of the product are realized at the 15 percent less energy use standard level; and • With certain exceptions, PBPs exceed well over half the lifetime of the product at the 25 percent less energy use standard level.

National Impact Analysis Chapter 5 presents the national impact analysis, consisting of the determination of national energy savings (NES) and national net present value (NPV) from an energy conservation (or efficiency) standard that would require refrigerator-freezers to use 15 percent less energy than current baseline models. For purposes of this analysis, the Department assumed the effective date of such a standard would be the year 2010. The Department calculated the NES and NPV based on an analysis period of 2010 through 2035. In preparing this analysis, the Department found that the most critical input to the national impact analysis is the market share of future Energy Star products. For a new amended energy conservation standard set at current Energy Star levels (i.e., 1.5 less energy consumption), the Department assumed the future Energy Star level has 25 percent less energy consumption than current baseline products. Because it is difficult to forecast the market share of products once a new standard becomes effective, the Department analyzed the following two market share scenarios: (1) a No Future Energy Star scenario where 100 percent of the market is assumed to be at the new standard level (which is equivalent to the current Energy Star level), and (2) a

ES-5 

# #4.7
Table ES-6. 

## Lee, Lee Savings, and Payback Periods: Refrigerator-Freezers with SideMount Freezerand with TTD Ice Service

Reviewing the results ofthe LCC and PBP analysis, the Department identified the following:

• With certain exceptions, LCC savings are generallyrealized at the 15 percentless energy use standard level; • With certain exceptions, LCC savings are not achieved at the 25 percent less energy use standard level; • With certain exceptions, PBPs ofless than halfthe lifetime ofthe product are realized at the 15 percent less energy use standard level; and • With certain exceptions, PBPs exceed well over halfthe lifetime ofthe product at the 25 percent less energy use standard level.

National Impact Analysis Chapter 5 presents the national impact analysis, consisting ofthe determination of national energy savings (NES) and national net present value (NPV) from an energy conservation (or efficiency) standard that would require refrigerator-freezers to use 15 percent less energy than current baseline models. For purposes ofthis analysis, the Department assumed the effective date ofsuch a standard would be the year 2010. The Department calculated the NBS and NPVbased on an analysis period of2010 through 2035. In preparing this analysis, the Department found that the most critical input to the national impact analysis is the market share offuture Energy Starproducts. For a new amended energy conservation standard set at current Energy Star levels (i.e., 15 less energy consumption), the Department assumed the future Energy Starlevel has 25 percent less energy consumption than current baseline products. Because it is difficult to forecast the market share ofproducts once a new standard becomes effective, the Department analyzed the following two market share scenarios: (1) a No Future Energy Star scenario where 100 percent ofthe market is assumed to be at the new standard level (which is equivalent to the current Energy Star level), and (2) a

ES-5

# #4®7

Current Energy Star scenario where market shares of current and future Energy Star are assumed to be equivalent to the market shares of current baseline and current Energy Star products. Table ES-7 summarizes the NES and NPV results. Results of the national impact analysis are provided for the two standards case scenarios (No Future Energy Star and CurrentEnergy Star), the two retail price estimates (manufacturing cost-based or regression analysisbased), and the two discount rates (three percent and seven percent real) considered for the national impact analysis. Because the Department could not use the regression analysis to generate prices for products with 25 percent less energy consumption, regression analysis-based retail prices are applicable only to the No Future Energy Star scenario.For the No Future Energy Star standards case scenario, the NES due to standards for topmount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers are 2.4 quads of primary energy (1.1 quads from topmount refrigerator-freezers and 1.3 quads from side-mount refrigerator-freezers). For the Current Energy Star standards case scenario, the savings are 3.4 quads of primary energy (1.3 quads from top-mount refrigerator-freezers and 2.1 quads from side-mount refrigerator-freezers). The NPV of standards depends on the scenario, the retail price estimate, and the discount rate. For a discount rate of three percent real, both standards case scenarios have a positive NPV. The NPV of the No Future Energy Star scenario is $10.1 billion with manufacturing cost-based retail prices and $8.0 billion with regression-based retail prices. The NPV of the Current Energy Star scenario is $3.3 billion. For a discount rate of seven percent real, the No Future Energy Star scenario still yields a positive NPV, $3.3 billion with manufacturing cost-based prices and $2.2 billion with regression-based prices, but the NPV under the Current Energy Star scenario becomes negative at -$1.2 billion. The Current Energy Star scenario yields the greatest energy savings because of the assumed market share of future Energy Star products. But because of the significant retail price increase associated with future Energy Star products, the NPV of the Current Energy Star scenario is significantly lower than the NPV of the No Future Energy Star scenario.

Table ES-7. National Energy Savings and Net Present Value of Standards forRefrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service & with SideMount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service (2010-2035)
_1 r 1 1 I ` .. NPV , J1 e S Mfg. Cost 3 2 4 $4.0 $6.0 $10.1 No Future Energy tar 1.1 1.

. Regress. 3% $3.3 $4.7 $8.0 Current Energy Star Mfg. Cost 1.3 2.1 3.4 $2.4 $0.9 $3.3

E St N F t Mfg. Cost 1 1 1 3 2 4 $1.3 $2.0 $3.3 ure nergy ar u o . . . Regress. 7% $0.9 $1.3 $2.2 Current Energy Star ! Mfg. Cost 1.3 2.1 3.4 $0.2 ($1.4) ($1.2) 

# #4.7
Current Energy Star scenario where market shares ofcurrent and future Energy Star are assumed to be equivalent to the market shares ofcurrent baseline and current Energy Starproducts. Table ES-7 summarizes the NES and NPV results. Results ofthe national impact· analysis are provided for the two standards case scenarios (No Future Energy Star and Current Energy Star), the two retail price estimates (manufacturing cost-based orregression analysisbased), and the two discount rates (three percent and seven percent real) considered for the national impact analysis. Because the Department could not use the regression analysis to generate prices for products with 25 percent less energy consumption, regression analysis-based retail prices are applicable only to the No FutureEnergy Star scenario. For the No Future Energy Star standards case scenario, the NES due to standards for topmount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers are 2.4 quads ofprimary energy (1.1 quads from topmount refrigerator-freezers and 1.3 quads from side-mount refrigerator-freezers). Forthe Current Energy Star standards case scenario, the savings are 3.4 quads ofprimary energy (1.3 quads from top-mount refrigerator-freezers and 2.1 quads from side-mount refrigerator-freezers). The NPV ofstandards depends onthe scenario, the retail price estimate, and the discount rate. For a discount rate ofthree percent real, both standards case scenarios have apositive NPV. The NPV ofthe No Future Energy Star scenario is $10.1 billion with manufacturing cost-based retail prices and $8.0 billion withregression-based retail prices. The NPV ofthe CurrentEnergy Star scenario is $3.3 billion. For a discount rate ofseven percent real, the No FutureEnergy Star scenario still yields a positive NPV, $3.3 billion with manufacturing cost-basedprices and $2.2 billion with regression-based prices, but the NPV under the Current Energy Star scenario becomes negative at -$1.2billion. The Current Energy Star scenario yields the greatest energy savings because ofthe assumed market share offuture Energy Starproducts. But because ofthe significant retail price increase associated with future Energy Starproducts, the NPV ofthe Current Energy Star scenario is significantly lower than the NPV ofthe No Future Energy Star scenario.

Table ES-7. National Energy Savings and NetPresent Value ofStandardsfor Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-MountFreezer and without TTD Ice Service & with SideMount Freezerand with TTD Ice Service (2010-2035)

ES-6Manufacturer Impact Analysis Chapter 6 presents the Department's assessment of the impact of regulations on U.S. manufacturers of refrigerator-freezers. The Department carried out a preliminary evaluation of the impact of potential new regulations on manufacturer financial performance, domestic refrigerator-freezer manufacturing capacity and employment levels, and product utility and innovation. A primary focus was to identify the cumulative burden that industry faces from the overlapping effect of new or recent DOE standards and/or other regulatory action affecting the same product or industry. The primary sources of information for this evaluation were the structured interviews conducted in 2005 with manufacturers of refrigerator-freezers. The Department received manufacturers' views on what they perceived to be the possible impact of potential new amended standards on their future profitability, especially in the context of the current standards, which have only been in effect since 2001. As stated by manufacturers, new amended energy efficiency standards have the potential to impact financial performance in several different ways. The capital investment needed to upgrade or redesign products and product platforms before they have reached the end of their useful life can require conversion costs that otherwise would not be expended, resulting in stranded investments. In addition, higher efficiency standards can result in higher per-unit costs that may deter some customers from buying higher-margin units with more features, thereby decreasing manufacturer profitability. Manufacturers stated that the prospect of product redesign as a result of new amended standards penalizes established manufacturers and alters the playing field for entry to the market by new competitors who do not carry debt burdens from recent investments in new product lines. In their view, this can decrease the relative barrier to entry of competitors into the market, which can increase market competition, reduce incumbent manufacturer profitability, and decrease U.S.-based production. Typically, in the absence of new energy efficiency regulations, a refrigerator-freezer production line would have a life cycle of approximately 15 to 20 years. During that period, manufacturers would not make major product changes that altered the underlying platforms. Thus, a standard that took effect and resulted in a major product platform redesign before the end of the platform's life would cannibalize a portion. of the earlier capital investments. Based on discussions with manufacturers, most have made significant capital investments to meet the DOE efficiency standard levels that took effect in 2001 and a new standard that required platform changes could strand assets before the end of their useful life. The 1995 TSD estimated the capital conversion costs for the 2001 standard at approximately 725 million dollars. Based on the interviews, this figure is low by a factor of two compared to the actual level of investment by the refrigerator-freezer industry in the years leading up to and immediately following the 2001 standards implementation. It must be noted, however, that not all of these costs can be attributed to efficiency standards since the platform changes entailed other product enhancements and cost reduction initiatives. The Department asked manufacturers what level of conversion costs they anticipated if a new efficiency standard required a 15 percent reduction in unit energy consumption relative to the current standard. The level of expected conversion costs varied widely between manufacturers, depending on such factors as the energy performance of their current products, whether their current products could achieve the 15 percent reduction via component-level

ES-7 

# #4.7 ManufacturerImpact Analysis Chapter 6presents the Department's assessment ofthe impact ofregulations onU.S. manufacturers ofrefrigerator-freezers. The Department carried out a preliminary evaluation of the impact ofpotential new regulations on manufacturer financial performance, domestic refrigerator-freezer manufacturing capacity and employment levels, and product utility and innovation. A primary focus was to identify the cumulative burden that industry faces from the overlapping effect ofnew orrecent DOE standards and/or otherregulatory action affecting the same product orindustry. Theprimary sources ofinformation for this evaluation were the structured interviews conducted in 2005 with manufacturers ofrefrigerator-freezers. The Department received manufacturers' views on what they perceived to be the possible impact ofpotential new amended standards on their future profitability, especially in the context ofthe current standards, whichhave only been in effect since 2001. As stated by manufacturers, new amended energy efficiency standards have the potentialto impact financial performance in several different ways. The capital investment needed to upgrade orredesign products and product platforms before they have reached the end oftheir useful life canrequire conversion costs that otherwise would not be expended, resulting in stranded investments. In addition, higher efficiency standards canresult in higher per-unit costs that may deter some customers from buying higher-margin units with more features, thereby decreasing manufacturer profitability. Manufacturers stated that the prospect ofproduct redesign as a result ofnew amended standards penalizes established manufacturers and alters theplaying field for entry to the market by new competitors who do not carry debt burdens fromrecent investments in new product lines. In their view, this can decrease the relative barrier to entry ofcompetitors into the market, which can increase market competition, reduce incumbent manufacturer profitability, and decrease U.S.-based production. Typically, in the absence ofnew energy efficiency regulations, a refrigerator-freezer production line would have a life cycle ofapproximately 15 to 20 years. During thatperiod, manufacturers would not make major product changes that altered the underlying platforms. Thus, a standard that took effect and resulted in a major product platformredesign before the end ofthe platform's life would cannibalize a portion ofthe earlier capital investments. Based on discussions with manufacturers, most have made significant capital investments to meet the DOE efficiency standard levels that took effect in 2001 and a new standard that required platform changes could strand assets before the end oftheir useful life. The 1995 TSD estimated the capital conversion costs for the 2001 standard at approximately 725 million dollars. Based on the interviews, this figure is low by a factor oftwo compared to the actual level ofinvestment by the refrigerator-freezer industry in the years leading up to and immediately following the 2001 standards implementation. It must be noted, however, that not all ofthese costs can be attributed to efficiency standards since the platform changes entailed other product enhancements and cost reduction initiatives. The Department asked manufacturers what level ofconversion costs they anticipated ifa new efficiency standard required a 15 percent reduction in unit energy consumptionrelative to the current standard. The level ofexpected conversion costs varied widely between manufacturers, depending on such factors as the energy performance oftheir current products, whether their current products could achieve the 15 percent reduction via component-level

ES-7

# #4,7

modifications or needed platform modifications, and the extent to which manufacturers expected to upgrade their platforms to allow for a future Energy Star level. At a minimum, a typical manufacturer would need to spend approximately 30 million dollars if no platform redesigns were needed. More likely, some manufacturers would need some level of platform redesign to reach a 15 percent improvement, particularly when the investments are taken in the context of future Energy Star levels. The potential for costs on the order of several hundred million dollars exists if even a single major manufacturer's product platforms undergo a full redesign. When asked to quantify the investments engendered by a 25 percent efficiency improvement, manufacturers referred to the investment level required by the 2001 standard and gave estimates totaling well over one billion dollars. Several manufacturers indicated that a new standard level. would cause existing pressures on margins and profitability to increase because only a limited portion of customers are willing to pay more for energy efficiency. Manufacturers believe that they could not pass on to customers all of the cost increases required to meet the standard, since historically, the appliance industry has not been able to recoup standards-induced capital costs in prices. Manufacturers reported that industry margins have actually decreased over time, since large manufacturers are willing to reduce margins to increase volumes because they need certain volumes to operate efficiently. In addition, several manufacturers noted that a new energy-efficiency standard would facilitate the entry of foreign competitors into the U.S. market. Without a new standard, a new manufacturer would need to make large capital investments to build production capacity, - - investments that existing manufacturers would not need to make. In the case of a new standard, however, most manufacturers would need to carry out product platform redesigns for some of their products to meet the new standard. This would neutralize much of the cost advantage from existing infrastructure that current manufacturers have relative to new, foreign-based manufacturers. Over the past several years, some refrigerator-freezer manufacturers have moved a portion of their production out of the U.S., primarily driven by concerns about profitability and the opportunity for lower labor costs. Mexico is the most common location for both U.S. and foreign manufacturers to establish new production capacity to serve the U.S. refrigerator-freezer market, as it offers low labor rates (relative to the U.S.) and proximity to the U.S. market. Based on information obtained through the interviews, the Department estimates that approximately 25 percent of all residential refrigerator-freezers sold in the U.S. are manufactured in Mexico and that this portion is likely to increase within a few years. Manufacturers indicated they anticipate that new standards would accelerate the trend to manufacture refrigerator-freezers outside of the country. Amended standards may alter the rate at which refrigerator-freezer production is moved to Mexico because if manufacturers need to make large capital investments to produce redesigned product platforms, they have strong financial. incentives to invest in a location with lower labor costs. Given manufacturers' perceived need to offer Energy Star products, a new standard that requires a 15 percent reduction in unit energy may initiate the platform changes necessitating investment levels that would accelerate relocation of U.S. based manufacturing to Mexico 

# #4.7
modifications or needed platformmodifications, and the extent to which manufacturers·expected to upgrade their platforms to allow for a future Energy Starlevel. At a minimum, a typiCal manufacturer would need to spend approximately 30 million dollars ifno platform**redes~gns** were needed. Morelikely, some manufacturers would need some level ofplatformredesign to reach a 15 percent improvement, particularly when the investments are taken inthe context of future Energy Star levels. Thepotential for costs on the orderofseveral hundred million dollars exists ifeven a single major manufacturer's product platforms undergo a full redesign. When asked to quantify the investments engendered by a 25 percent efficiency improvement, manufacturers referred to the investment levelrequired by the 2001 standard and gave estimates totaling well over one billion dollars. Several manufacturers indicated that a new standard level would cause existingpressures onmargins and profitabilityto increase because only a limited portion ofcustomers are willing to pay more for energy efficiency. Manufacturersbelieve that they could not pass onto customers all ofthe cost increases required to meet the standard, since historically, the appliance industry has not been able to recoup standards-induced capital costs inprices. Manufacturers reported that industry margins have actually decreased over time, since large manufacturers are willing to reduce margins to increase volumes because they need certain volumes to operate efficiently. In addition, several manufacturers noted that a new energy-efficiency standard would facilitate the entry offoreign competitors into the U.S. market. Without a new standard, a new manufacturer would need to make large capital investments to build productioncapacity,

-- investments that existing manufacturers would not need to make. Inthe case ofa new standard, however, most manufacturers would need to carry out product platformredesigns for some of their products to meet the new standard. This would neutralize much ofthe cost advantage from existing infrastructure that current manufacturers have relative to new, foreign-based manufacturers. Over the past several years, some refrigerator-freezer manufacturers have moved a portion oftheir production out ofthe U.S., primarily driven by concerns about profitability and the 0ppOltunity for lower labor costs. Mexico is the most common location for both U.S. and foreign manufacturers to establish new production capacity to serve the U.S. refrigerator-freezer market, as it offers low labor rates (relative to the U.S.) and proximityto the U.S. market. Based oninformation obtained through the interviews, the Department estimates that approximately 25 percent ofall residential refrigerator-freezers sold in the U.S. are manufactured inMexico and that this portion is likely to increase within a few years. Manufacturers indicated they anticipate that new standards would accelerate the trend to manufacture refrigerator-freezers outside ofthe country. Amended standards may alter the rate at whichrefrigerator-freezer production is moved to Mexico because ifmanufacturers need to make large capital investments to produce redesigned productplatforms, they have strong financial incentives to invest in a location with lower labor costs. Given manufacturers' perceived need to offer Energy Starproducts, a new standard that requires a 15 percent reduction in unit energy may initiate the platformchanges necessitating investment levels that would acceleraterelocation ofU.S. based manufacturing to Mexico

ES-8When assessing the benefits and burdens of a potential revision of product energy

standard levels, the Department considers the regulatory burden that will impact the manufacturers of the product at or around the time the new standards would come into effect. Based on its own research and discussions with manufacturers, the Department identified several existing or pending regulations relevant to residential refrigerators, including: ® Existing energy efficiency standard for refrigerator-freezers ® Insulation blowing agent phase out Energy efficiency standards for other products made by the same manufacturers ® State energy efficiency standards ® International energy efficiency standards ® Waste disposal and recycling requirements
Complying with these regulations requires that corporations invest both human and capital resources. In addition to the above, provisions of the recent Energy Policy Act of 2005 may have some impact on manufacturers; particularly the State consumer rebates for Energy Star productsand the federal manufacturer tax incentives. This report summarizes some of the energyefficient product provisions in EPACT 2005, but does not attempt to project the impact of these new provisions. 

# #4.7
When assessing the benefits and burdens ofa potentialrevision ofproduct energy standard levels, the Department considers the regulatory burdenthat will impact the manufacturers ofthe product at oraround the time the new standards would corne into effect. Based onits ownresearch and discussions with manufacturers, the Department identified several existing orpending regulations relevant to residential refrigerators, including:

• Existing energy efficiency standard for refrigerator-freezers • Insulationblowing agent phase out • Energy efficiency standards for other products made by the same manufacturers • State energy efficiency standards • International energy efficiency standards • Waste disposal andrecycling requirements
Complying withthese regulations requires that corporations invest bothhuman and capital resources. In addition to the above, provisions ofthe recentEnergy Policy Act of2005 may have some impact on manufacturers; particularlythe State consumerrebates for Energy Starproducts and the federal manufacturertax incentives. This report summarizes some ofthe energyefficient productprovisions in EPACT 2005, but does not attempt to project the impact ofthese new provisions.

ES-9

### CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Congress initially established standards for residential refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers that became effective in 1990. The Department amended the standards with new standards that went into effect in 1993, followed by the current amended standards that went into effect in 2001. In April 2005, the Department granted a petition to conduct a rulemaking on new amended standards for residential refrigerator-freezers, based on meeting petition criteria set forth at 42 U.S.C. § 6295(n). However, the granting of the petition creates no presumption with respect to the Secretary's determination of whether a rulemaking meets the more rigorous criteria for amending standards. Since the Department's most recent analytical data is now ten years old (1995 TSD), the Department decided to conduct some limited new analyses to provide the Secretary of Energy with current information to use in scheduling a rulemaking on amending refrigerator-freezers standards in the 2006 appliance standards schedule setting process. This analysis examines the technological and economic feasibility of new standards set at existing Energy Star levels for the two most popular product classes of refrigerators: top-mount refrigerator-freezers without through-the-door features and side-mount refrigerator-freezers with through-the-door features. Because these two product classes account for over 85 percent of current product shipments, the Department confined its updated analysis to these two classes. This report contains chapters on the following analyses:• Market and Technology Assessment - Assesses the current U.S. market of refrigeratorfreezers and identifies and assesses technologies for reducing refrigerator-freezer annual energy consumption. An assessment and status of the current test procedure is also provided. • Engineering Analysis - Determines the incremental manufacturing cost of achieving annual energy use reductions of 15 and 25 percent relative to baseline products (i.e., products meeting current minimum efficiency standards). The 15 percent less energy use level corresponds to existing Energy Star levels. The 25 percent less energy use level corresponds to expected future Energy Star levels assuming new standards are set at existing Energy Star levels. • Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis - Determines the life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and payback periods of more efficient products based on: (1) incremental manufacturing costs determined from the Engineering Analysis and (2) incremental consumer retail prices from a regression analysis performed on a large data set of refrigerator sales data. • National Impact Analysis - Determines the national energy savings (NES) and consumer net present value (NPV) of new standards set at existing Energy Star levels. Because the NES and NPV are dependent on the market share of expected future Energy Star products, results are provided for two market share scenarios; (1) no future Energy Star

1-1 

# #4.7 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Congress initially established standards for residentialrefrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers that became effective in 1990. The Department amended the standards:with new standards that went into effect in 1993, followed by the current amended standards that went into effect in 2001. In April 2005, the Department granted a petition to conduct a rulemaking orihew amended standards for residential refrigerator-freezers, based on meeting petition criteria set forth at 42 U.S.C. § 6295(n). However, the granting ofthe petition creates no presumption with respect to the Secretary's determination ofwhether a ru1emaking meets the more rigorous criteria for amending standards. Since the Department's most recent analytical data is now ten years old (1995 TSD), the Department decided to conduct some limited new analyses to provide the Secretary ofEnergy with current information to use in scheduling a rulemaking on amending refrigerator-freezers standards in the 2006 appliance standards schedule setting process. This analysis examines the technological and economic feasibility ofnew standards set a.texisting Energy Star levels for the two most popular product classes ofrefrigerators: top-mount refrigerator-freezers without through-the-door features and side-mount refrigerator:'freezers with through-the-door features. Because these two product classes account for over 85 percent of cun-ent product shipments, the Department confined its updated analysis to these two classes. This report contains chapters on the following analyses:

• Market and Technology Assessment

- Assesses the cun'ent U.S. market ofrefrigeratorfreezers and identifies and assesses technologies for reducing refrigerator-freezer annual energy consumption. An assessment and status ofthe current test procedure is also provided.

• Engineering Analysis

- Determines the incremental manufacturing cost ofachieving annual energy use reductions of 15 and 25 percent relative to baseline products (i.e., products meeting current minimumefficiency standards), The 15 percent less energy use level corresponds to existing Energy Starlevels. The 25 percent less energy use level corresponds to expected future Energy Starlevels assuming new standards are set at existing Energy Starlevels.

• Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

- Determines the life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and paybackperiods ofmore efficient products based on: (1) incremental manufacturing costs determined from the Engineering Analysis and (2) incremental consumer retail prices from a regression analysis performed on a large data set of refrigerator sales data.

• National Impact Analysis

- Determines the national energy savings (NES) and consumer net present value (NPV) ofnew standards set at existing Energy Starlevels. Because the NES and NPV are dependent onthe market share ofexpected future Energy Star products, results are provided for two market share scenarios; (1) no future Energy Star

1-1products and (2) future Energy Star product market shares equal to current market shares of existing Energy Star products. Manufacturer Impact Analysis - Determines the qualitative impacts to manufacturers of new standards set at existing Energy Star levels. 

# #4.7 products and (2) future Energy Starproduct market shares equal to current market shares ofexisting Energy Starproducts.

• Manufacturer Impact Analysis

- Determines the qualitative impacts to manufacturers of new standards set at existing Energy Star levels.

1-2

# #®7

CHAPTER 2. MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

2.1 MARKET ASSESSMENT Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers are major household appliances designed for the refrigerated storage of food products. In 2001, 96 percent of households had at least one refrigerator or refrigerator-freezer. A refrigerator consists of a refrigerated cabinet designed for the refrigerated storage of food at temperatures above 0°C (32°F) and below 3.9°C (39°F), configured for general refrigerated food storage, and having a source of refrigeration requiring single phase, alternating current electric energy input only. A refrigerator may include a compartment for the storage of food at temperatures below 0°C (32°F), but does not provide a separate low temperature compartment designed for freezing and storage of food at temperatures below -13.3°C (8°F). A refrigerator-freezer is a cabinet which consists of at least one compartment designed for the refrigerated storage of food at temperatures above 0°C (32°F) and at least one other compartment designed for the freezing and storage of food at temperatures below -13.3°C (8°F). Top and bottom refrigerator-freezers have a horizontal partition between the freezer and refrigerator sections, with the freezer located above and below the refrigerator section, respectively. In contrast, side-mount units have a vertical partition between the freezer and refrigerator sections, with one on the right and the other on the left side of the unit. A freezer consists of a cabinet for the storage and freezing of foods at -17.8°C (0°F) or below. Compact refrigerators are defined by the DOE as having less than a 7.75 cubic foot capacity and 36 inches or less in height. The sales of compact refrigerators have increased appreciably in the last several years. While most seem to be sold to residential consumers, significant amounts are also prevalent in non-residential applications such as hotels, dormitories and offices. Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers account for about 83 percent of the annual energy consumption (AEC) and 78 percent of the installed base of residential refrigeration products (see Table 2-1).'

Table 2- 1. Energy Consumption of Residential Refrigeration Equipment Installed Base (millions) Refrigerators & Refrigerator-Freezers Freezers Compact Refrigerators Source: DOE FY-2005 Priority Setting TSD. 0.86 0.14 0.04 142

Based on data from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM),refrigerator-freezer shipments are much greater than refrigerator shipments.2 In addition, topmount and bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers historically have had approximately twice the sales volume of side-mount products (see Table 2-2). 

# #4.7 CHAPTER 2. MARKET AND TECHNOLOGYASSESSMENT

2.1 MARKET ASSESSMENT Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers are majorhousehold appliances designed for the refrigerated storage offood products. In 2001, 96 percent ofhouseholds had at least one refrigerator orrefrigerator-freezer. A refrigerator consists ofa refrigerated cabinetdesigned for the refrigerated storage offood at temperatures above O°C (32°F) and below 3.9°C (39°F), configured for general refrigerated food storage, and having a source ofrefrigerationrequiring single phase, alternating current electric energy input only. A refrigerator mayinclude a compartment for the storage offood at temperatures below O°C (32°F), but does notprovide a separate low temperature compartment designed for freezing and storage offood attemperatures below -13.3°C (8°F). A refrigerator-freezer is a cabinet which consists ofat least one compartment designed for therefrigerated storage offood at temperatures above O°C (32°F) and at least one other compartment designed for the freezing and storage offood attemperatures below -13.3°C (8°F). Top and bottomrefrigerator-freezers have a horizontalpartitionbetween the freezer and refrigerator sections, with the freezer located above and below therefrigerator section, respectively. In contrast, side-mount units have a vertical partitionbetweenthe freezer and refrigerator sections, with one onthe right and the otheron the left side ofthe unit. A freezer consists ofa cabinet for the storage and freezing offoods at -17.8°C (O°F) or below. Compact refrigerators are defined by the DOE as having less than a 7.75 cubic foot capacityand 36 inches or less in height. The sales ofcompactrefrigerators have increased appreciably in the last several years. While most seemto be sold to residential consumers, significant amounts are also prevalent in non-residential applications such as hotels, dormitories and offices. Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers account for about 83 percent ofthe annual energy consumption (AEC) and 78 percent ofthe installed base ofresidential refrigerationproducts (see Table 2_1).1 

### Table 2-1. Energy Consumption ofResidential Refrigeration Equipment Eguipment**lJJypl~Jw'** 

# II'" .1;00 ;/**,,~ ~**  

## I 

# all AEC (quads) 

# "(_It Installed Base (millions) Refrigerators & Refrigerator-Freezers 0.86 142 Freezers 0.14 29 Compact Refrigerators 0.04 12 Source: DOE FY-2005 Pnonty SettmgTSD.

Based on datafrom the Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), refrigerator-freezer shipments are much greaterthanrefrigerator shipments. 2 In addition, topmount and bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers historically have had approximately twice the sales volume ofside-mount products (see Table 2-2).

2-1Table 2-2. Residential Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freezer Unit Shipment Data

2004 164,614 6,925,454 3,832,129 2003 180,128 6,383,096 3,457,797 2002 61,880 6,488,361 3,194,103 2001 36,245 6,283,725 2,985,467 2000 33,151 6,297,553 2,885,902 1999 46,662 6,252,716 2,799,194 1998 75,535 6,077,185 2,624,970 Source: ARAM. Consequently, the Department's assessment in this document focuses on top-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers because they account for a very large percentage of both installed base and AEC.

2.2 ENERGY PERFORMANCE Refrigerator-freezer energy consumption is influenced by both mandatory and voluntary performance standards. Annual unit energy consumption (UEC) must fall below minimum levels established by DOE, which took effect in 2001.3 The energy standards apply to refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with a total refrigerated volume of less than 1104 liters (39 cubic feet) and to freezers with a total refrigerated volume of less than. 850 liters (30 cubic feet). The mandated UEC's depend on product class and adjusted volume. Compact refrigerators and freezers represent separate product classes and have a volume less than 220 liters (7.75 cubic feet) and a height of 0.91 meters (36 inches) or less. The adjusted volume is equal to the fresh food internal volume plus 1.63 times the freezer internal volume. The energy standards are summarized in Table 2-3 below. 

# #4.7
Table 2-2. Residential Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freezer Unit Shipment Data \Year 2004 164,614 6,925,454 3,832,129 2003 180,128 6,383,096 3,457,797 2002 61,880 6,488,361 3,194,103 2001 36,245 6,283,725 2,985,467 2000 33,151 6,297,553 2,885,902 1999 46,662 6,252,7l6 2,799,194 1998 75,535 6,077,185 2,624,970 Source: AHAM. Consequently, the Department's assessment in this document focuses on top-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers because they account for a very large percentage ofboth installed base and 

### ABC.

2.2 ENERGY PERFORMANCE Refrigerator-freezer energy consumption is influencedby both mandatory and voluntary performance standards. Annual unit energyconsumption (UEC) must fall below minimum levels established byDOE, which took effect in 2001.3 The energy standards apply to refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with a total refrigerated volume ofless than 1104 liters (39 cubic feet) and to freezers with a total refrigerated volume ofless than 850 liters (30 cubic feet). The mandated DEC's depend onproduct class and adjusted volume. Compact refrigerators and freezers represent separate product classes and have a volume less than 220 liters (7.75 cubic feet) and a height of0.91 meters (36 inches) or less. The adjusted volume is equalto the fresh food internal volume plus 1.63 times the freezer internal volume. The energy standards are summarized in Table 2-3 below.

2-2

# #4®7

Table 2-3. Refrigerator, Refrigerator

-Freezer, and Freezer Energy Efficiency Standards

F du: t class Ene ;, soda s equaio :r fcrmaxiiai enerr use {vela Ef`ei,_
E.82r'AV+246

0.7f av+24E.4 E. 2A' s+24E:4 0, 2.f av+24E:»

ser .icratcr Freezers

- ^ - r def c si h : _ + in =a rreri 7, "`efr;, sratcr-Freezer=- - efr _t h is_,r_.fntedfreezexaanh

AV: Adjusted Volume in cubic feet av: Adjusted Volume in liters +355 ,^r+355 {I:42=i'f+5:01

+2 4 v+5_ C ?a+r+2B4 14.c x'+391 11 04".416D C av+160 C4: t+299+ C. ?7.-.v+328, 1 C.C A J+355, C ^,--3f5

1 ;±2!34` 2 av+2x44"
1 ':.04 :41 dD 0_'_'ra'i+1r0 0:2aav+276.0

4.01,' tV+507.5 0-47av+507.5 4:80AV+45P.0 CL"8ava-=zSG.U I D.2v-A^:+3"

00.0 G 38av+35£cG 10.10AV+40C0 C Hav+4D5.t0 7 5SAV+251.3 G.27av+255.3 12:43A11+1126-1 0.44au+32e.1 P.GEAJ+143. 7 C.2tiav+143.7 1 0.70AV+2@@.0 0_283v+29@:0 7:0GAV+3AC.0 015av+39E.0 12.70-N!+355.0 0.45av+355.0 7.8DAV+801.0 C.27av+5D 1:a: 1 i.10&V+38?.0 C.4Bav+387.0 P 70AV+250.8 C.HW4-25_18 11.4DAV+391.0 C.403v+3A1.0 1 C.45AV+t 520

K. 0

Much of the technical discussion in this report focuses on top-mount refrigerator-freezers without through-the-door features and side-mount refrigerator-freezers with through-the-door features, since these two product classes make up a very large proportion of the overall market. Furthermore, the Department focused on a top-mount with 18.2 total internal volume (21.4 cu. ft. adjusted volume) and a side-mount with 21.7 total internal volume (26.2 cu. ft. adjusted volume). These refrigerator-freezer sizes are typical for their product classes and were selected for detailed analysis as part of the 1995 TSD. In addition to mandatory standards, there are voluntary efficiency programs, including Energy Star, the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), and the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE). Table 2-4 presents maximum unit energy consumption (UEC) values for theDOE standard and the three aforementioned voluntary standards for a top- mount refrigeratorfreezer with auto defrost and no through-the-door features and a side-mount refrigerator freezer with through-the-door features, with 21.4 cu. ft. and 26.2 cu. ft. adjusted volumes, respectively. Energy Star specifies annual energy use reduction targets of 15 percent for standard size refrigerator-freezers. The Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) identifies three tier levels

2-3 

# #;4.7
Table 2-3. Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer, and Freezer Energy Efficiency Standards

Product class

i. ReirigErators lind lRefTjgerailzf4'reezers

### wm !mlnIJaJ as-cst

..........___................._............__.............. 2..**f1~atc.-FreeZEr--il'3r1iaJ** a'JiIoolatic defrost

............................................................................................. 3.**R~ab:lf-FreeZEfS-i'i'J!;OO1l1i!ic**defrost vlllh tojH11lY4nted freezerwitllout**:throuWA~** ice ser
.... ioe ·ard all,refrigera.tcrs-.autcmafic defrost

.......................................................................................................... 4. RemgeJaror-Freez'i:rs-.aulomafic d2iicst wiill**Si~lOOl1!e1** freezer**\i'.illw~** 1:hroa

.. l'n·lllls-door**~:re** s.enJice

......._ ......._ ................._ .........._....................................................................................................... 5.**R~atcf-FreeZEf5-il/tIi;OO1a'Jc** defrost w0ih OOItom,mollnieci**~** ,\Ii;lloottrnroogll

.. ihe-tioor**~** 5'Ef!Jice;

.........................................................................................................................._................................................................... e·(.**R~atcr-FreeZErs-ilfJtOO1a1ic**defrost wiih lop.;(llO'Jnt:ci freezerwilll ttn:ot;gh·ltle-do07 ice5€rviCi? 7.**R~ab:lf·FreeZErs-a'iJtnm;;itk** defroEtw'lth side·rncunli?d freezer,.lith through-tiie·oo:x ice service R Upright Freszsrs w!.h Manual Defrost

......................................................................................................................... !l Up:ight FreeZErs wlll**f;JJt~.**Defrost

.......................................... __ ............................................._ .._ 1il ahas1 Freezers:and all .:illerFree:zerseKCiept**c,.~**Freezers

.......................................................... 11. CorrIpact Refrigera!iors andLReftigeralar-Freezers IlMh tiI_al Defrost

................................._ ......_....... 12.. CorrIpaciRi:frige;r;;.i«-Freezef--fPl'r.la! .alrtomalic defirost

........._._.............................................., ......... 13. Compact Reil1igerab:lf

..**F~as-au:tama~J**defrost I'o\!ill**~**freez:", and compact ail

.. reiilg- ·erators-3'3.oo1l1ilcd.,fre,st

..............................................."

.............................................................................................................. 14. O!Jm;:;eaciRefrigerilo£or-Fineezsrs--auiomaoo deftos! 'tlilh sidEHTlOUllt:ci freeZEr

........................................ 1&.**~act Refrigs:;;.~N·Fr~rs-aooDmafic**  defr05:.'1lll1h.bofu:lm-rr.:runied ITeezar

.................................... teo**,)cfl';padlUp~Ff$Zers** wlih Manual Defrost

................._.............._.__............................................... H.**~aci** UprlgihitFrs-=zgs wllh hJtoma'!ic Defrost

......................_ ................................................................ t8. Ocn)j::eaC'l Chest meZErs

............................................................................_................................................................. AV: Adjusted Volume in cubic feet av: Adjusted Volume in liters**~** .lamrll/}' 1. 1Q113 13.5AV+2l}Q G.48a.V+200 1Il4A'IJ+300 {l.37rut-+3GS 1t'dlAV+3!i5· G.51av+3!i5 11.SA\f+5ll1 {L42AV+1lO1 1tl.5/i:V+367**G.5B~7** 17JjAV+3Q1 CLtl2:a.v+3Il:1 1tl.3AV+B27 G.5BaV+527 '111.3/>;"1+264 0J36alt+264 14;QAV+391 (L53aJM.3Q1 1H1AV+l'llU Oc.39alt+ TOO 13Jii\V+2liQo GAaa1l+2liQo 11:i.4AV+3QBo £L37ii1!i1+3W>**1tl.I1AV~** !L57il!1+355> 'l1.BAV+501·

1142«+501- 1MAV+3!!?3 IJ.5Bav+367. 111.3.AV+2.M· 11.36a1l+2.Mo 14;9P,V+39<1·· IHl&III+3Q1. HJQAV+'t6Uo IJ.39a1l+16Uo il!t82AV+24B..t G

..**3~.4** a82'AV+24B.4 O.31av+248.4 !ll8M.V+21fHI !l35av+27ttO**,~t91AV+liffi'.5** (U7mR-507;O 4.6IlAV+45Q;U 0i.16alH45IHI 1Il2OAV+3!i5;0**O~.O** 11111lAV+4UeW

!l3&w+4ll6;O 7.55AV+25B.3 !f27all+25i!l.3 12.-43I\V+326.1**G.~.1** iIl.88AV+143.7 £!i..35av+'f43.7 111.7DAV+-2BQ.iJ**G~.iJ** 1JlIlAV+3I!B;O Oi.2Sav-t3l!S.iJ 127DAV+355.iJ**O~Jl** 1.f!IlAV+5Il1.0 0'27av+li01.0 13JIlAV+3t17

. .n O,4f3av.t367JJ 'fl.78A11+25Il8 G.35all+25ll.8 11.4IlAV+391,0

1}'4f1av+391;0 11l.45AV+-t52JJ

0'.37a11+152.0

Much ofthe technical discussion in this report focuses on top-mount refrigerator-freezers without through-the-door features and side-mountrefrigerator-freezers with through-the-door features, since these two product classes make up a very large propoltion ofthe overall market. Furthermore, the Department focused on a top-mount with 18.2 total internal volume (21.4 cu. ft. adjusted volume) and a side-mount with 21.7 total internal volume (26.2 cu. ft. adjusted volume). These refrigerator-freezer sizes are typical for their product classes and were selectedfor detailed analysis as part ofthe 1995 TSD. In addition to mandatory standards, there are voluntary efficiency programs, including Energy Star, the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), and the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE). Table 2-4 presents maximum unit energy consumption (UEC) values for the DOE standard and the three aforementioned voluntary standards for a top- mount refrigeratorfreezer with auto defrost and no through-the-door features and a side-mount refrigerator freezer with through-the-door features, with 21.4 cu. ft. and 26.2 cu. ft. adjusted volumes, respectively. Energy Star specifies annual energy use reduction targets of 15 percent for standard size refrigerator-freezers. The Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) identifies three tier levels

2-3specifying annual energy use reduction targets of 20, 25, and 30 percent relative to current

minimum efficiency standards (for Tiers 1, 2, and 3). As of July 2005, the Energy Star refrigerators database included 79 refrigerator-freezer models with an adjusted volume of at least 18 cu. ft. that met the CEE Tier 1 performance level and four models that met the CEE Tier 2 performance level.4 Table 2-4. Maximum UEC Values for Refrigerator-Freezers with Different Specifications

DOE Efficiency Standard 486 671 Energy Star (2004)' FEMP 460 620 FEMP (2005) Current Energy Star (15% decrease) 413 570 Energy Star (2004)6 CEE Tier 1 (20% decrease) 389 537 CEE Tier 2 (25% decrease) 364 503 CEE (2004) CEE Tier 3 (30% decrease) 340 469 * Auto defrost, no through-the-door features, 18.2 cu. ft. total volume, and 21.4 cu. ft. adjusted volume. ** Auto defrost, through-the-door features, 21.7 cu. ft. total volume, and 26.2 cu. ft. adjusted volume. Source: DOE FY-2005 Priority Setting TSD.
DOE and Energy Star levels have the greatest impact on products sold, i.e., the DOE standards apply to all products sold and Energy Star units account for approximately 20 percent and 50 percent of top- & bottom-mount and side-mount refrigerator

-freezer units sold, respectively.2

2.3 DESIGN OPTIONS TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCY Refrigerator-freezer energy efficiency can be increased in several ways, including (but not limited to) using the design options listed below. To varying degrees, existing products incorporate one or more of these approaches to meet existing DOE mandatory and other voluntary (e.g., Energy Star) efficiency levels. • Higher-efficiency compressors. Energy Efficiency Ratios (EER's) of compressors used in standard-size refrigerator-freezers can range from about 5 to about 6.1 Btu/hr-W at standard rating conditions. Higher-efficiency compressors use less energy but are also more expensive. • Variable-capacity compressors. Variable-speed compressors operate at a range of speeds in order to allow capacity modulation. They generally use permanent magnet motors and require power electronics to vary the speed. The additional power electronic hardware makes them more expensive. Furthermore, implementation cost can be more expensive, because control of variable-speed compressors requires a more sophisticated control approach, which can require use of electronic control. Energy savings are possible with variable-speed compressors because they operate with reduced mass flow over longer time periods to deliver the same amount of refrigeration as a single-speed unit. The

2-4 

# #4.7 specifying annual energyuse reduction targets of20, 25, and 30 percentrelative to current minimumefficiency standards (for Tiers 1, 2, and 3). As ofJuly 2005, the Energy Star refrigerators database included 79 refrigerator-freezer models with an adjusted volume ofat least 18 cu. ft. that met the CEETier 1 performance level and four models that met the CEETier 2 performance level.4



### Table 2-4. Maximum VEC 

### Values for Refrigerator-Freezers with Different Specifications**!&~** 

# 0./

P 

### _.,**'"~ :~"'&~**  ';co;&#&,,'0'$04£ 

### 'Specification ;: E!**~:}i~:~A'~ ""'~'"**  /"" DOEEffi lClency St d d an ar 486 671 E S (2004) nergy tar FEMP 460 620 FEMP (2005)° Current Energy Star (15% decrease) 413 570 Energy Star (2004)6 CEETier 1 (20% decrease) 389 537 CEETier 2 (25% decrease) 364 503 CEE (2004)7 CEETier 3 (30% decrease) 340 469 

### * Auto defrost, no through-the-door features, 18.2 cu. ft. total volume, and 21.4 cu. ft. adjusted volume. 

### ** Auto defrost, through-the-door features, 21.7 cu. ft. total volume, and 26.2 cu. ft. adjusted volume. Source: DOE FY-2005 Priority SettingTSD.

DOE and Energy Star levels have the greatest impact onproducts sold, i.e., the DOE standards apply to all products sold and Energy Star units account for approximately 20 percent and 50 percent oftop- & bottom-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezer units sold, respectively.2


### 2.3 DESIGN OPTIONS TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCY Refrigerator-freezer energy efficiency canbe increased in several ways, including (but not limited to) using the design options listed below. To varying degrees, existing products incorporate one or more ofthese approaches to meet existing DOE mandatory and other voluntary (e.g., Energy Star) efficiency levels.

• Higher-efficiency compressors. Energy Efficiency Ratios (EER's) ofcompressors used in standard-size refrigerator-freezers canrange from about 5 to about 6.1 BtU/hr-W at standard rating conditions. Higher-efficiency compressors use less energy but are also more expensive.

• Variable-capacity compressors. Variable-speed compressors operate at a range ofspeeds in orderto allow capacity modulation. They generally usepermanent magnet motors and require power electronics to vary the speed. The additional power electronic hardware makes them more expensive. Furthermore, implementation cost can be more expensive, because control ofvariable-speed compressors requires a more sophisticated control approach, which canrequire use ofelectronic control. Energy savings are possible with variable-speed compressors because they operate with reduced mass flow over longer time periods to deliver the same amount ofrefrigeration as a single-speed unit. The

2-4

# #4®7 reduced mass flow allows the refrigerant temperatures in the evaporator and condenser to more closely approach the air temperatures , thus reducing temperature lift. • More efficient evaporator and condenser fans. Advanced-design fan blades can reduce losses associated with movement of air. • More efficient evaporator and condenser fan motors. Shaded-pole motors were used traditionally to power evaporator and condenser fans. These motors were inexpensive but inefficient

. Brushless

-DC motors with AC-power input have been commercialized. These motors are significantly more efficient. • Eliminating thermal shorts. Unintended heat leak paths through the walls and door panels of refrigerator-freezers can exist where there are wall penetrations, liner transitions, etc. Careful design to eliminate and/or reduce heat leak paths can significantly reduce total refrigeration load. • Improved door face frame/gasket design. The potential for high heat leak at the doorframe is due to the transition from internal to external liners in this area , and the potential for gaps between the doors and cabinet to allow infiltration. The added heat leak in this area generally cannot be completely avoided, leading to the almost universal use of anti-sweat heating (provided by electric heaters and/or refrigerant lines carrying hot gas or liquid refrigerant) to keep externally exposed refrigerator surfaces from condensing ambient moisture in humid climates. Careful. design of this area can significantly reduce load and energy use. • Using smart defrost technology, such as adaptive defrost control (ADC) to minimize the amount of defrost that is needed

. One adaptive defrost control approach is toadjust the defrost time interval based on the time required for the defrost heater to warm the evaporator up to the defrost termination temperature

. A quick warm-up time indicates a small frost layer (i.e. due to low exterior humidity and/or infrequent door openings), which indicates that a longer time interval is possible. • Adding more cabinet insulation to reduce thermal losses, i.e. increasing thickness of walls or doors. • Using a blowing agent, which provides a lower-conductivity insulation

. Manufacturers have had to move away from CFC- and HCFC-based blowing agents

. A range of blowing agents is in use today

. The different options provide varying insulation thermal conductivity

. Switching to a more efficient blowing agent could reduce cabinet load but may be more costly. Vacuum panel insulation

. Vacuum panels have been commercially available for a number of years but have not been adopted in any significant quantity for domestic refrigeration products due to their relatively high cost. However, this technology can significantly reduce refrigeration load without increasing wall thickness. reduced mass flow allows the refrigerant temperatures in the evaporator and condenser to more closely approach the air temperatures, thus reducing temperature lift.

• More efficient evaporator and condenser fans. Advanced-design fan blades call/educe losses associated with movement ofair.

.. More efficient evaporator and condenser fan motors. Shaded-pole motors**were~used** traditionally to power evaporator and condenser fans. These motors were inexpensive but inefficient. Brushless-DC motors with AC-power input have been commercialized. These motors are significantly more efficient.

• Eliminating thermal shorts. Unintended heat leak paths through the walls and door panels ofrefrigerator-freezers can exist where there are wall penetrations, liner transitions, etc. Careful design to eliminate and/or reduce heat leakpaths can significantly reduce total refrigeration load.

• Improved door face frame/gasket design. The potential for high heat leak at the doorframe is due to the transition from internal to external liners in this area, and.the potential for gaps between the doors and cabinet to allow infiltration. The added heat leak in this area generally cannot be completely avoided, leading to the almosttmiversal use ofanti-sweat heating (provided by electric heaters and/or refrigerant linescarrying hot gas or liquid refrigerant) to keep externally exposed refrigerator surfaces from condensing ambient moisture in humid climates. Careful design ofthis area can significantlyreduce load and energy use.

• Using smart defrost technology, such as adaptive defrost control (ADC) to minimize the amount ofdefrost that is needed. One adaptive defrost control approach is to adjust the defrost time interval based on the time required for the defrost heaterto warmthe evaporatorup to the defrost termination temperature. A quick warm-up time indicates a small frost layer (i.e. due to low exterior humidity and/or infrequent door openings), which indicates that a longer time interval is possible.

• Adding more cabinet insulation to reduce thermal losses, i.e. increasing thickness of walls or doors.

• Using a blowing agent, which provides a lower-conductivity insulation. Manufacturers have had to move away from CFC- and HCFC-based blowing agents. A range of blowing agents is in use today. The different options provide varying insulation thermal conductivity. Switching to a more efficient blowing agent could reduce cabinet load but may be more costly.

• Vacuumpanel insulation. Vacuumpanels have been commercially available for a number ofyears but have not been adopted in any significant quantity for domestic refrigerationproducts due to their relatively high cost. However, this technology can significantlyreduce refrigeration load without increasing wall thickness.

2-52.4 TEST PROCEDURE STATUS Standard-size refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers, and compact refrigerators are all covered under the same DOE test procedure. They are tested at an ambient temperature of 90°F while internal volume temperatures are kept within specified temperature conditions. DOE has recently taken action on some issues regarding the test procedure. Also, there have been recent actions to improve AHAM's test standard. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has investigated the possibility of harmonizing the U.S. test procedure with international test standards. These issues are described in more detail below. 2.4.1 Credit for a more efficient defrost system DOE issued a direct final rule, which became effective in May 2003, amending the calculation of the test time period for "long-time" automatic defrost units.8 This change gives credit for a control capable of initiating defrost during a compressor off-cycle, thereby saving energy by taking advantage of the natural warming of the evaporator during the compressor off cycle. This revision has no effect on the testing of refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers that do not employ a long-time automatic defrost system. 2.4.2 Change in electric refrigerator definition to exclude wine coolers Several manufacturers of wine coolers requested exemptions from the refrigerator energy efficiency standards. Some wine coolers are made with glass front doors, which make them less energy efficient than standard refrigerators. As a result, the Department amended the definition of "electric refrigerator", effective December 19, 2001, to include a maximum temperature of the fresh food storage compartment, and to exclude certain appliances whose physical configuration makes them unsuitable for general storage of perishable foods. The purpose of the revised electric refrigerator definition was to exclude wine coolers from the energy efficiency regulations.9 This rule may also affect other compact refrigerators designed to store and cool beverages other than wine. For example, since the time of the test procedure revision, a new product has entered the market that is both a compact refrigerator and wine cooler whose performance cannot be rated by the existing test procedure.
2.4.3 Repeatability issues for testing compact refrigerators Because of inconsistencies in test results for compact refrigerators, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigated repeatability issues and published a report entitled "Repeatability of Energy Consumption Test Results for Compact Refrigerators".10 In addition, NIST participated in a task force formed by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) to revise their AHAM HRF-1 test procedure. The latest version of AHAM's test procedure is now AHAM HRF-1, 2003. But the existing DOE test procedure still references an older version of the AHAM test procedure, AHAM HRF- 1, 1979. DOE may need to amend the test procedure to reference the most recent version of AHAM HRF-1. 

# #4.7 2.4 TESTPROCEDURE STATUS Standard-size refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers, and compact refrigerators are all coveredunder the same DOE test procedure. They are tested at an ambient temperature of 90°F while internal volume temperatures are kept within specified temperature conditions. DOE has recently taken action on some issues regarding the test procedure. Also, there have been recent actions to improve AHAM's test standard. The National Institute ofStandards and Technology (NIST) has investigated the possibility ofharmonizing the U.S. test procedure with internationaltest standards. These issues are described in more detail below.


### 2.4.1 

### Creditfor a more efficient defrost system DOE issued a direct final rule, which became effective in May 2003, amending the calculation ofthe test time period for "long-time" automatic defrost units. 8 This change gives credit for a control capable ofinitiating defrost during a compressor off-cycle, thereby saving energy by taking advantage ofthe natural warming ofthe evaporator during the compressor off cycle. This revision has no effect onthe testing ofrefrigerators and refrigerator-freezers that do not employ a long-time automatic defrost system.


### 2.4.2 Change in electric refrigeratordefinition toexclude wine coolers Several manufacturers ofwine coolers requested exemptions from the refrigerator energy efficiency standards. Some wine coolers are made with glass front doors, which make them less energy efficient than standardrefrigerators. As a result, the Department amended the definition of"electric refrigerator", effective December 19,2001, to include a maximum temperature ofthe fresh food storage compartment, and to exclude certain appliances whose physical configuration makes them unsuitable for general storage ofperishable foods. The purpose ofthe revised electric refrigerator definition was to exclude wine coolers from the energy efficiency regulations. 9 This rule may also affect other compactrefrigerators designed to store and cool beverages otherthan wine. For example, since the time ofthe test procedurerevision, a new producthas enteredthe market that is both a compact refrigerator and wine cooler whose performance cannot be rated by the existing test procedure.


### 2.4.3 

### Repeatability issues for testing compact refrigerators Because ofinconsistencies in test results for compact refi-igerators, the National Institute ofStandards and Technology (NIST) investigated repeatability issues and published a report entitled "Repeatability ofEnergy Consumption Test Results for Compact Refrigerators".I0 In addition, NIST participated in a task force formed by the Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) to revise their AHAM HRF-l test procedure. The latest version of AHAM's test procedure is now AHAM HRF-l, 2003. But the existing DOE test procedure still references an older version ofthe AHAM test procedure, AHAM HRF-l, 1979. DOE may need to amend the test procedure to reference the most recent version ofAHAM HRF-l.

2-6

# TV4®7

2.4.4 Harmonizing with international standards NIST has done comparisons between ISO's international test standards and the North American (i.e., the DOE) test standard. The two test procedures are similar but not identical. Differences include the ambient temperature at which the refrigerators are tested and the ISO specified test load. There is some interest in harmonizing and unifying the two test procedures by manufacturers interested in international trade. Recently, the United States, Canada, and Mexico have harmonized their test procedures. 

### 2.4.4 Harmonizing with international standards NIST has done comparisons between ISO's international test standards and .tJ:leNorth American (i.e., the DOE) test standard. The two test procedures are similar but notidentical. Differences include the ambient temperature at which the refrigerators are tested andthe ISO specified test load. There is some interest in harmonizing and unifying the two testprocedures by manufacturers interested in international trade. Recently, the United States, Canada; and Mexico have harmonized their test procedures.

2-7REFERENCES

U.S. Department of Energy, FY 2005 Preliminary Priority-Setting Summary Report - Appendix A: FY 2005 Technical Support Document (TSD), 2005. Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.eere.energy..ov/buildinLs/appliance standards/pdfs/f05 priority setting app a.pdf.

2 Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers , Summary Data Tables: Refrigerator-Freezer Data Collectionfor Cost/Efficiency Information for DOE Petition, 2005. Information provided by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) to the U.S. Department of Energy, May 13, 2005. U.S. Department of Energy

-Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products : Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerators, Refrigerator

-Freezers and Freezers ; Final Rule. Federal Register, 1997. 62(81): pp. 23102

-23116.

4

5

6

7 Energy Star, ENERGY STAR Refrigerators & Freezers Product List, July 5, 2005. Available at: http://NT.lww.energystar.gov/.index.cfi.i.i?c=refrig.pr refrigerators. Energy Star, Refrigerators & Freezers Key Product Criteria , 2004. Energy Star Product Information

. Available at: bttp://www. energystar

.gov/index.cfm?c=refrig..L)K__Grit refrigerators. Federal Energy Management Program, How to Buy an Energy-Efficient Residential Refrigerator, 2004. Washington, DC. September

. Available at: df. ht!p://www.eere.energy.goN,/feLnp/pdfs/l-ef'rig.p Consortium for Energy Efficiency, High-Efficiency Specifications for Dishwashers and Refrigerators, Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) Super-Efficient Home Appliances Initiative, 2004. Boston, MA. Available at: http://www.ceel.org/resid/seha/dishw/dishwashrefrigspecs.pdf. U.S. Department of Energy

-Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products : Test Procedure for Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers; Direct Final Rule. Federal Register, 2003, 68(45): pp. 10957-10961. U.S. Department of Energy-Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Amendment to the Definition of Electric Refrigerator; Final Rule. Federal Register, 2001 , 66(223): pp. 57845-57848. 10 National Institute of Standards and Technology , 2000, Repeatability of Energy Consumption Test Results for Compact Refrigerators, September 2000. Gaithersburg, MD. Report No. NISTIR-6560. Available at: http://fire.mist.gov/bfr-lpubs/buil.d0()/art055.lrtm.l. 

# #4.7 REFERENCES

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 U.S. Department ofEnergy, FY2005Preliminary Priority-Setting SummmyReportAppendixA: FY2005 Technical SupportDocument (TSD), 2005. Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.eere.energy.goylbuildings/appliance standards/pdfs/fy05 priority setting app a.pdf. Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers, Summary Data Tables: Rejl'igerator-Freezer Data Collectionfor CostlE:fficiency InfonnationforDOEPetition, 2005. Information provided by the Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) to the U.S. Department ofEnergy, May 13,2005. 

## u.s. Department ofEnergy-Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Energy ConservationProgramfor Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers; Final Rule. Federal Register, 1997. 62(81): pp. 23102-23116. Energy Star, ENERGYSTAR Refrigerators & Freezers Product List, July 5,2005. Available at: http://www.energystar.govlindex.cfnl?c::::refrig.pr refrigerators. Energy Star, Refrigerators 

### &Freezers Key Product Criteria, 2004. Energy Star Product Information. Available at: http://www.energystaLgov/index.cfm?c::::refrig.pr cdt refrigerators. FederalEnergy Management Program, How to Buy an Energy-E:fficientResidential Rejrigerator,2004. Washington, DC. September. Available at: http://www.eere.energy.goy/femp/pdfs/refrig.pdf. ConsOltium for Energy Efficiency, High-E:fficiency Spec(fications forDishwashers and Refrigerators, ConsortiumforEnergy Efficiency (CEE) Super-EfficientHomeAppliances Initiative,2004. Boston, MA. Available at: http://www.ceel.org/resid/seha/dishw/dishwashrefrig specs.pdf. U.S. Department ofEnergy-Office ofEnergyEfficiency and Renewable Energy, Energy Conservation Programfor Consumer Products: Test Procedure for Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers; Direct Final Rule. Federal Register, 2003, 68(45): pp. 10957-10961. U.S. Department ofEnergy-Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Amendment to the Definition ofElectric Refrigerator; FinalRule. FederalRegister, 2001, 66(223): pp. 57845-57848.
]0 National Institute ofStandards and Technology, 2000, Repeatability of Energy Consumption Test Results for CompactRefrigerators, September 2000. Gaithersburg, MD. Report No. NISTIR-6560. Available at: http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/buildOO/art055.html.

2-8

# #®7 CHAPTER 3. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
In order to estimate the design and cost impacts of different potential standard levels, the Department used three information sources: • The Department's 1995 Technical Support Document (TSD), prepared as part of the 2001 Energy-Efficiency Standard.' • Cost impact data collected by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) from its member companies in 2005 and consolidated for DOE use and review.2 • Information regarding required design changes provided by manufacturers during interviews.

3.1 REVIEW OF 1995 TSD The Department re-evaluated the analysis presented in its 1995 Technical Support Document (TSD) for refrigerator-freezers (see Table 3-1). Note that the TSD analysis started with a baseline energy use, which is 16 percent below the 1993 Standards for the side-mount product class, while the top-mount baseline was equivalent to the 1993 Standard. Table 3-1 summarizes the efficiency levels analyzed in the 1995 TSD in relation to 1993 and 2001 Energy Standards and the potential new standard levels. Table 3-1. TSD Energy Use Calculations

1993 Energy Efficiency Standard 697 954 2001 Energy Efficiency Standard 486 671 15% Reduction (Current Energy Star) 413 570 25% Reduction 365 503 1995 TSD Analysis Baseline 701 800 1995 TSD Analysis Minimum 422 508 Auto defrost, no through-the-door features, 18.2 cu. ft. total volume, and 21.4 cu. ft. adjusted volume. ** Auto defrost, through-the-door features, 21.7 cu. ft. total volume, and 26.2 cu. ft. adjusted volume. Source: DOE 1995 TSD. 3.1.1 Top-Mount Refrigerators The 1995 analysis identified two design paths for the top-mount product class to achieve the minimum 422 kWh energy use (two percent higher than current Energy Star). Both paths included: 

### CHAPTER 3. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

In orderto estimate the design and cost impacts ofdifferent potential standardlevels, the Department used three information sources:

• The Department's 1995 Technical Support Document (TSD), prepared as part 2001 Energy-Efficiency Standard. 1

• Cost impact data collected bythe Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) from its member companies in 2005 and consolidated for DOEuse and review. 2

• Information regarding required design changes provided by manufacturers during interviews.


### 3.1 REVIEW OF 1995 TSD The Department re-evaluatedthe analysis presented in its 1995 Technical Support Document (TSD) for refrigerator-freezers (see Table 3-1). Note that the TSD analysis started with a baseline energy use, which is 16 percent below the 1993 Standards for the side-mount product class, while the top-mount baseline was equivalentto the 1993 Standard. Table3-1 summarizes the efficiency levels analyzed in the 1995 TSD in relation to 1993 and 2001Energy Standards and the potential new standard levels. 

### Table 3-1. TSD Energy Use Calculations

15% Reduction 25% Reduction 1995 TSD Baseline 

### 701 1995 TSD Analysis Minimum 422 

### 508 

### * Auto defrost, no through-the-cloor features, 18.2 cu. ft. total volume, and 21.4 cu. ft. adjusted volume. 

### ** Auto defrost, through-the-door features, 21.7 cu. ft. total volume, and 26.2 cu. ft. adjusted volume. Source: DOE 1995 TSD.


### 3.1.1 Top-Mount Refrigerators The 1995 analysis identified two designpaths for the top-mount product class to achieve the minimum 422 kWh energyuse (two percent higher than CUlTent Energy Star). Bothpaths included:

3-1• Higher-efficiency compressor (increase from 4.68 to 5.45 EER)

• Higher-efficiency evaporator fan • Higher-efficiency evaporator and condenser fan motors (motor input wattage reduction from 9.1W for the evaporator fan and 12W for the condenser fan to 4.5W for each) • Improved gaskets • Increased condenser and evaporator areas, and • Adaptive defrost control (ADC). In addition, the first design path incorporated 2.54cm (one-inch) wall. and door insulation thickness increases, while the second incorporated vacuum panels. Baseline insulation thicknesses were 3.8 cm (1.5 inch) for the doors, 5.5 cm (2.2 inch) average for the freezer walls, and 4.3 cm (1.7 inch) average for the fresh food walls. The vacuum panel option assumed that half of the total wall and door surfaces would be covered with 1-inch thick vacuum panels. The TSD does not provide detail regarding all of the design options listed. For example, the percent increase in condenser and evaporator areas was not specified. Note that the design option paths described in this section would be applied to units achieving compliance with the 1993 Energy Standard. Hence, today's refrigerator-freezers would already incorporate some of these options. While the minimum UEC for the TSD top-mount analysis is not down to the 413 kWh/year level of the current Energy Star, it is nearly down to this level. Compressors with EER's up to about 6.1 Btu/W-hr are available today, so the same combination of design options using today's best compressors would likely meet the Energy Star level. One of the design paths achieving the 422 kWh/year level does not require vacuum panels, suggesting that this level of energy use can be achieved with readily available components at reasonable cost. In practice, about 20 percent of the top- and bottom-mount units sold today meet the Energy Star performance level`, which reinforces the observation that there exist ways to achieve this efficiency level at reasonable cost. The TSD analysis does not provide any indication of which design options would be required to achieve energy use 25 percent below the 2001 Standard for top-mount refrigerators. 3.1.2 Side-Mount Refrigerators Three of the TSD analysis design paths for the side-mount product class achieved the current Energy Star performance level.. All of these incorporated: • Higher-efficiency compressor (increase from 5.18 to 5.6 EER) • Higher-efficiency evaporator fan

3-2 

# #4.7

• Higher-efficiency compressor (increase from 4.68 to 5.45 EER)

• Higher-efficiency evaporatorfan

• Higher-efficiency evaporator and condenser fan motors (motor input wattage reduction from 9.IWfor the evaporatorfan and 12W for the condenser fan to 4.5W for each)

• Improved gaskets

• Increased condenser and evaporator areas, and

• Adaptive defrost control (ADC). In addition, the first design path incorporated 2.54cm (one-inch) wall and door insulation thickness increases, while the second incorporated vacuumpanels. Baseline insulation thicknesses were 3.8 cm(1.5 inch) for the doors, 5.5 cm (2.2 inch) average for the freezer walls, and 4.3 cm (1.7 inch) average for the fresh food walls. The vacuum panel option assumed that halfofthe total wall and door surfaces would be covered with 1-inch thick vacuumpanels. The TSD does not provide detailregarding all ofthe design options listed. For example, the percent increase in condenser and evaporator areas was not specified. Notethat the design optionpaths described in this section would be applied to units achieving compliance with the 1993 Energy Standard. Hence, today's refrigerator-freezers would already incorporate some ofthese options. While the minimum DEC for the TSD top-mount analysis is not down to the 413 kWh/year level ofthe current Energy Star, it is nearly down to this level. Compressors with EER's up to about 6.1 Btu/W-hr are available today, so the same combination ofdesign options using today's best compressors would likely meet the Energy Star level. One ofthe design paths achieving the 422 kWh/year level does not require vacuumpanels, suggesting that this level of energy use canbe achieved with readily available components at reasonable cost. In practice, about 20percent ofthe top- and bottom-mount units sold today meet the Energy Star performance levef, which reinforces the observation that there exist ways to achieve this efficiency level at reasonable cost. The TSD analysis does not provide any indication ofwhich design options would be required to achieve energy use 25 percent below the 2001 Standard for top-mount refrigerators.


### 3.1.2 Side-Mount Refrigerators Three ofthe TSD analysis design paths for the side-mount product class achieved the current Energy Starperformance level. All ofthese incorporated:

• Higher-efficiency compressor (increase from 5.18 to 5.6 EER)

• Higher-efficiency evaporatorfan

3-211

# 4 17

# 97 • Higher-efficiency evaporator and condenser fan motors (motor input wattage reduction from 8.0W for the evaporator fan and 11.6W for the condenser fan to 4.5W for each) • Increased condenser and evaporator areas, and

• Better thermal management (reduced load) for the through-the-door feature. The three groups also added the following groups of design options: • Path 1: 2.54cm (one inch) additional insulation thickness for walls and doors • Path 2: 1.27cm (1

/2 inch) additional insulation thickness for walls and doors, ADC, and improved gaskets • Path 3: Vacuum panels and ADC. Baseline insulation thicknesses for this unit were 3.8 cm (1.5 inch) for the doors, 5.8 cm (2.3 inch) average for the freezer walls, and 5.1 cm (2.0 inch) average for the fresh food walls. The fact that there are multiple paths, two of which do not include vacuum panels, suggests that this level of energy use can be achieved cost-effectively. This is corroborated by current sales levels for Energy Star-compliant side-mount refrigerators, which represent about 50 percent of the sales of this product class.2 The 508 kWh/year energy use level, the minimum calculated for side-mounts in the TSD, is nearly 25 percent below the 2001 Standard. The single design path for this energy level incorporates Path 1 above plus the following. • Adaptive Defrost Control. • Reduced Gasket Heat Leak If the higher level of efficiency of today's best compressors is taken into consideration, the TSD suggests that a full range of design options not including vacuum panels or variable speed compressors may be able to achieve this energy level for side-mounts. 3.1.3 DOE 1995 TSD Cost Analyses Manufacturing cost estimates presented in the 1995 TSD for design packages, which meet energy use targets at 15 percent and 25 percent below the 2001 Standard, are summarized in Table 3-2. The cost for the design option package, which is the lowest cost, is presented if more than one design option package meets the energy target. 

# #4.7

• Higher-efficiency evaporator and condenser fan motors (motor input wattage.reduction from 8.0W for the evaporatorfan and 11.6W for the condenserfan to 4.5W**fo~** each)

• Increased condenser and evaporator areas, and

• Better thermal management (reduced load) for the through-the-doorfeature. The three groups also added the following groups ofdesign options:

• Path 1: 2.54cm (one inch) additional insulation thickness for walls and doors

• Path 2: 1.27cm (Y2 inch) additional insulation thickness for walls and doors, ADC, and improved gaskets

• Path 3: Vacuum panels and ADC. Baseline insulation thicknesses for this unit were 3.8 cm (1.5 inch) for the doors, 5.8 cm (2.3 inch) average for the freezer walls, and 5.1 cm (2.0 inch) average for the fresh food walls. The fact that there are multiple paths, two ofwhich do not include vacuumpanels, suggests thatthis level ofenergy use canbe achieved cost-effectively. This is corroboratedby current sales levels for Energy Star-compliant side-mount refrigerators, which represent about 50 percent ofthe sales ofthis product c1ass. 2 The 508 kWh/year energy use level, the minimum calculated for side-mounts in the TSD, is nearly 25 percent below the 2001 Standard. The single design path for this energylevel incorporates Path 1 above plus the following.

• Adaptive Defrost Control.

• Reduced Gasket Heat Leak Ifthe higher level ofefficiency oftoday'sbest compressors is taken into consideration, the TSD suggests that a full range ofdesign options not including vacuumpanels orvariable speed compressors may be able to achieve this energy level for side-mounts.


### 3.1.3 DOE 1995 TSD Cost Analyses Manufacturing cost estimates presented in the 1995 TSD for design packages, which meet energy use targets at 15 percent and 25 percent below the 2001 Standard, are summarized in Table 3-2. The cost for the design option package, which is the lowest cost, is presented if more than one design option package meets the energy target.

3-3Table 3-2. DOE 1995 TSD Manufacturing Cost Analysis Summary (1992$)

2001 Standard Level Minimum Manufacturing Cost $300 $618 15% Reduction (current Energy Star) Note 1 Minimum Manufacturing Cost $326 $658 Cost Premium $26 $40 25% Reduction Note 2 Minimum Manufacturing Cost No data $671 Cost Premium $53 18.2 cu, ft. total volume, and 21.4 Auto defrost no through-the-door features cu. ft. adjusted volume.

, , Auto defrost, through-the-door features, 21.7 cu. ft. total volume, and 26.2 cu. ft. adjusted volume. Note 1: The energy use of this design package is 2 percent above Energy Star. Note 2: The energy use of this design package is 1 percent above the energy use target. Source: DOE 1995 TSD.
The Department also performed a review of the cost increases associated with the different design options presented in the 1995 TSD. These increases appear, for the most part, to be reasonable and consistent with the Department's understanding of costs for the components and design changes presented, with the exception of vacuum panel costs. For the top-mount unit, the TSD estimates that using 2.54cm- (one inch) thick vacuum panels covering 50 percent of exterior walls and the door increased the unit's cost by $46.65. Based on a unit total surface area of about 6.5m2 (70ft), this yields a vacuum panels cost of less than $14.50/m2 ($1.40/ft). An initial investigation by the Department indicates that current OEM costs for vacuum panels range from $43/m2 to $54/m2 ($4/ft2 to $5/ft2) for large quantities. In addition, the Department is not familiar with cost projections from vacuum panel vendors below $21/m2 ($2/ft2). The total cost impact for a refrigerator-freezer would also include design and process changes required to properly apply the vacuum panels. These costs do not include allowance for vacuum panel breakage during manufacturing. These preliminary data lead to the initial conclusion that the $46.65 incremental vacuum panel cost estimate presented in the TSD is low, likely by at least a factor of two.

3.2 AHAM DATA SUBMITTAL AND CONSOLIDATION In support of the Department of Energy in this review effort, AHAM collected incremental cost data from its member companies in May 2005. Costs were requested for achieving 15 percent and 25 percent reduction in UEC relative to the current DOE standard for several sizes of refrigerator-freezers of the two most common product classes: top-mount without through-the-door features and side-mount with through-the-door features. Subsequently, AHAM aggregated the data by weighting the individual data by company-level sales volumes for each class and size of units and provided the aggregated data to DOE for review and subsequent analysis. The data request survey provided to manufacturers by AHAM is contained in Appendix A.Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 summarize the incremental manufacturing costs for the topmount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers. The "average" column values equal the average

3-4 

# #4.7 Table 3-2. DOE 1995 TSD Manufacturing Cost Analysis Summary (1992$)

Minimum Cost 15% Reduction (current Energy Star) MinimumManufacturing Cost Cost Premium 25% Reduction MinimumManufacturing Cost Cost Premium 

### $300 Note 1 

### $326 $26 No data 

### $618 $658 $40 Note 2 

### $671 

### * Auto defrost, no through-the-door features, 18.2 cu. ft. total volume, and 21.4 cu. ft. adjusted volume. 

### ** Auto defrost, through-the-door features, 21.7 cu. ft. total volume, and 26.2 cu. ft. adjusted volume. Note 1: The energy use ofthis design package is 2 percent above Energy Star. Note 2: The energy use ofthis design package is 1 percent above the energy use target. Source: DOE 1995 TSD.

The Department also performed a review ofthe cost increases associated with the different design options presented in the 1995 TSD. These increases appear, for the mostpart, to bereasonable and consistent with the Department's understanding ofcosts for the components and design changes presented, with the exception ofvacuumpanel costs. Forthe top-mount unit, the TSD estimates that using 2.54cm- (one inch) thick vacuumpanels covering 50percent of exterior walls and the doorincreased the unit's costby $46.65. Based on a unit total surface area ofabout 6.5m 2 (70ft2 ), this yields a vacuumpanels cost ofless than $14.50/m 2($1.40/ft 2). An initial investigation bythe Department indicates that current OEM costs for vacuum panels range from $43/m 2to $54/m2 ($4/ft 2to $5/ft2) for large quantities. In addition, the Department is not familiar with costprojections from vacuumpanel vendors below $211m2 ($2/ft 2). Thetotal cost impact for a refrigerator-freezer would also include design and process changes required to properly apply the vacuumpanels. These costs do not include allowance for vacuumpanel breakage during manufacturing. These preliminarydata lead to the initial conclusionthat the $46.65 incremental vacuumpanel cost estimate presented in the TSD is low, likely by at least a factor oftwo.


### 3.2 AHAM DATA SUBMITTAL AND CONSOLIDATION In support ofthe Department ofEnergy in this review effort, AHAM collected incremental cost datafrom its member companies in May 2005. Costs were requested for achieving 15 percent and 25 percent reduction in UEC relative to the current DOE standard for several sizes ofrefrigerator-freezers ofthe two most common product classes: top-mount without through-the-door features and side-mount with through-the-door features. Subsequently, AHAM aggregated the data by weighting the individual data by company-level sales volumes for each class and size ofunits and provided the aggregated datato DOE for review and subsequent analysis. The datarequest survey provided to manufacturers by AHAM is contained in Appendix A. Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 summarize the incremental manufacturing costs for the topmount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers. The "average" column values equal the average



### 3-4

# #4®7

incremental cost for all products in that size range weighted by shipment volumes, while the "minimum" and "maximum" values are based on the incremental cost for the basic model of each manufacturer with the lowest and highest incremental cost. The costs include materials, burdened labor, and amortization of capital expenses.' Table 3-3. Incremental Manufacturing Costs for Top-Mounted Refrigerator-Freezers without Through-the-Door Features

15% less energy 1 $8.00 $19.04 1 $26.00 $8.00 25% less energy $64.00 $187.80 $359.00 $18.00 Source: AHAM. $141.00

Table 3-4. Incremental Manufacturing Costs for Side-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers with Through

-the-Door Features

15% less energy 1 $5.00 1 $26.88 25% less energy 1 $6.00 Source: ARAM. $126.40 $95.00 $219.00 $30.00 I $99.63 $305.00 Insufficient Data

3.2.1 Comparison of AHAM Cost Data with TSD Cost Estimates The manufacturing cost premium estimates of the 1.995 TSD and the AHAM data are compared in Table 3-5 below for the product models and energy use levels for which data is available. In all cases, the TSD estimates are within the range of cost premium estimates provided by AHAM. However, the TSD estimates for the side-mount appear to be high for the 15 percent reduction and low for the 25 percent reduction.

a Typically burdened labor is composed of labor and overhead where overhead includes indirect labor for downtime, set-up time, supervisors, materials handling, and clerical. Some other overhead costs such as utilities and insurance might also be included or may be allocated as indirect materials or material burden. Practices for classifying other overhead costs vary by manufacturer.

3-5 

# #4.7 incremental cost for all products in that size range weightedby shipment volumes, whilethe "minimum" and "maximum" values are based on the incremental cost for the basic model of each manufacturer with the lowest and highest incremental cost. The costs include materials, burdened labor, and amortization ofcapital expenses.a Table 3-3. Incremental Manufacturing Costs for Top-Mounted Refrigerator-Freezers without Through-the-DoorFeatures

15% less energy $8.00 $19.04 $26.00 $8.00 $17.31 $400.00 $10.00 $21.21 $37.00 25% less energy $64.00 $187.80 $359.00 $18.00 $54.10 $141.00 $40.00 $78.29 $139.00 Source: AHAM.

Table 3-4. IncrementalManufacturing Costs for Side-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers with Through-the-DoorFeatures

25% less energy $6.00 $126.40 $219.00 $30.00 $305.00 InsufficientData Source: AHAM.

3.2.1 Comparison ofAHAM Cost DatawithTSD CostEstimates The manufacturing costpremiumestimates ofthe 1995 TSD and the AHAM data are compared in Table 3-5 below for the product models and energy use levels for which datais available. In all cases, the TSD estimates are within the range ofcost premium estimates provided by AHAM. However, the TSD estimates for the side-mount appear to be high for the 15 percent reduction and low for the 25 percent reduction.

a Typicallyburdened labor is composed oflabor and overhead where overhead includes indirect labor for downtime, set-up time, supervisors, materials handling, and clerical. Some other overhead costs such as utilities and insurance might also beincluded or may be allocated as indirect materials or material burden. Practices for classifying other overheadcosts vary by manufacturer.
3-5Table 3-5. Comparison of 1995 TSD and AHAM Manufacturing Cost Premium Estimates

15% Reduction (current Energy Star) 1995 TSD Cost Premium [$1992] Note 1 $26 $40 AHAM Cost Premium (min.-avg.-max.) $8-$17-$400 $5-$27-$95 25% Reduction Note 2 1995 TSD Cost Premium [$1992] No data $53 AHAM Cost Premium (min.-avg.-max.) $18-$54-$141 $6-$126-$219 Auto defrost, no through -th e-door features, 18.2 cu. ft. total volume, and 21.4 cu. ft. adjusted volume. * Auto defrost, through-the-door features, 21.7 cu. ft. total volume, and 26.2 cu. ft. adjusted volume. Note 1: The energy use of this design package for the TSD cost premium estimate is 2 percent above Energy Star. Note 2: The energy use of this design package for the TSD cost premium is 1 percent above the energy use target.

3.3 MANUFACTURER INTERVIEWS Initially, the Department's cost analysis focused on a review of the 1995 TSD and evaluation of the consumer price differential between "matched pairs" of products, i.e., products whose only differences were their efficiency levels (e.g., comparing a unit that performed at the DOE standard level and another unit that met the Energy Star requirements). AHAM and its member companies indicated that the matched pair approach had several limitations, notably that the products may not be true matched pairs (e.g., due to product features), that retail. price differences between matched pairs do not necessarily reflect OEM cost differences due to market factors, and that the approach does not consider the full product lines offered by manufacturers. Models, which would have an Energy Star matched pair, would typically be carefully picked to allow for a more cost-effective boost of the efficiency level. Manufacturers noted during structured interviews that they often do not maintain their margins for higher-cost Energy Star units because they believe that consumers do not think that the additional cost can justify relatively modest savings. Non-energy features, however, can often command greater premiums than Energy Star. During interviews, manufacturers were asked what groupings of design options would be required in order to reduce energy use of top-mount and side-mount refrigerators to levels which are 15 percent and 25 percent below the 2001 Standard. The discussion was helpful to better understand which of the 1995 TSD design paths were already implemented. Additionally, the conversations resulted in a better understanding of the design strategies underlying the 2005 AHAM data. The discussion below represents a consolidation of the responses in order to avoid revealing design details for any given manufacturer.

3.3.1 15 Percent Energy Use Reduction For the most part, achieving a 15 percent energy use reduction is possible with the use of a high-efficiency compressor, high-efficiency fan motors (brushless-DC fan motors) for both the evaporator and condenser fans, and adaptive defrost control. In general, manufacturers indicatedthat they had to incorporate more energy-efficient features to achieve the reduction for sidemount units than for top-mount units. In some cases, significantly more aggressive design options (i.e. variable-speed compressors and/or vacuum panels) would be required in order to achieve a 15 percent energy use reduction. This is more likely the case with counter-depth (24-

3-6 

# #4.7 Table 3-5. Comparison of1995 TSD and AHAM Manufacturing Cost Premium Estimates 

## I**~ ~**  cC JiS:**~"'8 y-",~**  

### 1ti"$!< 'ii" 4"'Y;jpll' x**Top-BDun~'!!/** s; 

# I ",iside-Mount

## ** 15%Reduction (current Energy Star) Note 1 1995 TSD Cost Premium [$1992] $26 $40 AHAM Cost Premium (min.-avg.-max.) $8

- $17

- $400 $5

- $27

- $95 25%Reduction Note 2 1995 TSD Cost Premium [$1992] No data $53 AHAM Cost Premium (min.-avg.-max.) $18

- $54

- $141 $6

- $126

- $219 

### * Auto defrost, nothrough-the-door features, 18.2 cu. ft. total volume, and 21.4 cu. ft. adjusted volume. 

### ** Auto defrost, through-the-door features, 21.7 cu. ft. total volume, and 26.2 cu. ft. adjusted volume. Note 1: The energy use ofthis design package for the TSD cost premium estimate is 2 percent above Energy Star. Note 2: Theenergy use ofthis design package for the TSD cost premium is 1 percent above the energy use target.


### 3.3 MANUFACTURER INTERVIEWS Initially, the Department's cost analysis focused on a review ofthe 1995 TSD and evaluation ofthe consumerprice differential between "matchedpairs" ofproducts, i.e., products whose only differences were their efficiency levels (e.g., comparing a unit that performed at the DOE standard level and another unit that met the Energy Starrequirements). AHAM and its member companies indicatedthat the matched pair approach had several limitations, notably that the products may notbetrue matched pairs (e.g., due to product features), that retail price differences between matchedpairs do not necessarily reflect OEM cost differences due to market factors, and that the approach does not consider the full product lines offered by manufacturers. Models, which would have anEnergy Star matched pair, would typically be carefullypicked to allow for a more cost-effective boost ofthe efficiency level. Manufacturers noted during structuredinterviews that they often do not maintain their margins for higher-cost Energy Star units because they believe that consumers do not think that the additional cost canjustify relatively modest savings. Non-energy features, however, can often command greaterpremiums than Energy Star. During interviews, manufacturers were asked what groupings ofdesign options would be required in orderto reduce energy use oftop-mount and side-mount refrigerators to levels which are 15 percent and 25 percentbelow the 2001 Standard. The discussion was helpful to better understand which ofthe1995 TSD design paths were ah-eady implemented. Additionally, the conversations resulted in a betterunderstanding ofthe design strategies underlying the 2005 AHAM data. The discussion below represents a consolidation ofthe responses in order to avoid revealing design details for any given manufacturer.


### 3.3.1 15 Percent Energy Use 

### Reduction Forthe most part, achieving a 15 percent energy use reduction is possible with the use of a high-efficiency compressor, high-efficiency fan motors (brushless-DC fan motors) for boththe evaporator and condenser fans, and adaptive defrost control. In general, manufacturers indicated that they had to incorporate more energy-efficient features to achieve the reduction for sidemount units than for top-mount units. In some cases, significantly more aggressive design options (i.e. variable-speed compressors and/or vacuumpanels) would be required in order to achieve a 15 percent energy use reduction. This is more likely the case with counter-depth (24-

3-6

# #e.

inch-deep) units, which have increased surface/volume ratio, which means that these units have more surface area to transfer heat than more conventional units of the same internal volume.

3.3.2 25 Percent Energy Use Reduction Achieving 25 percent energy use reduction generally could not be done just by switching to more efficient components. Instead, it requires a reduction in load transmitted through the refrigerator walls and doors. This would be done by increasing wall thickness if possible, but could potentially require the use of vacuum panels. In either case, this involves redesign of product platforms with the associated capital investments required to purchase new manufacturing tooling. Use of variable speed compressors was also mentioned as a possible additionally required design change. All manufacturers indicated that one or more of their refrigerator models could not cost-effectively be brought to the 25 percent reduced energy level and would likely be discontinued.

3.3.3 Bottom

-Mount Refrigerators While most of the analysis discussed in this report addresses top-mount and side-mount refrigerators, one manufacturer pointed out that bottom-mount refrigerators are also an important product class that should be considered. Design options to achieve 15 percent and 25 percent energy use reductions for bottom-mount refrigerators were reported to be similar to those required for top-mount refrigerators.
3.3.4 Platform Changes It is important to note that many manufacturers would likely take a platform-based approach toward product redesign such that different models built using one platform could achieve both the standard level and a future Energy Star performance level. As discussed in the "Market Impact" section, this is driven by the market need to offer a range of products that can meet both performance levels to serve some key clients, such as major retail chains and the U.S. government. The future Energy Star energy use may be 25 percent below the 2001 Standard. Hence, it would be expected that, if a 15 percent energy use reduction is mandated by DOE, manufacturers would need to implement wall thickness increases in order to be able to meet both 15 percent and 25 percent reduction levels with a given production platform (the 25 percent models would include more high-efficiency components).
3.3.5 Intellectual Property Although manufacturers did not have major concerns about intellectual property rights impeding access to technologies used to enhance efficiency, a few manufacturers did note that one (foreign) company owns patents related to linear compressors, a variable-capacity compressor technology which may have better efficiency than conventional rotary-motor reciprocating compressors. 

# #4.7 inch-deep) units, which have increased surface/volume ratio, which means that these.units have more surface area to transfer heat than more conventional units ofthe same internal volume.


### 3.3.2 25 Percent Energy Use Reduction Achieving 25 percent energy use reduction generally could not be donejustby switching to more efficient components. Instead, it requires a reduction in load transmittedthrough the refrigerator walls and doors. This would be done by increasing wall thickness ifpossible, but could potentially require the use ofvacuumpanels. In either case, this involves redesign of product platfOlIDs with the associated capital investments required to purchase new manufacturing tooling. Use ofvariable speed compressors was also mentioned as a possible additionally required design change. All manufacturers indicated that one ormore oftheir refrigerator models could not cost-effectively be brought to the 25 percentreduced energylevel and would likely be discontinued.


### 3.3.3 Bottom-MountRefrigerators While most ofthe analysis discussed in this report addresses top-mount and side-mount refrigerators, one manufacturer pointed out that bottom-mount refrigerators are also an important product class that should be considered. Design options to achieve 15 percent and 25 percent energy use reductions for bottom-mount refrigerators were reported to be similar to those required for top-mount refrigerators.


### 3.3.4 Platform Changes It is impOltant to note that many manufacturers would likely take a platform-based approach toward product redesign such that different models built using one platformcould achieve both the standard level and a future Energy Starperformance level. As discussed in the "Market Impact" section, this is driven by the market need to offer a range ofproductsthat can meet bothperformance levels to serve some key clients, such as major retail chains and the U.S. government. The future Energy Star energy use may be 25 percent below the 2001 Standard. Hence, it would be expected that, ifa 15 percent energy use reduction is mandated byDOE, manufacturers would need to implement wall thickness increases in order to be able to meet both 15 percent and 25 percent reduction levels with a given production platform (the 25 percent models would include more high-efficiency components).


### 3.3.5 Intellectual Property Although manufacturers did not have major concerns about intellectualpropertyrights impeding access to technologies used to enhance efficiency, a few manufacturers did note that one (foreign) company owns patents related to linear compressors, a variable-capacity compressortechnology which may have better efficiency than conventional rotary-motor reciprocating compressors.

3-7REFERENCES

U.S. Department of Energy, Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products: Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, & Freezers, July 1995. Washington, DC. Report No. DOE/EE-0064. 2 Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Summary Data Tables: Refrigerator-Freezer Data Collection for Cost/Efficiency Information for DOE Petition, 2005. Information provided by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) to the U.S. Department of Energy, May 13, 2005. 

# #4.7 REFERENCES

2 U.S. Department ofEnergy, Technical SupportDocument: Energy Efficiency Standardsfor ConsumerProducts: Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, 

### &Freezers, July 1995. Washington, DC. Report No. DOE/EE-0064. Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers, Summary Data Tables: Refrigerator-Freezer Data Collectionfor Cost/Efficiency InfonnationforDOEPetition, 2005. Information provided by the Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) to the U.S. Department ofEnergy, May 13,2005.

3-8

# #4®7

CHAPTER 4. LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS

Increasing the energy efficiency of a product to comply with a standard affects the costs of purchasing and operating the product. Higher-efficiency products usually have higher installed costs and lower operating costs. The Department performed a life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) analysis to help determine whether the operating cost savings of potential new standards for refrigerator-freezers are sufficient to justify the higher purchase price. For the purposes of this analysis, the Department analyzed the LCC and PBP of amendedenergy conservation standards for the following two product classes of refrigerators, refri(yeratorfreezers, and freezers: (1) top-mounted freezer without through-the-door (TTD) ice service, automatic defrost and (2) side-mounted freezer with TTD ice service, automatic defrost. The Department analyzed two standard levels: (1) product with 15 percent less annual energy consumption than the baseline product (i.e., a product meeting current energy conservation standards) and (2) a product with 25 percent less annual energy consumption than the baseline product. The Department assumed baseline products to equal the maximum energy consumption allowed by current energy conservation standards. Refrigerator-freezers with 15 percent less energy consumption correspond to products meeting current Energy Star requirements. Refrigerator-freezers with 25 percent less energy consumption correspond to products meeting potential future Energy Star levels, assuming new standards are set at existing Energy Star levels.

4.1 LIFE-CYCLE COST METHODOLOGY The Department calculated the LCC by adding the installed cost and all the operating costs until the end of the product lifetime as shown in Equation 4.1. The total installed cost for a refrigerator-freezer includes the consumer retail price and the installation cost. The operating costs include the electricity expense and any repair and maintenance costs. The equation discounts future operating costs to the year of installation.

LCC = P+ O

(1+ r)`
where: P = total installed cost ($), E = sum over analysis period, Ot = annual operating cost ($), r = discount rate for costs, and t = lifetime (years). Eq. 4.1

The LCC savings is the difference between the LCC of the baseline (i.e., the product meeting current energy conservation standards) and the LCC of the product meeting new standards. For purposes of this analysis, the Department assumed the installation, repair, and maintenance costs were equal to zero.

4-9 

# #4.7 CHAPTER4. LIFE-CYCLE COSTAND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS
Increasing the energy efficiency ofa product to comply with a standard affects the costs ofpurchasing and operating the product. Higher-efficiency products usually have higher installed costs and lower operating costs. The Department performed a life-cycle cost (LCC) and paybackperiod (PBP) analysis to help determine whether the operating cost savings of potential new standards for refrigerator-freezers are sufficient tojustifythe higher purchase price. For the purposes ofthis analysis, the Department analyzed the LCC and PBPofamended energy conservation standards for the following two product classes ofrefrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers: (1) top-mounted freezer without through-the-door (TID) ice service, automatic defrost and (2) side-mounted freezer with TTD ice service, automatic defrost. The Department analyzed two standard levels: (1) product with 15 percent less annual energy consumption than the baseline product (i.e., a product meeting current energy conservation standards) and (2) a product with 25 percent less annual energy consumption than the baseline product. The Department assumed baseline products to equal the maximum energy consumption allowed by current energy conservation standards. Refrigerator-freezers with 15 percent less energy consumption correspond to products meeting current Energy Starrequirements. Refrigerator-freezers with 25 percent less energy consumption correspond to products meeting potential future Energy Starlevels, assuming new standards are set at existing Energy Starlevels.



### 4.1 LIFE-CYCLE COSTMETHODOLOGY The Department calculated the Leeby adding the installed cost and all the operating costs until the end oftheproduct lifetime as shown in Equation 4.1. The total installed cost for a refrigerator-freezer includes the consumer retailprice and the installation cost. The operating costs include the electricity expense and any repair and maintenance costs. The equation discounts future operating costs to the year ofinstallation.

### ~ 

# °t LCC

## =P+

## LC> )1 1+1' 

### Eq.4.1
where: P 

## = total installed cost ($), 

### L 

## = sum over analysis period, Ot 

## = annual operating cost ($), r 

## = discount rate for costs, and t 

## = lifetime (years).

The Lee savings is the difference between the Lee ofthe baseline (i.e., the product meeting current energy conservation standards) and the Lee ofthe product meeting new standards. Forpurposes ofthis analysis, the Department assumed the installation, repair, and maintenance costs were equal to zero.

4-9Figure 4-1 illustrates the cumulative costs, which include the initial total installed cost

and the discounted annual operating costs, over the equipment lifetime for a hypothetical baseline product (no standards) and a product meeting new standards. Typically, the standards case has a higher initial total installed cost than the baseline.

A

COSTS ($)

$0 Baseline

A Difference: p Baseline

- Standards

0 13 13 n

0 13

13 13 A A A

13 A A

Standards LCC

q q q q q q t 9)

LCC Savings A A

Years Since Purchase Figure 4-1. Illustration of LCC for Baseline and Standards Over the years that the refrigerator is in use, the system incurs electricity costs. The baseline product consumes more electricity than the product in the standards case, so the total LCC is generally higher for the baseline product than for the product meeting new standards. Figure 4-2 illustrates the inputs, calculated values, and outputs of the LCC analysis. A representative value or range of values represents each input. The Department annotated data sources in the LCC and PBP spreadsheet model and fully documented them in this chapter. The Department performed the LCC and PBP analysis using representative values for product retail prices and lifetimes, energy costs , energy usage, and discount rates. The following sections discuss and document the LCC inputs. 

# #4.7 Figure4-1 illustrates the cumulative costs, which include the initial total installed cost and the discounted annual operating costs, over the equipment lifetime for a hypothetical baselineproduct (no standards) and a product meeting new standards. Typically, the standards case has a higher initial total installed cost than the baseline.

COSTS ($) Baseline**~** b.

Difference: Baseline

- Standards

o 0 o o 0 BaselineLCC

LCC Savings 000 I

_________**~<T-D~D~D~--------------------------~~~~~--~~** $0 I- 000 o 0 Years Since Purchase 

### Figure 4-1. Illustration ofLCC for Baseline and Standards Over the years that the refrigerator is in use, the system incurs electricity costs. The baseline product consumes more electricity than the product in the standards case, so the total 

### Lee is generally higher for the baselineproductthan for the product meeting new standards. Figure 4-2 illustrates the inputs, calculated values, and outputs ofthe 

### Lee analysis. A representative value orrange ofvalues represents each input. The Department annotated data sources in the 

### Lee and PEP spreadsheet model and fully documented them in this chapter. The Department pelformed the 

### Lee and PEP analysis using representative values for productretail prices and lifetimes, energy costs, energy usage, and discount rates. The following sections discuss and document the 

### Lee inputs.

4-10Manufacturing Cost
Manufacturerto-Consumer Markup

Annual Electricity Consumption Electricity Price Consumer Retail Price

Product Lifetime

Discount Rate

Electricity Price Trend Payback Period Life-Cycle Cost

LCC Inputs
Calculated Values LCC & PBP Output Figure 4-2. Flow Diagram of Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

4.2 CONSUMER RETAIL PRICE The consumer retail price represents the price to the consumer of purchasing a refrigerator-freezer. The Department determined the consumer retail price of more-efficient refrigerator-freezers by first establishing the retail price of baseline products (i.e., products meeting current energy conservation standards) and then establishing the incremental retail price associated with the more efficient products. The Department determined two sets of incremental retail prices: one set based on incremental manufacturing costs and the other set based on a regression analysis of refrigerator-freezer sales data. The Department also conducted an analysis of focused matched pairs of refrigerator-freezers to determine the incremental price of more efficient products. The focused matched pairs consisted of two models where most features were similar with the exception that one model met Energy Star and the other model did not.

4.2.1 Baseline Retail PriceThe Department determined the retail prices associated with baseline top-mount and sidemount refrigerator-freezers through an analysis of retail prices from The NPD Group.' The NPD Group dataset includes information about the average price and model number of more than 2000 refrigerator models sold in 2004 in the United States. The data also include information about the refrigerator brand, manufacturer, attributes (e.g., total refrigerated volume, number and type of shelves), and sales, and whether each model. has an Energy Star rating.

4-11 Manufactuting Cost
Manufacturerto-Consumer

Markup

Annual Electricity Consumption

Electlicity

Price Consumer Retail Price

Product Lifetime

Discount Rate

Electricity Price Trend 

### Payback Period

Lifetime E1ectlicity Cost 

# #4.7

Figure 4-2. Flow Diagram ofLife-Cycle Cost and PaybackPeriod Analysis
4.2 CONSUMER RETAILPRICE The consumer retailprice represents the price to the consumer ofpurchasing a refrigerator-freezer. The Department determined the consumerretail price ofmore-efficient refrigerator-freezers by first establishing the retail price ofbaseline products (i.e., products meeting cunent energy conservation standards) and then establishing the incrementalretail price associated with the more efficient products. The Department determined two sets ofincremental retail prices: one set based on incremental manufacturing costs and the other set based on a regression analysis ofrefrigerator-freezer sales data. The Department also conducted an analysis offocused matched pairs ofrefrigerator-freezers to determine the incrementalprice ofmore efficient products. The focused matched pairs consisted oftwo models where most features were similar with the exception that one model met Energy Star and the other model did not.


### 4.2.1 Baseline Retail Price The Department determined the retail prices associated with baseline top-mount and sidemount refrigerator-freezers through an analysis ofretail prices £i'om The NPD Group.1 The NPD Group dataset includes information about the average price and model number ofmore than 2000 refrigerator models sold in 2004 in the United States. The data also include information about the refrigerator brand, manufacturer, attributes (e.g., total refrigerated volume, number and type ofshelves), and sales, and whether each model has an Energy Starrating.

4-11The NPD Group dataset includes information on 535 top-mount and 629 side-mount

refrigerator-freezer models. Summary information on these models is included in Appendix B. The Department used price and sales information about these models to select groups of basictop-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers. The Department defined basic refrigeratorfreezers from the distribution of lower-priced, high-selling models. As shown in Figure 4-3, the sales-weighted distribution of top-mount models indicated a price grouping of 387 models under $600 (over 90 percent of sales). As a result, the Department defined this grouping of 387 models as basic top-mount models.

32% 30% 29%

25%

22%

18%

14% _14% 18%

Basic model upper price limit. 11%

7

4 7%

2%

a 0% a 0°/a 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1 C r -^^^^ -,-- 0 53 179 305 431 557 683 809 935 Price (dollars per unit) Figure 4-3. Sales by Retail Price: Refrigerator

-Freezers with Top

-Mount Freezer
Of the 387 top-mount models under $600, 262 models are without TTD ice service and do not meet current Energy Star levels. Thus, the Department considered these 262 models to be baseline models (i.e., models just meeting current energy conservation standards). Table 4-1 shows the sales-weighted baseline prices associated with three capacity size ranges of top-mount refrigerator-freezers. Capacities are in total refrigerated volume (i.e., fresh food compartment volume plus freezer compartment volume). 

# #4.7 The NPD Group dataset includes information on 535 top-mount and 629 side-mount refrigerator-freezer models. Summary information onthese models is included in Appendix B. The Department used price and sales information about these models to select groups ofbasic top-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers. The Department defined basic refrigeratorfreezers from the distribution oflower-priced, high-selling models. As shown in Figure 4-3, the sales-weighted distribution oftop-mount models indicated a price grouping of387 models under $600 (over 90 percent ofsales). As a result, the Deprutment defined this grouping of387 models as basic top-mount models.

30%

Basic model upperprice limit.

0% 0% 935 Price (dollars perunit) Figure 4-3. Sales by Retail Price: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-MountFreezer

Ofthe 387 top-mount models under $600, 262 models are without TTD ice service and do not meet current Energy Starlevels. Thus, the Depru·tment considered these 262 models to be baseline models (i.e., modelsjust meeting current energy conservation standru·ds). Table 4-1 shows the sales-weighted baseline prices associated with three capacity size ranges oftop-mount refrigerator-freezers. Capacities are in total refrigerated volume (i.e., :liesh food compartment volume plus freezer comprutment volume).

4-12

# #4®7

Table 4-1. Baseline Retail Prices: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service L&L Baseline Retail Price $329 $386 Source: The NPD Group/NPD Houseworld - POS.
For side-mount models, Figure 4-4 shows the sales-weighted distribution indicating a price grouping of 302 models under $1100 (70 percent of sales). As a result, the Department defined this grouping of 302 models as basic side-mount models.

42%

36%

300

24%

18 °/O

12°/ 28%

18% 18% Basic model upper price limit.

60 8% 6% j 2% % o% o % I I 0% 0% 0% 199 467 736 1004 1272 1541 1809 333 602 870 1138 1407 1675 1943 Price ( dollars per unit) Figure 4-4. Sales by Retail Price: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer
Of the 302 top-mount models under $1100, 143 models feature TTD ice service and do not meet current Energy Star levels. Thus, the Department considered these 143 models to be baseline models. Table 4-2 shows the sales-weighted baseline prices associated with three capacity size ranges of side-mount refrigerator freezers. Capacities are in total refrigerated volume. 9% 

# #4.7 Table 4-1. Baseline Retail Prices: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-MountFreezerand without TTD Ice Service

Source: The NPD Group/NPD Houseworld

- POS.

For side-mount models, Figure 4-4 shows the sales-weighted distribution indicating a price grouping of302 models under $1100 (70 percent ofsales). As a result, the Department defined this grouping of302 models as basic side-mount models.

CI 42%

36%

30% ·28% 

### '" 

## .; 24% TIl


### .... 0 Cl



## ... <.> t 18% Basic model upperprice limit.

=-- 12%

6%
0% 0% 0% 0% 199 467 333 602 870 1138 1407 Plice(dollars perunit) 

### Figure 4-4. Sales by Retail Price: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-MountFreezer

Ofthe 302 top-mount models under $1100,143 models feature TID ice service and do not meet current Energy Star levels. Thus, the Department considered these 143 models to be baseline models. Table 4-2 shows the sales-weighted baseline prices associated with three capacity size ranges ofside-mount refrigerator freezers. Capacities are in totalrefrigerated volume.

4-13Table 4-2. Baseline Retail Prices: Refrigerator

-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

4.2.2 Incremental Retail Prices based on Incremental Manufacturing Costs
4.2.2.1 Incremental Manufacturing Costs As detailed in chapter 2 on the engineering analysis, the Association of Home ApplianceManufacturers (AHAM) collected manufacturing cost data from manufacturers of refrigeratorfreezers.2 The data provided the incremental manufacturing cost of achieving energy use levels 15 percent and 25 percent lower than current baseline levels. The incremental manufacturingcost data provided by AHAM to the Department were for three size ranges of refrigeratorfreezers with top-mounted freezers and without TTD ice service, as well as three size ranges of refrigerator-freezers with side-mounted freezer and with TTD ice service. For each capacity size category, a minimum, average, and maximum incremental manufacturing cost was provided. The incremental manufacturing cost data are summarized in Table 4-3 for top-mount refrigerator-freezers and in Table 4-4 for side-mount refrigerator-freezers. Table 4-3. Incremental Manufacturing Costs: Refrigerator

-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

25% less energy Source: AHAM.. $64.00 $1.9.04 $187.801$359.00 $18.00 $54.10 $141.00 $40.00 $21.21 $78.29 1$139.00

Table 4-4. Incremental Manufacturing Costs: Refrigerator

-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

15% less energy $5.00 1 $26.88 1 $95.00 I $5.00 I $17.67 1$105.00 25% less energy $6.00 $126.40 $219.00 $30.00 1 $99.63 $305.00 Source: AHAM. 

# #4.7 Table 4-2. Baseline Retail Prices: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-MountFreezer and with TTD Ice Service

Source: The NPD GrouplNPD Housewor1cl- POS.


### 4.2.2 IncrementalRetail Prices based on Incremental Manufacturing Costs
4.2.2.1 IncrementalManufacturing Costs As detailed in chapter 2 on the engineering analysis, the Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) collected manufacturing cost data from manufacturers ofrefrigeratorfreezers. 2 The dataprovided the incremental manufacturing cost ofachieving energy use levels 15 percent and 25 percent lower than current baseline levels. The incremental manufacturing cost dataprovided by AHAM to the Department werefor three size ranges ofrefrigeratorfreezers with top-mounted freezers and without TTD ice service, as well as three sizeranges of refrigerator-freezers with side-mounted freezer and with TTD ice service. For each capacity size category, a minimum, average, and maximum incremental manufacturing cost was provided. The incremental manufacturing cost data are summarized in Table 

### 4-3 for top-mount refrigerator-freezers and in Table 4-4 for side-mount refrigerator-freezers. 

### Table 4-3. IncrementalManufacturing Costs: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezerand without TTD Ice Service 

## D

<>.1

¢ "'00'%;/ 2**'"'$!~** j**~~"'~** 

# 1'-17 cu. It: £ 

## :". " ,18

..20 cu. It:"" , 

### 21-22**~t** 

## J. « " %t'" '"'**~"i 0%~g0;;** **q?'d,,/%;}~** *'-'**~** 

# ""**-%'.~** '>/;';5;;**~ /'~** **~/** %00 '" x ' , " 11' &' • *"'Y

### ~vg;1**!fjif~rgy I.Js~"lleyel;~~**  

### Min. J\.Yg. ': Max. x 

### .Min.pi**~vg. ~::Max.**  

### Min. Max.
g 

### 15% less energy $8.00 $19.04 $26.00 $8.00 $17.31 $400.00 $10.00 $21.21 $37.00 

### 25% less energy $64.00 $187.80 $359.00 $18.00 $54.10 $141.00 $40.00 $78.29 $139.00 Source: AHAM.



### Table4-4. Incremental Manufacturing Costs: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

25% 

### less energy $6.00 $126.40 $219.00 $30.00 Insufficient Data Source: AHAM.

4-14

# #4®7
4.2.2.2 Manufacturer

-to-Consumer Markup The manufacturer-to-consumer markup is a multiplier used to convert manufacturing costs into consumer retail prices. For this analysis, the Department estimated this markup from a prior technical support document (TSD) the Department published in 1995 to assess whether amended energy conservation standards were warranted for refrigerator-freezers.' Table 4-5 shows the manufacturing costs, retail prices, and deduced markups developed from this prior analysis for baseline top-mount and side-mount refrigerator freezers. The deduced markup is the retail price divided by the manufacturing cost. Table 4-5. Manufacturer

-to-Consumer Markups for Refrigerator-Freezers ,rf
i 1w rr3 t°_ ., ^ A -^ r Top-Mount Freezer without TTD Ice Service $259.53 $554.67*W 2.14 Side-Mount Freezer with TTD Ice Service $597.41 ' $ 1161.51" 1.94 Source: DOE 1995 TSD. Table 3.5.; Source : DOE 1995 TSD. Table 4.1. Source : DOE 1995 TSD. Table 3. 8.; Source: DOE 1995 TSD. Table 4.4.
Because the deduced markups for both of the above product classes of refrigeratorfreezers are approximately 2.0, the Department chose to use a manufacturer

-to-consumer markup of 2.0 for this analysis

. The Department assumed this markup to include all sales taxes.
4.2.2.3 Resultant Incremental Retail Prices Based on the manufacturer-to-consumer markup of 2.0, the incremental manufacturing costs in. Tables 4-3 and 4-4 can be converted to incremental consumer retail prices. The incremental retail price data are summarized in Table 4-6 for top-mount refrigerator-freezers and in Table 4-7 for side-mount refrigerator-freezers. Table 4-6

. Manufacturing Cost-Based Incremental Retail Prices: Refrigerator

-Freezers

with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

15% less energy 25% less energy $16.00 1 $38.08 1 $52.00 1 $16.00 1 $34.62 1$800.001 $20.00

$128.00 $375.60 $718.00 $36.00 $108.20 $282.00 $80.00 $156.58

Table 4-7. Manufacturing Cost-Based Incremental Retail Prices: Refrigerator-Freezers

with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

15% less energy 25% less energy $10.00 1 $53.76 1$190.001 $1.00 1 $35.34 1$210.00

$12.00 $252.80 $438.00 $60.00 $199.26 $610.00

4-15 

# #4.7 4.2.2.2 Manufacturer-to-ConsumerMarkup The manufacturer-to-consumer markup is a multiplier used to convert manufa9tllfing costs into consumer retailprices. Forthis analysis, the Department estimatedthis**rnat~p** from a priortechnical support document (TSD) the Departmentpublished in 1995 to assessvJhether amended energy conservation standards were warranted for refrigerator-freezers. 3 Table

### 4-5 shows the manufacturing costs, retail prices, and deduced markups developed fromthis prior analysis for baseline top-mount and side-mount refrigerator freezers. The deduced**~kup** is the retail price divided by the manufacturing cost. 

### Table 4-5. Manufacturer-to-ConsumerMarkupsfor Refrigerator-Freezers

Top-MountFreezer without TTD Ice Service $259.53* Side-Mount Freezer with TTD Ice Service $597.41 t

, Source: DOE 1995 TSD. Table 3.5.; ** Source: DOE 1995 TSD. Table4.1. I Source: DOE 1995 TSD. Table 3.8.; H Source: DOE 1995 TSD. Table4.4. $554.67** 2.14 $1161.51 tt 1.94

Because the deduced markups for both ofthe above product classes ofrefrigeratorfreezers are approximately 2.0, the Department chose to use a manufacturer-to-consumer markup of2.0 for this analysis. The Department assumed this markup to include all sales taxes. 

### 4.2.2.3 Resultant Incremental Retail Prices Based on the manufacturer-to-consumer markup of2.0, the incremental manufacturing costs in Tables 4-3 and 4-4 can be converted to incremental consumerretail prices. The incrementalretail price data are summarized in Table 4-6 for top-mount refrigerator-freezers and in Table 4-7 for side-mount refrigerator-freezers.



### Table 4-6. Manufacturing Cost-Based Incremental Retail Prices: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezerand without TTD Ice Service

15% less energy $16.00 $38.08 $52.00 $16.00 $34.62 $800.00 $20.00 $42.42 $74.00 25% less energy $128.00 $375.60 $718.00 $36.00 $108.20 $282.00 $80.00 $156.58 $278.00



### Table 4-7. Manufacturing Cost-Based Incremental Retail Prices: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-MountFreezer and with TTD Ice Service

25% less energy $12.00 $252.80 $438.00 $60.00 $199.26 $610.00 Insufficient Data

4-154.2.3 Incremental Retail Prices based on Regression Analysis The Department performed a regression analysis of basic top-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezer models from The NPD Group dataset to estimate the incremental retail price of current Energy Star compliant products (i.e., products with 15 percent less energy consumption than baseline products). As described earlier in section 3.2.1, Baseline Retail Price, there are 387 basic top-mount models and 302 basic side-mount models. The Department developed regression equations to determine the retail price increment due to Energy Star. It developed a "short" regression equation with retail price as a function of Energy Star and total capacity as well as a "long" regression equation with retail price as a function of Energy Star, total capacity, attributes (i.e., TTD services, icemaker, water filter, drawer, and shelf specifications) and brand name. The Department developed the "long" regression equations with and without weighting refrigerator-freezer models by sales in 2004. As shown in Table 4-8, the current Energy Star rating adds between $39 and $47 to the price of a basic top-mount refrigerator-freezer and between $60 and $85 to the price of a basic side-mount refrigerator-freezer. Table 4-8. Regression Analysis Results on the Incremental Retail Price of Energy Star

Top-Mount Equations "Short" Regression : Energy Star, total capacity Price $47.40 0.24 387 "Long "Regression: Energy Star , total capacity, attribute, and brand name Price Price, sales-weighted $44.39 $39.30 0.42 0.83 387

387 Side-Mount Equations "Short "Regression: Energy Star, total capacity Price $65.80 0.03 302 "Long "Regression: Energy Star, total capacity, attribute, and brand name Price Price, sales-weighted $60.40 $84.90 0.11 0.51 302

302 Source: The NPD Group/NPD Houseworld - POS.
The results of the complete variable regression equations are included in Appendix B. The estimated coefficients of the focus variables are significant and have the expected sign in all but one instance.b The attribute variable coefficients have the expected sign in most cases, but b The statistic of significance in the un-weighted regressions is the t statistic, defined as the estimated value of the coefficient divided by its estimated standard deviation. Commonly, a t statistic over 2 suggests a coefficient to be greater than zero with a high degree of confidence. In the sales-weighted regressions, a similar z statistic is used to denote significance of the estimated coefficient.

4-16 

# #4.7 4.2.3 IncrementalRetail Pricesbased onRegression Analysis The Department performed a regression analysis ofbasic top-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezer models fromThe NPD Group dataset to estimate the incrementalretailprice ofcurrent Energy Starcompliant products (i.e., products with 15 percent less energy consumption thanbaseline products). As described earlier in section 3.2.1, Baseline Retail Price, there are 387 basic top-mount models and 302 basic side-mount models. The Department developed regression equations to determine the retail price increment due to Energy Star. Itdeveloped a "short" regression equation with retail price as a function of Energy Star and total capacity as well as a "long" regression equation with retail price as a function ofEnergy Star, total capacity, attributes (i.e., TID services, icemaker, water filter, drawer, and shelfspecifications) and brand name. The Department developed the "long" regression equations with and without weighting refrigerator-freezer models by sales in 2004. As shown in Table 4-8, the current Energy Starrating adds between $39 and $47 to the price ofa basic top-mount refrigerator-freezer and between $60 and $85 to the price ofa basic side-mount refrigerator-freezer. 

### Table 4-8. Regression Analysis Results on the Incremental Retail Price ofEnergy Star

, 

# I 

# I" %i!t 

### iENERtiYST "@ 

### • \It

# ~ 

# I % /**~** 

# *1

'0**/0~vc** M;;:**v~,** Wff " // " ,**0~ ~2** **'f.~igt** ,., "'iii/X**~** ,;;J;:&;; Rfi';;sionfit
- N:mberJfr**~** /**:7~** Coefficient 

# ,L
/ Y /, 

# I,"
p**i~'>":;;0WJ/** :;0 twt



# ,**:~/,~~b/:** ' /'**~& "C~h**  1**~f:s?~~11j1x /~**  ;#; %,1" "s;\ /;; 

# Ilf**~0** v 2 Observatiols i!fI /?**d~pric~AENERGY** 0" R _";;,;R » % 'if"%; Top-MountEquations "Short"Regression: Energy Star, total capacity Price $47.40 0.24 387 "Long"Regression: Energy Star, total capacity, attribute, andbrandname Price $44.39 0.42 387 Price, sales-weighted $39.30 0.83 387 Side-MountEquations "Short"Regression: Energy Star, total capacity Price $65.80 0.03 302 "Long"Regression: Energy Star, total capacity, attribute, andbrand name Price $60.40 0.11 302 Price, sales-weighted $84.90 0.51 302 Source: The NPD Group/NPD Houseworld

- POS.

The results ofthe complete variable regression equations are included in Appendix B. The estimated coefficients ofthe focus variables are significant and have the expected sign in all but one instance. b The attribute variable coefficients have the expected sign in most cases, but

b The statistic ofsignificance in the un-weighted regressions is the t statistic, defined as the estimated value ofthe coefficient divided by its estimated standard deviation. Commonly, a t statistic over 2 suggests a coefficient to be greater than zero with a high degree ofconfidence. In the sales-weightedregressions, a similar z statistic is used to denote significance ofthe estimated coefficient.
4-16

# #4.7

are less often significant. Although all the variables in the sales-weighted regressions are shown to be significant at the 95 percent confidence level, the test of significance is biased upwards because the dependent variable (retail price) is averaged over all model sales. The Department chose the non-sales-weighted "long" regression equation as providing the most representative retail price increment for Energy Star (i.e., $44.39 for top-mount and $60.40 for side-mount). As just noted, the sales-weighted regressions include a bias, since the retail price associated with any given model is actually an average value averaged across all salesof the given model.. Thus, the results from the sales-weighted regression are biased to overrepresent the average retail price rather than the actual retail price. The Department chose the non-sales-weighted "long" regression equation over the non-sales-weighted "short" regression equation because the attribute and brand names variables influence the retail price of refrigerator models. Including these variables tends to improve the accuracy of the retail price coefficient. The retail price increment for Energy Star determined from the non-sales-weighted "long" regressions is associated with specific capacities (i.e., total refrigerated volumes). For top-mount refrigerator-freezers the $44.39 price increment is for an 18.3 cubic foot capacity unit while, for side-mount products, the $60.40 price increment is for a 24.1 cubic foot capacity unit. The non-sales-weighted "long" regressions also demonstrate that the size or total capacity of the refrigerator-freezer impacts the price. The price coefficient for capacity is $5.97 per cubic foot and $6.30 per cubic foot for top-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers, respectively. Because the regression analysis provided a capacity price increment as well as an Energy Star price increment, the Department was able to generate incremental retail prices for each of the size categories in which manufacturing cost data were submitted (refer back to Table 4-3 and Table 4-4 for the size categories). Equations 4.2 and 4.3 provide the expressions for determining the retail price increment of Energy Star for top-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers, respectively.
TM PRICE FSTAR = $44.3 9 +(TM cAPAciTY - 18.3 ) • $5.97

where: TMPRICE ESTAR = top-mount Energy Star price increment at TMcAPACJTY, $44.39 = Energy Star price increment for top-mount at 18.3 cu. ft., TMCAPACITY = capacity in cu. ft. of top-mount refrigerator-freezer, 18.3 = top-mount capacity for $44.39 Energy Star price increment, and $5.97 = top-mount price coefficient for capacity per cu. ft. Eq. 4.2

SMPRICE ESTAR = $60.40+(SMCAPACITY - 24.1) • $6.30 Eq. 4.3 

# #4.7

are less often significant. Although all the variables in the sales-weightedregressions are shown to be significant at the 95 percent confidence level, the test ofsignificance is biased upwards because the dependent variable (retail price) is averaged over all model sales. The Department chose the non-sales-weighted "long" regression equation as providing the most representative retail price increment for Energy Star (i.e., $44.39 for top-mount and $60.40 for side-mount). Asjust noted, the sales-weightedregressions include a bias,sincethe retail price associated with any given model is actually an average value averaged across all sales ofthe given model. Thus, the results from the sales-weighted regression are biased to overrepresent the average retailprice rather than the actual retail price. The Departmentchosethe non-sales-weighted "long" regression equation over the non-sales-weighted "short"regression equation because the attribute and brand names variables influence the retail price ofrefrigerator models. Including these variables tends to improve the accuracy ofthe retail price coefficient. The retailprice increment for Energy Star determined from the non-sales-weighted "long" regressions is associated with specific capacities (i.e., totalrefrigerated volumes). For top-mount refrigerator-freezers the $44.39 price increment is for an 18.3 cubic footcapacity unit while, for side-mount products, the $60.40 price increment is for a 24.1 cubic foot capacity unit. The non-sales-weighted "long" regressions also demonstrate that the size ortotal capacity ofthe refrigerator-freezer impacts the price. The price coefficient for capacity is $5.97 percubic foot and $6.30 per cubic foot for top-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers, respectively. Because the regression analysis provided a capacity price increment as well as an Energy Star price increment, the Department was able to generate incremental retailprices for each ofthe size categories in which manufacturing cost data were submitted (refer backto Table 4-3 and Table 4-4 for the size categories). Equations 4.2 and 4.3 provide the expressions for determining the retail price increment ofEnergy Starfor top-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers, respectively.
TM PRICEESTAR

## =$44.39+(TM CAPACITY -18.3)·$5.97 where:
TMpRICEESTAR $44.39
TMCAPAClTY 18.3

. $5.97 

## =top-mount Energy Starprice increment at TMcAPACITY, 

## =Energy Starprice increment for top-mount at 18.3 cu. ft., 

## =capacity in cu. ft. oftop-mountrefrigerator-freezer, 

## =top-mount capacity for $44.39 Energy Starprice increment, and 

## =top-mount price coefficient for capacity per cu. ft.


### SMPRICE ESTAR = $60.40

### +(SM CAPACITY

- 24.1)·$6.30

4-17 

### Eq.4.2

Eq.4.3where:

SMPRICEESTAR = side-mount Energy Star price increment at SMCAPACITY, $60.40 = Energy Star price increment for side-mount at 24.1 cu. ft., SMCAPACITY = capacity in cu. ft. of side-mount refrigerator-freezer, 24.1 = side-mount capacity for $60.40 Energy Star price increment, and $6.30 = side-mount price coefficient for capacity per cu. ft.

Table 4-9 and Table 4-10 show the incremental retail price of achieving current Energy Star levels (i.e., 15 percent lower energy consumption than baseline products) for size categories in which manufacturing costs were submitted. To calculate the price increments shown in the tables below, the Department assumed the average value of the capacity range is the representative size (e.g., 15.5 cubic feet for the 14-17 cubic foot size category). Note that the Department could not establish the price increment of products with 25 percent less energy, as these products are currently not sold in significant numbers and were therefore not included in the dataset provided by The NPD Group. Table 4-9. Regression Analysis Incremental Retail Prices: Refrigerator

-Freezers with

Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

Source: The NPD Group/NPD Houseworld - POS.
Table 4-10. Regression Analysis Incremental Retail Prices : Refrigerator

-Freezers with

Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

Source: The NPD Group/NPD Houseworld - POS.

4.2.4 Comparison of Manufacturing Cost-Based and Regression Analysis Retail Prices Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6 provide the consumer retail price estimates for top-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers, respectively. For the retail prices based on manufacturing costs, the figures provide prices based not only on average cost estimates, but for minimum and maximum cost estimates as well. Retail price comparisons are only possible for the 15 percent less energy standard level, since the regression analysis was only able to generate prices for this energy consumption level. In general, the retail price estimates based on the averagemanufacturing cost estimates and the regression analysis are similar. For top-mount refrigeratorfreezers, the difference in the retail price estimates between the two approaches ranges from $11. to $21. For side-mount refrigerator-freezers, the difference between the two approaches is

4-18 where: SMpRICEESTAR $60.40
SMCAPACITY 24.1 $6.30 

## =side-mount Energy Starprice increment at SMCAPACITY, 

## =Energy Starprice increment for side-mount at 24.1 cu. ft., 

## =capacity in cu. ft. ofside-mount refrigerator-freezer, 

# #4.7

=side-mount capacity for $60.40 Energy Starprice increment, and 

## =side-mountprice coefficient for capacity per cu. ft.

Table 4-9 and Table 4-10 show the incrementalretailprice ofachieving CUlTent Energy Starlevels (i.e., 15 percent lower energy consumptionthan baseline products) for size categories in which manufacturing costs were submitted. To calculate the price increments shown in the tables below, the Department assumed the average value ofthe capacityrange is the representative size (e.g., 15.5 cubic feet for the 14-17 cubic foot size category). Notethat the Department could not establish the price increment ofproducts with 25 percent less energy, as these products are currently not sold in significant numbers and were therefore not included in the dataset provided by The NPD Group. 

### Table4-9. Regression Analysis IncrementalRetail Prices: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-MountFreezerand withoutTTD Ice Service

Source: The NPD Group/NPD Houseworld

- POS.



### Table 4-10. Regression Analysis IncrementalRetail Prices: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-MountFreezerand with TTD Ice Service

Source: The NPD Group/NPD Houseworld

- POS.



### 4.2.4 Comparison ofManufacturing Cost-Based and Regression Analysis Retail Prices Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6 provide the consumer retail price estimates for top-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers, respectively. Forthe retail prices based on manufacturing costs, the figures provide prices based not only on average cost estimates, but for minimum and maximum cost estimates as well. Retail price comparisons are only possible for the 15 percent less energy standard level, since the regression analysis was only able to generate prices for this energy consumption level. In general, the retail price estimates based on the average manufacturing cost estimates and the regression analysis are similar. Fortop-mount refrigeratorfTeezers, the difference in the retailprice estimates between the two approaches ranges from $11 to $21. For side-mount refrigerator-freezers, the difference between the two approaches is

4-18

# #4®7

broader. While the 21-23 and 24-26 cubic foot size categories have price differences of $7 and $31, respectively, the 27-30 cubic foot size category has a price difference of $96.

$800
$700
$600

$500 O v $400 (L $300 A) it $200 $100
$0 El Mfg Cost Min E3 Kffg Cost Avg f Mfg Cost Max El Regress

LOWCOLn 'Itm Ent-f-. $1,047 $1,186

oN

11 00 I ca ._...

Ns9.; N CV CV M (9 \

I \q N

m a) LOCq Ln

.

I% I

r
Baseline 15% less 25% less Baseline 15% less 25% less Baseline 15% less 25% less

energy energy energy energy energy energy

14-17 cu. 8. 18-20 cu

.ft. 21-22 cu.ft. Figure 4-5. Retail Prices for Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

4-19 

# #4.7 broader. While the 21-23 and 24-26 cubic foot size categories have price differences of$7 and $31, respectively, the 27-30 cubic foot size category has a price difference of$96.

$800 Ila Mig Cost Min $700

... II Mig Cost Avg $600 {i):' Ililll Regress In $500 0 0**~** CJ.) $400 t> .;: ll. 

### ·m $300 a:; cc $200
$100

$0 Baseline 15% less 25% less Baseline 15% less 25% less Baseline 15% less 25% less energy energy energy energy energy energy '- V .J '- 'V' .J '- V .J 14-17 cu.ft. 18-20 cu.ft. 21-22 cu.ft. 

### Figure 4-5. Retail Pricesfor Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-MountFreezerand without TTD Ice Service

4-19$1,2001

$1,000

$800 ^

$600 -{

$400 -{

$200 • Mfg Cost Mn Mfg Cost Avg ® Mfg Cost Max Regress

N N... <f} C)

Co ffl co \ O NUJ ,,U) •

## It ff;

l

Z/Z r O

C) Co N. H) P"1

U

V/1 k

A



### L-A co

N. (R

Baseline 15% less 25% less Baseline 15% less 25% less Baseline 15% less

energy energy energy energy energy
21-23 cu.ft. 24-26 cu.ft. 27-30 cu.ft. Figure 4-6. Retail Prices for Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service 4.2.5 Focused Matched Pair Analysis The Department conducted a focused matched pair analysis to quantify the difference in consumer retail price for a matched pair of refrigerators that are very similar in features except for annual energy consumption. Both manufacturer and retailer web sites provide detailed information on features for each model, including retail price and energy consumption. The Department selected eight pairs of top-mount models and four pairs of side-mount models for comparison. The process it used for finding matching pairs was as follows: • At the manufacturer's web site, the Department narrowed the selection shown to those having a common capacity or total refrigerated volume.• The Department examined other features such as whether or not a refrigerator had an icemaker, water filter, or TTD ice and/or water service. Other features considered in comparisons included glass versus wire shelves, and the number of shelves in the refrigerator and freezer compartments. • The Department obtained fresh food volumes and freezer volumes from the manufacturer's web site and calculated an adjusted total volume based on the Department's test procedure. The Department used the adjusted total volume to calculate

4-20 

# #4.7**~** Mig Cost Min 0 $1,200 '<t II Mig Cost Avg $1,000 II Regress U; $800 I/') 0 0**~** G) $600 (,) .;:: n. 'iii 

# - $400 G) a:
$200

$0 Baseline 15% less 25% less Baseline 15% less 25% less Baseline 15% less energy energy energy energy energy '- ./ ...... J \. J 

# ""'" 'V'" V' 21-23 cu.ft. 24-26 cu.ft. 27-30 cu.ft. 

### Figure 4-6. Retail Prices for Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service
4.2.5 Focused Matched PairAnalysis The Department conducted a focused matched pair analysis to quantify the difference in consumerretailprice for a matched pair ofrefrigerators that are very similar in features except for annual energy consumption. Both manufacturer and retailer web sites provide detailed information on features for each model, including retail price and energy consumption. The Department selected eight pairs oftop-mount models and four pairs ofside-mount models for comparison. The process it used for finding matching pairs was as follows:

• At the manufacturer's web site, the Department narrowed the selection shown to those having a common capacity ortotalrefrigerated volume.

• The Department examined other features such as whether or not a refrigerator had an icemaker, water filter, orTTD ice and/or water service. Other features considered in comparisons included glass versus wire shelves, and the number ofshelves in the refrigerator and freezer compartments.

• The Department obtained fresh food volumes and freezer volumes from the manufacturer's web site and calculated an adjusted total volume based on the Department's test procedure. The Department used the adjusted total volume to calculate

4-20

# #4,7the current maximum allowable annual electricity consumption for each refrigeratorfreezer. The Department also determined the Energy Star maximum allowable electricity consumption threshold. (A detailed discussion of adjusted total volume and annual electricity consumption is in section 3.3.1.1.) The Department found no two models where, except for one being Energy Star, all other features were the same. Therefore, the Department used its judgment to select two models close enough for comparison. To eliminate price difference due to color, DOE used only the color white for comparison. Once it had selected the matched pairs, the Department entered the pertinent data on energy consumption and features into a spreadsheet and determined the difference in energy consumption for each pair. It collected retail price data from nine web sites, including the manufacturer and eight retailers. The retail prices used by the Department were the manufacturer's suggested retail price and, at the retail sites, the advertised selling price. The detailed energy consumption, features, and retail price data for the matched pairs are in Appendix C. Table 4-11 and Table 4-12 summarize the results for the top-mount refrigerator-freezers and the side-mount refrigerator-freezers, respectively. The model designated as Baseline achieves or exceeds the current energy efficiency standards but is not an Energy Star model. In the "Delta Price" column, the range refers to the retail prices from the web sites. The number of web sites giving retail prices varied among the models. Where no range is given, the retail price is that from the manufacturer. The "Average Incremental Price" for Energy Star refers to the difference between the average retail prices of each matched pair. 

# #4.7 the current maximum allowable annual electricity consumption for eachrefrigenitor-: freezer. The Department also determined the Energy Star maximum allowable electricity consumption threshold. (A detailed discussion ofadjusted total volume and annual electricity consumption is 

### in section 3.3.1.1.)

• The Department found no two models where, except for one being Energy Star, all other features were the same. Therefore, the Department used itsjudgment to selecttwo models close enough for comparison. To eliminateprice difference due to color, DOE used only the color white for comparison. Once it had selected the matched pairs, the Department entered the pertinent dataon energy consumption and features into a spreadsheet and determined the difference in energy consumption for each pair. It collected retail price data from nine web sites, including the manufacturer and eight retailers. The retailprices used by the Department were the manufacturer's suggested retail price and, at the retail sites, the advertised selling price. The detailed energy consumption, features, and retail price data for the matched pairs are in Appendix C. Table 4-11 and Table 4-12 summarize the results for the top-mount refrigerator-freezers and the side-mount refrigerator-freezers, respectively. The model designated as Baseline achieves orexceeds the current energy efficiency standards but is not an Energy Star model. 

### In the "Delta Price" column, the range refers to the retail prices from the web sites. The number of web sites giving retail prices varied among the models. Where no range is given, the retailprice is that from the manufacturer. The "Average IncrementalPrice" for Energy Starrefers to the difference between the average retail prices ofeach matched pair.

4-21

# #497

Table 4-11. Comparison of Matched Pairs: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

i L r ,
.T ^ ll y p ^f .,r " ^;1 n:`I 1^ ^J l1^. 1 Baseline GTS22KBPWW 21.7 81 Energy Star GE GTH22KKBRWW 21.7 15.3% $ 30-$50 $40 5.4% Baseline Frigidaire FRT21C5A 20.5 77 Energy Star FRT21HC5D 20.6 15.1 % $95-$100 $98 22.3% Baseline ETIMHKXM 21.0 71 Energy Star Whirlpool ETIMTEXM 21.0 13.8% $44-$160 $93 17.0% Baseline 74192 20.6 77 Energy Star Kenmore 74172 20.6 15.1 % $50-$ 180 $115 23.0% Baseline Whirlpool ET8MHKXM 1.8.2 72 Energy Star ET8FTEXM 18.2 14.9% $0-$60 $44 8.8% Baseline GTSI8KBPWW 17.9 72 Energy Star GE GTH18BRWW 17.9 14.9% $20-$25 $23 3.4% Baseline GTR16BBSRWW 15.7 69 Energy Star GE GTH16BBSLWW 15.7 15.2% $30 $30 5.2% Baseline GE GTR15BBR 14.9 67 Energy Star GTH15BBR 14.9 15.0% $0-$30 $15 2.7%
Table 4-12. Comparison of Matched Pairs: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

i r C: v5 7 ^. 1} 1F. 1

Baseline PSI23NGPWW

GE Profile 22.6 102 Energy Star PSH23PGRWW 22.6 14.9% $250 $250 9.6% Baseline GSS25KGPWW 24.9 105 Energy Star GE GSH25KGRWW 25.0 14.7% (` 3)-$50 $24 1.9% Baseline GLRS267ZD 25.7 109 $100- Energy Star Frigidaire GLHS268ZD 26.0 15.0% $ 160 $126 11.9% Baseline ASD2622HRW 25.6 88 Energy Star Amana ASD2624HEW 25.6 12.5% ° $50-$100 $62 6.7%
The results from Table 4-11 and Table 4-12 show that the difference in energy usebetween Baseline and Energy Star models in each matched pair is similar among the pairsgenerally around 15 percent. The difference in retail price (incremental retail price) varies considerably, however. 

# #4.7 Table 4-11. Comparison ofMatched Pairs: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-MountFreezer and without TTD Ice Service

IS.3% $30-$50 $40 5.4% Frigidaire FRT21CSA 77 FRT2IHCSD 15.1% $95-$100 $98 22.3% Whirlpool ETlMHKXM 21.0 71 ETlMTEXM 21.0 13.8% $44-$160 $93 17.0% Kenmore 74192 20.6 77 74172 20.6 15.1% $SO-$180 $l1S 23.0% Whirlpool ET8MHKXM 18.2 72 ET8FTEXM 18.2 14.9% $0-$60 $44 8.8% GE GTS18KBPWW 17.9 72 GTH18BRWW 17.9 14.9% $20-$25 $23 3.4% GE GTR16BBSRWW 15.7 69 GTH16BBSLWW IS.7 IS.2% $30 $30 5.2% GE GTRlSBBR 14.9 67 GTH1SBBR 14.9 IS.0% $0-$30 $IS 2.7%



### Table 4-12. Comparison ofMatched Pairs: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service**~**

# -'<~I" 

# II'" j

# I~II Aw,ag'**I.~** 

### 'I ' , '**~** 

## 1i1<f. ' ,0 .', "" 't % tal"**~** Delta**"~,',** 

## i:: ,;: Incremental , •**'";'<i~x** '" (0 "'" ,,0 "" , "**~** '(/ 2 J?,}"''' U&« EnergyUse Deltil'''' Delta, Pricefor lIi'llis"l, l' R**f:''''''~** ii, :**'%4\~** 'c e r1gera**~. ~**  ***~I:** v**w~** iMoluIDe rtkWh/yr&: ,Price':' Price' Energy Star**_&{~ i$~?**  it**~J;h~** J Category mand**,~,** MOdel Numbep", (cli'fJitlld,**~'flercellt)'** Range Average (Percellt) Baseline GE Profile PSI23NGPWW 22.6 102 Energy Star PSH23PGRWW 22.6 14.9% $250 $250 9.6% Baseline GE GSS25KGPWW 24.9 105 Energy Star GSH2SKGRWW 2S.0 14.7% (S3)-$50 $24 1.9% Baseline Frigidaire GLRS267ZD 25.7 109 $100- Energy Star GLHS268ZD 26.0 IS.0% $160 $126 11.9% Baseline Amana ASD2622HRW 2S.6 88 Energy Star ASD2624HEW 25.6 12.S% $50-$100 $62 6.7%

The results from Table 4-11 and Table 4-12 show that the difference in energy use between Baseline and Energy Star models in each matched pair is similar among the pairsgenerally around 15 percent. The difference in retail price (incremental retailprice) varies considerably, however.

4-22

# #4®7 There is no clear evidence that differences in features between a pair have a consistent effect on price.' Pricing differences among retailers appears to be a factor. For some pairs, the incremental price varied considerably among the web sites. It may be the case that the increased retail price of an Energy Star refrigerator is affected by marketing decisions based on what consumers are willing to pay for the Energy Star designation. Among the top-mount models, the smaller-capacity pairs generally show a lower percentage incremental price than the larger pairs. Also, the larger models have a higher incremental price for Energy Star but also have higher incremental electricity consumption savings. This matched pair analysis shows that: (1) there is a large variation in the incremental retail price among matched pairs for a similar percentage improvement in energy efficiency, and (2) the results are too varied to establish a clear relationship between retail price and efficiency. Therefore, the Department believes that the matched pair analysis can best be used as a realitycheck on the other two methods used to estimate consumer retail prices (i.e., the manufacturingcost-based method and the regression analysis). The incremental retail prices from the focused matched pair analysis generally fall within the range of prices from the manufacturing-cost-based method and the regression analysis.

4.3 LIFETIME ELECTRICITY COST The lifetime electricity cost includes the annual electricity costs discounted over the product lifetime at an appropriate discount rate. Elements of the Department's methodology for performing this analysis are as follows: ® The analysis period starts in 2010, the assumed start year for possible new energy conservation standards. • The analysis uses electricity prices projected over the analysis period (see section 3.3.4, Electricity Price Trends). • The analysis discounts energy cost to the assumed start year for standards (2010). • All. monetary results are in 2005$.
4.3.1 Annual Electricity Cost The operating cost is the sum of the annual electricity costs plus any replacement or maintenance costs. The annual electricity cost is the product of the annual electricity consumption times the electricity price for any given year. 4.3.1.1 Annual Electricity Consumption The Department calculated the annual electricity consumption (also called unit energy consumption) for the capacity size categories for which manufacturing cost data were provided. As noted earlier (section 3.2.2.1) manufacturing cost data were provided for three size ranges for

Examination of the prices at manufacturer web sites indicated that, for models of similar capacity, those with more features did not consistently have a higher price.

4-23 

# #4.7
There is no clear evidence that differences in features between a pair have a consistent effect onprice.C Pricing differences among retailers appears to be a factor. For some pairs, the incrementalprice varied considerably among the web sites. It may be the case that the increased retailprice ofan Energy Starrefrigerator is affected by marketing decisions based onwhat consumers are willing to pay for the Energy Star designation. Among the top-mount models, the smaller-capacity pairs generally show a lowerpercentage incremental price than the larger pairs. Also, the larger models have a higher incrementalprice for Energy Starbut also have higher incremental electricity consumption savings. This matched pair analysis shows that: (1) there is a large variation in the incremental retail price among matched pairs for a similar percentage improvement in energy efficiency, and (2) the results are too varied to establish a clear relationship between retail price and efficiency. Therefore, the Department believes that the matched pair analysis canbest beused as a reality check on the other two methods used to estimate consumerretail prices (i.e., the manufacturingcost-based method and the regression analysis). The incrementalretail prices from the focused matched pair analysis generally fall within the range ofprices from the manufacturing-cost-based method and the regression analysis.


### 4.3 LIFETIME ELECTRICITY COST The lifetime electricity cost includes the annual electricity costs discounted overthe product lifetime at an appropriate discount rate. Elements ofthe Depmtment's methodology for peliorming this analysis are as follows:

• The analysis period stms in 2010, the assumed start year for possible new energy conservation standards. • The analysis uses electricity prices projected over the analysis period (see section 3.3.4, Electricity Price Trends). • The analysis discounts energy cost to the assumed stm year for standards (2010). • All monetary results are in 2005$.


### 4.3.1 Annual Electricity Cost The operating cost is the sum ofthe annual electricity costs plus any replacement or maintenance costs. The annual electricity cost is the product ofthe annual electricity consumption times the electricity price for any given year. 

### 4.3.1.1 Annual Electricity Consumption The Depmtment calculated the annual electricity consumption (also called unit energy consumption) for the capacity size categories for which manufacturing cost data were provided. As noted earlier (section 3.2.2.1) manufacturing cost data were provided for three size ranges for

C Examination ofthe prices at manufacturer web sites indicated that, for models ofsimilar capacity, those with more features did not consistently have a higher price.

4-23both top-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers. The size ranges were based on total

refrigerated volume (i.e., fresh food compartment volume plus freezer compartment volume). The annual electricity consumption for refrigerator-freezers is a function of the adjusted total volume rather than the total refrigerated volume. The equation for calculating the adjusted total volume is:4 VolQdj = Vol7e fng + 1.63 - Vol free.Zer Eq. 4.4
where: Vol,di = adjusted total volume in cubic feet, Vol,refrig = fresh food compartment volume in cubic feet, 1.63 = adjustment factor, and VUlfreezer = freezer compartment volume in. cubic feet.
The Department had to determine representative freezer-volume-to-total

-refrigerated

-volume (FV-TRV) ratios for each refrigerator-freezer size range to determine the adjusted total volume. The Department determined representative ratios from the California Energy Commission's (CEC) appliance database.5 For refrigerator

-freezers sold in California, the appliance database provides the fresh food, freezer, and total volumes. Table 4-13 and Table 4-14 provide the minimum, average, and maximum FV-TVR ratios for top-mount and side-mount refrigeratorfreezers, respectively: Table 4-13. Freezer-Volume-to-Total-Refrigerated-Volume: Refrigerator-Freezers with

Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

14-17 0.196 0.265 0.295 18-20 0.222 0.267 0.315 21-22 0.292 0.298 0.308 Source: CEC.
Table 4-14. Freezer-Volume-to-Total-Refrigerated-Volume: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

21-23 0.295 0.350 0.452 24-26 0.337 0.379 0.399 27-30 0.351 0.373 0.391 Source: CEC.

4-24 

# #4.7
bothtop-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers. The size ranges were based ontotal refrigerated volume (i.e., fresh food compartment volume plus freezer compartment volume). The annual electricity consumption for refrigerator-freezers is a function ofthe adjusted total volumeratherthanthe totalrefrigerated volume. The equation for calculating the adjusted total volume is: 4
Voladj 

## =Vol**r~frig** 

### +1.63•Volfreezer
where: Voladj Volrefrig 1.63 VOlfreezer 

## =adjusted total volume in cubic feet, 

## =fresh food compartment volume in cubic feet, 

## =adjustment factor, and 

## =freezer compartment volume incubic feet. 

### Eg.4.4

The Department had to determine representative freezer-volume-to-total-refrigerated-volume (FV-TRV) ratios for eachrefrigerator-freezer size range to determine the adjusted total volume. The Department determinedrepresentative ratios from the California Energy Commission's (CEC) appliance database. 5 Forrefrigerator-freezers sold in California, the appliance database provides the fresh food, freezer, and totalvolumes. Table 4-13 and Table 4-14 provide the minimum, average, and maximumFV-TVRratios for top-mount and side-mount refrigeratorfreezers,**respectively~**



### Table4-13. Freezer-Volume-to-Total-Refrigerated-Volume: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-MountFreezerand withoutTTD Ice Service Total

### R~fi~r~!~d**x#~~' ~**  x 

### iFreez.olume-IP-TotalJJJefrigeratedEolume » X &8 »q 

### Volume**R~lIe** 

### (cu.**ft.~** x x 

### Minimum Ratio'S**~erage** 

### Ratio**;;~ximum** 

### Ratio 14-17 0.196 0.265 0.295 18-20 0.222 0.267 0.315 21-22 0.292 0.298 0.308 Source: CEC.



### Table 4-14. Freezer-Volume-to-Total-Refrigerated-Volume: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-MountFreezerand with TTD Ice Service

X**.~£** 

# , x '7'**!JWt~<** 

## R' Irll 2%, 

### , 110tal**R~.~rate~ Ji;\,~** **X(~x r"'~itx,**  :' 

### iFreeliC**olume~1'1'otal:;~**

### efngerated I!

### ume 

### a xX 

### Volume**R~i~x(cu,;** ft·t', '2"**~** 

### MinimumRatio ,;1" 

### 'IyerageRatio/ _ 21-23 0.295 0.350 0.452 24-26 0.337 0.379 0.399 27-30 0.351 0.373 0.391 Source: CEC.

4-24

# #4®7 With the FV-TVR ratio known, the Department calculated the adjusted total volume. For each size range, the Department used the mid-point of the range as the representative total refrigerated volume, which, when coupled with the representative value for the FT-TVR ratio, it used to calculate the adjusted total volume. Table 4-15 and Table 4-16 provide the representative adjusted total volumes, as well as the components necessary for determining them, for top-mount and side-mount refrigerators, respectively. The Department based the adjusted total volumes on the average value for the FV-TVR ratio from Table 4-13 and Table 4-14. Table 4-15. Adjusted Total Volumes: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-MountFreezer and without TTD Ice Service

Table 4-16. Adjusted Total Volumes: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

1+1i ..--..._.. ,^/^ 1 i'1)t i1 ! P is ^(V_Y I.j 1ka3'^I'o^• 7 .; t;y 41

l 1 tY. a".Tf 1{9`t V !1111! a 1 k/ 1 1

._.. 21-23 22.0 0.350 7.7 14.3 26.9 24-26 25.0 0.379 9.5 15.5 31.0 27-30 28.5 0.373 10.6 17.9 35.2
With representative adjusted total volumes established for each size range, the Department was able to determine the annual electricity consumption for baseline products and products with 15 percent and 25 percent less energy consumption. The Department assumed the baseline annual energy consumption for each size range to be equal to the current maximum allowable annual energy consumption.6 The current maximum allowable annual energy consumption for top-mount refrigerator-freezers without TTD ice service is: TM UEC,,,aa = 9.8 ® Vol ad,' +276 Eq. 4.5 

# #4.7
With the FV

-TVRratio known, the Department calculated the adjustedtotal volume. For each size range, the Department used the mid-point ofthe range as the representative total refrigerated volume, which, when coupled with the representative value for the FT-TVRratio, it used to calculate the adjusted total volume. Table 4-15 and Table 4-16 provide the representative adjusted total volumes, as well as the components necessary for determining them, for top-mount and side-mount refrigerators, respectively. The Department based the adjusted total volumes on the average value for the FV-TVRratio from Table 4-13 and Table4-14. 

### Table 4-15. Adjusted Total Volumes: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-MountFreezerand withoutTTD Ice Service

# ~**~** 

# '"1 '"
- 

# I' , >, 

# I ' I**~** 

# I**X~~\.'** 

### Toti!t,».**J~d-~2IJ!:**

### olJl 

### If}**Av~** 

### e**Fr~e0z~r,: '~yJ~**  J,j
,fv

# ~$l!riger~~. R/R,elEera 0ll 

# !"

# V~I~t2q!~1i!1-**iFre~zer** !§fcfshFood Adjusted !l[o1umeRangd**~NVolume** 

### Ran**~~0** 

### R gerated-" I'olume**~l1c"olume** 

### Total Volume

## ;,Ji~~bic**f;~iia:rr~ '[c0ifb~** **fe~' ~::i'**  

# I**y~_~utii~.~** 

# I**(~~bi~**feet) 

# I**(~1ibic**feet) 

# I (cubic feet) 14-17 15.5 0.265 4.1 11.4 18.1 18-20 19.0 0.267 5.1 13.9 22.2 21-22 21.5 0.298 6.4 15.1 25.5



### Table4-16. Adjusted Total Volumes: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-MountFreezerand with TTD Ice Service 

# , . "1" - I-. I I I**~q :~.**  / 

### Total d?lff7\_ 

### Mid-BOlnt of tal Ave eEreezer- ' '/**/t~**


### , !priger"

# t'Reg'eral·**vo"!<i~~I!Jt-** iir':"" 

# ,,:;;;"hFood Adjusted ,!Vfj!lme**!J!~~~j .rol~~**  

### R

# 1 .' Re**g~r~I~~~,q:,** 

### Volume 3folume Total Volume j':'(cubic

## feet?t"~'l~!'~q~cn1)i~fee zy 

# I**_lum~ ~itii'**  

# I(cubic feet) 

# I(cubic feet) 

# I (cubic feet) 21-23 22.0 0.350 7.7 14.3 26.9 24-26 25.0 0.379 9.5 15.5 31.0 27-30 28.5 0.373 10.6 17.9 35.2

With representative adjusted total volumes established for each size range, the Department was able to determine the annual electricity consumption for baseline products and products with 15 percent and 25 percent less energy consumption. The Department assumed the baseline annual energy consumption for each size range to be equalto the current maximum allowable annual energy consumption. 6 The current maximum allowable annual energy consumption for top-mount refrigerator-freezers without TTD ice service is: TM UECmax 

## =9.g-Volalii +276 

### Eq.4.5

4-25where: TM UECmwc = maximum annual (or unit) electricity consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year for top-mount refrigerator-freezers without TTD ice service, and VOladj = adjusted total volume in cubic feet.
The current maximum allowable annual energy consumption for side-mount refrigeratorfreezers with TTD ice service is: SM UEC,,,ax =10.1 • Voladi + 406 Eq. 4.6
where: SM UEClar = maximum annual (or unit) electricity consumption in kWh per year for side-mount refrigerator-freezers with TTD ice service, and Voladj = adjusted total volume in cubic feet.
To arrive at the annual energy consumption values corresponding to the 15 percent less energy use and 25 percent less energy use levels, the Department reduced the baseline energy consumption by 15 percent and 25 percent, respectively. Table 4-17 and Table 4-18 provide the annual energy consumption values for baseline products and products with 15 percent and 25 percent less energy consumption for top-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers, respectively. Table 4-17. Annual Electricity Consumption: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

1.4-17 18.1 453 385 340 18-20 22.2 493 419 370 21-22 25.5 526 447 395
Table 4-18. Annual Electricity Consumption: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

Lt` 21-23 26.9 677 576 508 24-26 31.0 719 611 539 27-30 35.2 762 647 571

4-26 

# #4.7
where: 

### TM UEC max = maximum annual (or unit) electricity consumption in kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year for top-mount refrigerator-freezers without TTD ice service, and 

### Voladj 

## = adjusted total volume in cubic feet.

The current maximum allowable annual energy consumption for side-mount refrigeratorfreezers with TTD ice service is: 

### SM UECmax 

## =10.1- Voladj 

### +406 

### Eq.4.6
where: 

### SM UEC max 

## = maximum annual (or unit) electricity consumption in kWh per year for side-mount refrigerator-freezers with TTD ice service, and 

### Voladj 

## = adjusted total volume in cubic feet.

To arrive at the annual energy consumption values corresponding to the 15 percent less energy use and 25 percent less energy use levels, the Department reduced the baseline energy consumption by 15 percent and 25 percent, respectively. Table 4-17 and Table 4-18 provide the annual energy consumption values for baseline products and products with 15 percent and 25 percent less energy consumption for top-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers, respectively.

11

f 

### Table 4-17. Annual Electricity Consumption: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezerand without TTD Ice Service 

## -', efr;ge.;a umeRange 

### ubic feet) "

14-17 18.1 453 385 340 18-20 22.2 493 419 370 21-22 25.5 526 447 395



### Table 4-18. Annual Electricity Consumption: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezerand with TTD Ice Service ;0

### ~lfrige~!ltrrA

# /;./C**!!enrs~ntativ~~:;:»::> ~:;~**  AnnualElectricity Consumption (kllizyr) / R**~** /B**~il·** too liI' tal V 1 B , ,,' " SF?! ume**~nge/B** 

### ,»**\J~** '/shq**oum~» 'r~:::~;:liJX** **,'~ ~'7'f<c:**  ISm, less**2Sfl'~less 1i~**  'b· Ii**t~:;)11 ~"/**  % 

# lc, 1)* Ii ) ,**,,',~%** Su' '0' , ",,0'**~.** /, lI! IC ee ::: ' ]w::**'~l!~'** »cu IC eet BY//::g'***::~~ ~»;**  'Baseline ';I»,Y energy**en~rgy** 21-23 26.9 677 576 508 24-26 31.0 719 611 539 27-30 35.2 762 647 571

4-26

# #4®7 4.3.1.2 Electricity Prices When conducting a standards rulemaking, the Department normally uses marginal energy prices for valuing energy savings. Marginal prices are prices that consumers pay (or save) for the last units of energy used (or saved). Marginal prices reflect a change in a consumer's bill (possibly associated with new energy efficiency standards) divided by the corresponding change in the amount of energy the consumer used

. However, because the complexity of a marginal price analysis is not warranted for this LCC and PBP analysis, the Department used average electricity prices. The Department calculated average electricity prices for the residential sector from the Energy Information Administration (EIA)'s Annual Energy Review (AER) 2003.7 Table 4-19 shows the national average residential electricity prices from 2000 to 2003. Electricity prices are provided by EIA in nominal dollars and 2000 dollars. The Department used gross domestic product (GDP) implicit price deflators to convert values into specific years' dollars.' Table 4-19 provides the electricity prices in nominal, 2000, 2003, and 2005 dollars.

Table 4-19. Average Residential Retail Price of Electricity, 2000-2003

2000 8.24 8.24 8.72 8.95 2001 8.62 8.42 8.92 9.15 2002 8.46 8.14 8.60 8.82 2003 8.71 8.24 8.71 8.93 Source : EIAAER 2003; conversions to 2003$ and 2005$ done with GDP implicit price deflators.
Because it conducted the LCC and PBP analysis in 2005$, the Department used electricity prices in 2005$. The Department applied projected price trends to the electricity price in 2003 to obtain electricity prices for future years (see Electricity Price Trends, section 3.3.4).

4.3.2 Product Lifetime The Department estimated the product lifetime from a prior TSD the Department published in 1995 to assess whether amended energy conservation standards were warranted for refrigerator-freezers.2 The product lifetime from the prior TSD was estimated to be 19 years. AHAM in their Fact Book provides an estimate of the average length of first ownership of refrigerator-freezers.9 As stated by AHAM, the length of first ownership does not refer to the average useful product lifetime, which tends to be much higher. In 2001, AHAM reports an average first ownership length of 8.5 years for full size refrigerators. Appliance Magazine provides a range of first ownership lengths based on the expert judgment of their staff.10 Themagazine lists an average first ownership length of 13 years for standard refrigerators (i.e., noncompact) with minimum and maximum lengths of 10 and 16 years, respectively. 

# #4.7 4.3.1.2 Electricity Prices When conducting a standards rulemaking, the Department normally uses marginalenergy prices for valuing energy savings. Marginal prices are prices that consumers pay (or save) for the last units ofenergyused (or saved). Marginal prices reflect a change in a consumer'sbill (possibly associated with new energy efficiency standards) divided by the corresponding change in the amount ofenergythe consumer used. However, because the complexity ofa marginal price analysis is not warranted for this 

### Lee and PBP analysis, the Department used average electricityprices. The Department calculated average electricity prices for the residential sectorfrom the Energy Information Administration (EIA)'sAnnualEnergyReview (AER) 2003. 7 Table4-19 shows the national average residential electricity prices from 2000 to 2003. Electricityprices are provided by EIA in nominal dollars and 2000 dollars. The Department used gross domestic product (GDP) implicit price deflators to convert values into specific years' dollars. 8 Table 4-19 provides the electricity prices in nominal, 2000, 2003, and 2005 dollars. 

### Table 4-19. Average Residential Retail Price ofElectricity, 2000-2003

2000 8.24 8.24 8.72 8.95 2001 8.62 8.42 8.92 9.15 2002 8.46 8.14 8.60 8.82 2003 8.71 8.24 8.71 8.93 Source: EIAAER 2003; conversions to 2003$ and 2005$ done with GDP implicit price deflators.

Because it conductedthe 

### Lee and PBP analysis in 2005$, the Department used electricity prices in 2005$. The Department applied projected price trends to the electricityprice in 2003 to obtain electricity prices for future years (see Electricity Price Trends, section 3.3.4).


### 4.3.2 ProductLifetime The Department estimated the product lifetime from a priorTSD the Department published in 1995 to assess whether amended energy conservation standards were warranted for refrigerator-freezers. 2 The product lifetime from the prior TSD was estimated to be 19 years. AHAM in their Fact Bookprovides an estimate ofthe average length offirst ownership ofrefrigerator-freezers.9 As stated by AHAM, the length offirst ownership does not refer to the average useful product lifetime, which tends to be much higher. In 2001, AHAM reports an average first ownership length of8.5 years for full size refi·igerators. Appliance Magazine provides a range offirst ownership lengths based on the expertjudgment oftheir staff. lO The magazine lists an average first ownership length of 13 years for standard refrigerators (i.e., noncompact) with minimum and maximum lengths of 10 and 16 years, respectively.

4-27For purposes of calculating the LCC, the Department must determine the product's full

lifetime operating costs. As a result, the Department uses the product lifetime rather than the length of first ownership. Although the first owner may not be incurring all of the operating costs associated with the appliance, some other consumer is, i.e., the subsequent owner of the appliance.
4.3.3 Discount Rate The calculation of the LCC uses a discount rate to calculate the present value of future annual electricity costs. To establish the discount rate, the Department used the same discount rate it had developed for another residential product-specifically, residential. furnaces and boilers.11 The Department chose to use only the discount rates that it had developed for thepurchase of furnaces and boilers to replace old or failed equipment because most refrigeratorfreezers are purchased to replace existing units. For equipment purchased to replace old or failed equipment where cash or some form of credit is used to finance the acquisition, it is appropriate to establish how the purchase affects a consumer's overall household financial situation. For example, even though the purchase might be financed through a dealer loan or other short-term financing vehicle, the purchase is likely to cause the consumer either to incur additional credit card debt or to forego investment in some type of savings-related asset. Cash that was once available either to pay for household expenses or to invest in an asset like the stock market or a savings account now must be earmarked to pay off the equipment purchase, thus causing the consumer to incur additional credit card debt or to lose the opportunity to earn income from assets. The Department estimated the average household equity and debt portfolio from the 1995 and 1998 Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF).12 The Department estimated interest or return rates associated with each type of equity and debt from a variety of sources. Rates for second mortgages and credit cards are from 1998 SCF data. The Departmentestimated interest rates associated with household certificates of deposit (CDs), treasury bills (Tbills), and corporate bonds as an average of the Federal Reserve Board time-series data covering 1977-2001.13 Based on relative returns to less-liquid assets, the Department assumed that the interest rate on transactions (checking) accounts averages two percent real. The midpoint of the transactions account distribution is two percent. The Department based the two percent figure on an analysis of returns to money-market accounts and savings accounts, and returns to CD and bond holdings. It estimated the annual return associated with household stock holdings as an average of data published by the Stern Business School covering the 1977-2001 period. 14 The Department estimated mutual fund rates as an average of the Standard and Poor's (S&P) 500 stock rate (67 percent) and the T-bill rate (33 percent). Table 4-20 summarizes the average shares of household equity and debt based on the above sources and the real, after-tax interest rates associated with each type of equity or debt. The Department assumed a marginal tax rate of 28 percent and Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation to derive real from nominal values. The weighted-average real., after-tax interest rate across all types of household debt and equity used to purchase replacement furnaces or boilers is 6.7 percent. The Department used a 6.7 percent discount rate for its calculation of the LCC of refrigerator-freezers.

4-28 

# #4.7
Forpurposes ofcalculating the LCC, the Department must determine the product's full lifetime operating costs. As a result, the Department uses the product lifetime rather than the length offirst ownership. Although the fIrst owner may not be incurring all ofthe operating costs associated with the appliance, some other consumer is, i.e., the subsequent owner ofthe appliance.


### 4.3.3 Discount Rate The calculation ofthe LCC uses a discount rate to calculate the present value offuture annual electricity costs. To establish the discount rate, the Department used the same discount rate it had developed for another residential product-specifIcally, residential furnaces and boilers. 11 The Department chose to use only the discount rates that it had developed for the purchase offurnaces and boilers to replace old orfailed equipment because most refrigeratorfreezers are purchased to replace existing units. For equipment purchased to replace old or failed equipment where cash or some form ofcredit is used to finance the acquisition, it is appropriate to establish how the purchase affects a consumer's overall household financial situation. For example, even though the purchase might be financed through a dealer loan orother short-term financing vehicle, the purchase is likely to cause the consumer either to incur additional credit card debt orto forego investment in some type ofsavings-related asset. Cash that was once available either to pay for household expenses orto invest in an asset like the stock market or a savings account now must be earmarked to payoffthe equipment purchase, thus causing the consumer to incur additional credit card debt orto lose the opportunity to earn income from assets. The Department estimated the average household equity and debt pOltfolio from the 1995 and 1998 Federal Reserve Board's Survey ofConsumerFinances (SCF).12 The Department estimated interest or return rates associated with each type ofequity and debt from a variety of sources. Rates for second mortgages and credit cards are from 1998 SCF data. The Depmtment estimated interest rates associated with household certifIcates ofdeposit (CDs), treasury bills (Tbills), and corporate bonds as an average ofthe FederalReserve Boardtime-series data covering 1977-2001. 13 Based onrelative returns to less-liquid assets, the Department assumed that the interest rate on transactions (checking) accounts averages two percent real. The midpoint ofthe transactions account distribution is two percent. The Depmtment based the two percent figure on an analysis ofreturns to money-market accounts and savings accounts, and returns to CD and bond holdings. 

### It estimated the annual return associated with household stockholdings as an average ofdata published by the Stern Business School covering the 1977-2001 period. 14 The Department estimated mutual fund rates as an average ofthe Standard and Poor's (S&P) 500 stock rate (67 percent) and the T-billrate (33 percent). Table 4-20 summarizes the average shares ofhousehold equity and debt based on the above sources and the real, after-tax interest rates associated with each type ofequity or debt. The Department assumed a marginal tax rate of28 percent and Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation to derive real from nominal values. The weighted-average real, after-tax interest rate across all types ofhousehold debt and equity used to purchase replacement furnaces orboilers is 6.7 percent. The Department used a 6.7 percent discount rate for its calculation ofthe LCC of refrigerator-freezers.

4-28

# #4®7

Table 4-20. After-Tax Real Interest or Return Rates for Household Debt and Equity Types
d Second Mortgage Credit Card and installment Transaction (checking) accounts CD (6-month) Savings bonds (Treasury) Bonds (Corporate AAA) Stocks (S&P 500) Mutual fiords Weighted

-average value Source: DOE 2004 TSD. 3.0% 9.1% 20.0% 7.9% 1.6% 8.3% 30.2% 19.8% 100% 5.9% 12.0% 2.0% 2.8% 3.7% 4.4% 9.6% 7.6%

4.3.4 Electricity Price Trends The Department used EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2005 (AEO 2005) Reference Case15 residential electricity price forecast to project prices from 2003 to 2035. The Department used a linear extrapolation based on the last ten years (2015-2025) in the forecast to project prices to the end of the analysis period (2035). Figure 4-7 shows the forecasted electricity prices based on a 2003 price of 8.93 0/kWh.

Figure 4-7. Forecasted Electricity Prices 

# #4.7 Table 4-20. After-Tax Real Interest orReturn Rates forHousehold Debt and Equity Types

SecondMortgage 3.0% 5.9% Credit Card and installment 9.1% 12.0% Transaction (checking) accounts 20.0% 2.0% CD (6-month) 7.9% 2.8% Savings bonds (Treasury) 1.6% 3.7% Bonds (Corporate AAA) 8.3% 4.4% Stocks (S&P 500) 30.2% 9.6% Mutual funds 19.8% 7.6% Weighted-average value 100% 6.7% Source: DOE 2004 TSD.

4.3.4 

### Electricity Price Trends The Department used EIA'sAnnualEnergy Outlook 2005 (AEO 2005) Reference easel5 residential electricityprice forecast to project prices from 2003 to 2035. The Department used a linear extrapolation based onthe last ten years (2015-2025) in the forecast to projectprices to the end ofthe analysis period (2035). Figure 4-7 shows the forecasted electricityprices based on a 2003 price of8.93 ¢IkWh.

(I) u**8.9+---~~--------------------------------------------_4** 8.8+-------T-------------------------------------------_4
.;:**~** 8.7 -1------**--\-------------------------------------------------,~** a.***~:g** 

### ·u 

# re 8.6**+--------+------------------------------------:-:~~----_4** E c: u .- (I)..c: 8.5 iUS: -..II:: .!!! In 8.4 +-----------\------------------+----------------------------1 

# -- c: c: (I) (I) 

## "u 8.3 ";; 

## --- (I) IX:**8.2+----------4--------+-------------------------------~** 8.1**8.0+-------r------,-------,------~------,_------r_----_4**

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Year 

### Figure 4-7. Forecasted Electricity Prices

4-294.4 PAYBACK PERIOD METHODOLOGY A simple measure of the impact of an energy-efficiency standard is the PBP. PBP relates the increase in total installed costs to the decrease in annual operating costs, where the differences are between the baseline and the more efficient product. In this PBP analysis, total installed costs are equivalent to consumer retail prices and operating costs are equivalent to electricity costs. The Department did not discount costs in determining the PBP. The PBP is the amount of time (in years) needed to recover, through lower electricity costs (EC), the additional consumer retail price (RP) for the more efficient product. In this analysis, the Department used the electricity costs in the first year. Therefore, the equation has the simple solution:

ARP PBP = AEC where:
PBP = time (in years) needed to recover through lower operating costs, ARP = difference in consumer retail price between the baseline and the more

energy efficient product, and DEC = decrease (savings) in annual electricity costs in the year 2010. Eq. 4.7

4.5 RESULTS OF THE LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS LCC and PBP results are provided for the two product classes that the Department hasanalyzed: (1) top-mounted freezer without TTD ice service, automatic defrost and (2) sidemounted freezer with TTD ice service, automatic defrost. Results are provided for two standard levels: (1) product with 15 percent less annual energy consumption than the baseline product (i.e., a product meeting current energy conservation standards) and (2) product with 25 percent less annual energy consumption that the baseline product. The difference in LCC between the baseline product and the more energy-efficient product is the LCC savings. Positive values represent net savings and negative values (in parentheses) represent net costs. The payback period is determined by dividing the increased consumer retail price by the first year's electricity cost savings. For each of the two product classes analyzed by the Department, the LCC and PBP results include individual. tables for the following: • Consumer Retail Price and Retail Price Increase • First-Year and Lifetime Electricity Costs and Electricity Cost Savings • LCC, LCC Savings, and Payback Period The tables detailing the consumer retail prices and electricity costs are provided to clearly show the components of the LCC and PBP. Table 4-21, Table 4-22, and Table 4-23 provide the

4-30 

# #4.7 4.4 PAYBACK PERIOD METHODOLOGY A simple measure ofthe impact ofan energy-efficiency standard is the PBP. PBP relates the increase in total installed costs to the decrease in annual operating costs, where the differences are between the baseline and the more efficient product. In this PBP analysis, total installed costs are equivalent to consumerretailprices and operating costs are equivalent to electricity costs. The Department did not discount costs in determining the PBP. The PBP is the amount oftime (in years) needed to recover, through lower electricity costs (EC), the additional consumer retail price (RP) for the more efficient product. In this analysis, the Department used the electricity costs in the first year. Therefore, the equation has the simple solution:

where: PBP= 

### MP I:J.EC

PBP 

## =time (in years) needed to recover through lower operating costs, 

### MP 

## =difference in consumer retail price betweenthe baseline and the more energy efficient product, and I1EC 

## =decrease (savings) in annual electricity costs in the year 2010. 

### Eg.4.7



### 4.5 RESULTS OFTHE LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS LCC and PBP results are provided for the two product classes that the Department has analyzed: (1) top-mounted freezer without TID ice service, automatic defrost and (2) sidemounted freezer with TTD ice service, automatic defrost. Results are provided for two standard levels: (1) product with 15 percent less annual energy consumption than the baseline product (i.e., a product meeting current energy conservation standards) and (2) product with 25 percent less annual energy consumptionthat the baseline product. The difference in LCC between the baseline product and the more energy-efficient product is the LCC savings. Positive values represent net savings and negative values (in parentheses) represent net costs. The paybackperiod is determined by dividing the increased consumer retail price by the first year's electricity cost savings. For each ofthe two product classes analyzed by the Department, the LCC and PBP results include individual tables for the following:

• Consumer Retail Price and Retail Price Increase • First

-Year and Lifetime Electricity Costs and Electricity Cost Savings • LCC, LCC Savings, and Payback Period The tables detailing the consumer retailprices and electricity costs are provided to clearly show the components ofthe LCC and PBP. Table 4-21, Table 4-22, and Table 4-23 provide the

4-30

# #®7

results for the top-mount refrigerator-freezer product class. Table 4-24, Table 4-25, and Table 4-26 provide the results for the side-mount refrigerator-freezer product class. For the 15 percent less energy standard level, a total of twelve results are provided, consisting of a combination of four retail price estimates (three based on minimum, average, and maximum manufacturing costs and one based on the regression analysis) and three size categories. For the 25 percent less energy standard level, a total of nine results are provided for the top-mount product class, consisting of a combination of three retail price estimates (based onminimum, average, and maximum manufacturing costs) and three size categories. For the sidemount product class, only six possible results are provided for the 25 percent less energy standard level, consisting of a combination of three retail price estimates (based on minimum, average, and maximum manufacturing costs) and two size categories. For the top-mount product class, LCC savings are realized at the 15 percent less energy standard level for 11 of the 12 possible results, with the only exception being the maximum manufacturing-cost-based retail price for the 18-20 cubic foot size category. PBPs of less than half the lifetime of the product (ranging from 2.7 to 9.5 years) are achieved at the 15;percent less energy standard level for 9 of the 12 possible results, with the exceptions being the maximum manufacturing-cost-based retail price for the 18-20 and 21-22 cubic foot size categories as well as the regression-based retail price for the 21-22 cubic foot size category. At the 25 percent less energy standard level, LCC savings are realized for only three of the nine possible results: the minimum manufacturing-cost-based retail price for the 18-20 and 21-22 cubic foot size categories and the average manufacturing-cost-based retail price for the 18-20 cubic foot size category. PBPs of less than half the lifetime of the product (ranging from 3.6 to 7.5 years) at the 25 percent less energy standard level are achieved for only two of the nine possible results: the minimum manufacturing-cost-based retail price for the 18-20 and 21-22 cubic foot size categories. For the side-mount product class, LCC savings are realized at the 15 percent less energy standard level for 8 of the 12 possible results. LCC savings are not realized for the maximum manufacturing-cost-based retail price at all three size categories as well as the average manufacturing-cost-based retail price for the 27-30 cubic foot size category. PBPs of less than half the lifetime of the product (ranging from 1.1 to 9.6 years) are achieved at the 15 percent less energy standard level for the same eight retail price and size category combinations for which LCC savings are realized. At the 25 percent less energy level, LCC savings are realized for only two of the nine possible results: the minimum manufacturing-cost-based retail price for the 21- 23 and 24-26 cubic foot size categories. PBPs of less than half the lifetime (ranging from 0.9 to 4.1 years) of the product are achieved at the 25 percent less energy standard level for the same two retail price and size category combinations for which LCC savings are realized. Figure 4-8 and Figure 4-9 graphically represent the LCC results for the top-mount and side-mount product classes, respectively. To prevent clutter, LCC results are provided based only on the average manufacturing-cost-based retail price and the regression-analysis-based retail price. 

# #4.7
results for the top-mount refrigerator-fi'eezer product class. Table 

### 4-24, Table 

### 4-25, and Table 

### 4-26 provide the results for the side-mount refrigerator-freezer product class. Forthe 

### 15 percent less energy standard level, a total oftwelve results are provided, consisting ofa combination offour retail price estimates (three based onminimum, average, and maximummanufacturing costs and one based on the regression analysis) and three size categories. Forthe 

### 25 percent less energy standard level, a total ofnine results are provided for the top-mount product class, consisting ofa combination ofthree retailprice estimates (based on minimum, average, and maximum manufacturing costs) and three size categories. Forthe sidemount product class, only six possibleresults are provided for the 

### 25 percent less energy standard level, consisting ofa combination ofthree retail price estimates (based on minimum, average, and maximum manufacturing costs) and two size categories. Forthe top-mount product class, 

### Lee savings are realized at the 

### 15 percent less energy standard level for 

### 11 ofthe 

### 12 possible results, with the only exceptionbeing the maximum manufacturing-cost-based retail price for the 

### 18-20 cubic foot size category. PBPs ofless than halfthe lifetime ofthe product (ranging from 2.7 to 

### 9.5 years) are achieved at the 

### 15 percent less energy standard level for 9 ofthe 

### 12 possible results, with the exceptions being the maximum manufacturing-cost-basedretail price for the 

### 18-20 and 

### 21-22 cubic foot size categories as well as the regression-based retail price for the 

### 21-22 cubic foot size category. At the 

### 25 percent less energy standard level, 

### Lee savings are realized for only three ofthe nine possibleresults: the minimum manufacturing-cost-basedretail price for the 

### 18-20 and 

### 21-22 cubic foot size categories and the average manufacturing-cost-based retail price for the 

### 18-20 cubic foot size category. PBPs ofless than halfthe lifetime ofthe product (ranging from 

### 3.6 to 7.5 years) at the 

### 25 percent less energy standard level are achieved for only two ofthe nine possibleresults: the minimum manufacturing-cost-based retail price for the 

### 18-20 and 

### 21-22 cubic foot size categories. Forthe side-mount product class, 

### Lee savings are realized at the 

### 15 percent less energy standard level for 8 ofthe 

### 12 possible results. 

### Lee savings are notrealized for the maximum manufacturing-cost-based retail price at all three size categories as well as the average manufacturing-cost-based retail price for the 

### 27-30 cubic foot size category. PBPs ofless than halfthe lifetime oftheproduct (ranging from 1.1 to 

### 9.6 years) are achieved at the 

### 15 percent less energy standard level for the same eight retail price and size category combinations for which 

### Lee savings are realized. At the 

### 25 percent less energy level, 

### Lee savings are realized for only two ofthe nine possible results: the minimum manufacturing-cost-based retail price for the 

### 21- 23 and 

### 24-26 cubic foot size categories. PBPs ofless than halfthe lifetime (ranging from 

### 0.9 to 

### 4.1 years) ofthe product are achieved at the 

### 25 percent less energy standard level for the same two retail price and size category combinations for which 

### Lee savings are realized. Figure 

### 4-8 and Figure 

### 4-9 graphically represent the 

### Leeresults for the top-mount and side-mount product classes, respectively. To prevent clutter, 

### Lee results are provided based only on the average manufacturing-cost-based retail price and the regression-analysis-based retailprice.

4-31Table 4-21. Consumer Retail Price and Retail Price Increases: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-

^ ^

' RETAIL PRICE (2005$) Baseline $329 $386 $457 15% less energy $345 $367 $381 $356 $402 $420 $1186 $434 $477 $499 $531 $520 25% less energy $457 $704 $1047 NA $422 $494 $668 NA $537 $613 $735 NA RETAIL PRICE INCREASE (2005$) 15% less energy $16 $38 $52 $28 $16 $35 $800 $49 $20 $42 $74 $63 25% less energy $128 $376 $718 NA $36 $108 $282 NA $80 $157 $278 NA
Table 4-22. First-Year and Lifetime Electricity Costs and Electricity Cost Savings: RefrigeratorFIRST-YEAR ELECTRICITY COSTS (2005$) LIFETIME ELECTRICITY COSTS (2005$) Baseline $37 $40 $42 Baseline $425 $463 $494 15% less energy $31 $34 $36 15% less energy $362 $394 $420 25% less energy $27 $30 $32 25% less energy $319 $347 $370 FIRST-YEAR ELECTRICITY COST SAVINGS (2005$) LIFETIME ELECTRICITY COST SAVINGS (2005$) 15% less energy $5 $6 $6 15% less energy $64 $69 $74 25% less energy $9 $10 $11 25% less energy $106 $116 $123

Table 4-23. LCC, LCC Savings, and Payback Periods: Refrigerator

-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service 

# _T _7 WA I LCC (2005$) Baseline $754 $849 $951 15% less energy $706 $729 $742 $718 $795 $814 $1579 $828 $897 $919 $951 $940 25% less energy $776 $1023 $1366 NA $769 $841 $1015 NA $907T$984 $1105 NA LCC SAVINGS (2005$) 15% less energy $48 $26 $12 $36 $53 $35 iS': ? $21 $54 $32 $0 $11 25% less energy ($22j ($269) ($612) NA $80 $8 NA 1 1 $43 ($33) (` 155) NA PAYBACK PERIOD (years) 15% less energy 2.9 6.9 9.5 5.0 2.7 5.8 133.9 8.1 3.1 6.7 11.6 10.0 25% less energy 14.0 41.1 78.5 NA 3.6 10.9 28.3 NA 7.5 14.7 26.2 NA Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service 

# #4.7
Table 4-21. Consumer Retail Price and Retail Price Increases: Refrigerator-Freezers with TopMountFreezer and without TTD Ice Service

Table4-22. First-Year and Lifetime Electricity Costs andElectricity Cost Savings: RefrigeratorF 'thT M F d 'th t TTD IS'

reezers WI op- ount reezer an WI ou ce erVlce
FIRST-YEARELECTRICITY COSTS (2005$) LIFETIMEELECTRICITY COSTS (2005$) Baseline $37 $40 $42 Baseline $425 $463 $494 15% less energy $31 $34 $36 15% less energy $362 $394 $420 25% less energy $27 $30 $32 25% less energy $319 $347 $370 FIRST-YEARELECTRICITY COST SAVINGS (2005$) LIFETIMEELECTRICITY COST SAVINGS (2005$) 15% less energy $5 $6 $6 15% less energy $64 $69 $74 25% less energy $9 $10 $11 25% less energy $106 $116 $123

Table 4-23. LCC, LeC Savings, and PaybackPeriods: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and withoutTTD Ice Service

4-32

# #4 s

# 7

Table 4-24. Consumer Retail Price and Retail Price Increases: Refrigerator-Freezers with Sidei ^_^6 ^^ l.C kL q6^"i. . RETAIL PRICE (2005$) 27-30 cu. ft.

1_ ^E4 ^ ^f ,vr f l!^ ^ IS Sr:' .4 *^ , 1 .tl ^ ^^ - I^^ • ^- •' 1
Baseline $702 $789 $926 15% less energy $712 $756 $892 $750 $799 $824 $999 $855 $1008 $1110 $1136 $1014 25% less energy $714 $955 $1140 NA $849 $988 $1399 NA Insufficient Data NA RETAIL PRICE INCREASE (2005$) 15% less energy $10 $54 $190 $47 $10 $35 $210 $66 $82 $184 $210 $88 25% less energy $12 $253 $438 NA $60 $199 $610 NA Insufficient Data NA
Table 4-25. First-Year and Lifetime Electricity Costs and Electricity Cost Savings: RefrigeratorFIRST-YEAR ELECTRICITY COSTS (2005$) LIFETIME ELECTRICITY COSTS (2005$) Baseline $55 $58 $61 Baseline $636 $675 $715 15% less energy $46 $49 $52 15% less energy $540 $574 $608 25% less energy $41 $44 $46 25% less energy $477 $506 $536 FIRST-YEAR ELECTRICITY COST SAVINGS (2005$) LIFETIME ELECTRICITY COST SAVINGS (2005$) 15% less energy $8 $9 $9 15% less energy $95 $101 T $107 25% less energy $14 $15 $15 25% less energy $159 $169 $179

Table 4-26. LCC, LCC Savings , and Payback Periods : Refrigerator

-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

..^.r3__.:. 4F. ! jf I f. ^11,^J Y ..J-6 Y 1:.15a ' w{ l jJ 1111ME { • { ' • LCC (2005$) Baseline $1338 $1463 $1641 15% less energy $1253 $1296 $1433 $1290 $1372 $1398 $1572 $1428 $1615 $1717 $1743 $1621 25% less energy $1191 $1.432 $1617 NA $1.355 $1494 $1905 NA Insufficient Data NA LCC SAVINGS (2005$) 15% less energy $85 $42 $48 $91 $66 31.09) $35 $25 (S77) (81.03) $19 25% less energy $147 ;S94> 79) NA 1 1$1091 (5441? NA 1 1 Insufficient Data NA PAYBACK PERIOD (years) 15% less energy 1.2 6.6 23.2 5.8 1.1 4.1 24.1 7.6 8.9 19.9 22.8 9.6 25% less energy 0.9 18.5 32.1 NA 4.1 13.7 42.1 NA 1 1 Insufficient Data NA Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service 

# #4.7
Table 4-24. ConsumerRetail Price and Retail Price Increases: Refrigerator-Freezers withSideMountFreezer and withTTD Ice Service

Table 4-25. First-Year and LifetimeElectricity Costs and Electricity Cost Savings: RefrigeratorFreezers witb Side-MountFreezer and with TTD Ice Service 

### I FIRST-YEARELECTRICITY COSTS (2005$) LIFETIMEELECTRICITY COSTS (2005$) Baseline $55 $58 $61 Baseline $636 $675. $715 15% less energy $46 $49 $52 15% less energy $540 $574 $608 25% less energy $41 $44 $46 25% less energy $477 $506 $536 FIRST-YEAR ELECTRICITY COST SAVINGS (2005$) LIFETIMEELECTRICITY COSTSAVINGS (2005$) 15% less energy $8 $9 $9 15% less energy $95 $101 $107 25% less energy $14 $15 $15 25% less energy $159 $169 $179

Table4-26. LCC, LCC Savings, and PaybackPeriods: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

4-331 050 $ , 25% $1 000 ,

950 25% less / $ energy /

900 Baseline $ 15% less energy 25% $850

$800 -r,-•-21-22cu.ft. regr 15%

---*-21-22 cu.ft. mfg o• • - 18-20 cuft regr m 18-20 cu ft mf $750 . . g

14-17 cu ft mf

. . g 15% o -- 14-17 cu. ft. regr $700 550 500 450 400 350 300 Annual Energy Use (kWh/yr) Figure 4-8. Life-Cycle Costs: Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers without TTD Ice Service

$1,750 $1,700 $1,650 $1,600 $1,550 $1,500 $1,450 $1,400 $1,350 $1,300 $1,250 .. .,.- .

Baseline 15% less energy 25% less _...._-_ energy
_^. 15% 25% ---27-30 cu.ft. Mfg Z/O A• • • 27-30 cu.ft. regr o,, - 24-26 cut. regr m-24-26 cut. Mfg 15% ---.-- 21-23 cut. Mfg Br o---21-23cu.ft. regr
800 750 700 650 600 550 500 Annual Energy Use (kWh/yr) Figure 4-9. Life-Cycle Costs: Side-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers with TTD Ice Service

4-34**~** 25% 

### / 

# / 25% less**I----a,...~~~__,_,__,-----_____:;"L--** energy ---i 

### l ------1


### I

",<:;> 15%

### ~========;=======-'------'--------'--------4 400 Annual Energy Use (kWh/yr) 350 300

# #4.7

Figure 4-8. Life-Cycle Costs: Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers without TTD Ice Service

$1,750 $1,700 $1,650**~** $1,600 It) 0 0 

### e $1,550 'Ui 0 (.) $1,500 II> '0 >- (.) $1,450 cb :: ..J $1,400 $1,350 $1,300 $1,250**Baseli"~~**-_."_'_''_'_"_"_'_' _'"_'_''_'_--'" ,b. 

# I**1~le~** I'

.................................._ ...._................._ ............................ energy
............................_ ....... 25%**le~** __ ............. energy I 1----------8---------------------------..-----1 15% 

# I I--

______**~'~.~'.~-~~~~--** ____**~~-----25%~**

800**~27-30** cU.ft. mfg**I---------~~------~-~** -, '6",27-30 cU.ft. regr

- - -0- -,24-26 cu.ft. regr I--

___________**~---~**

__24-26 cu.ft. mfg

...............21-23 cu.ft. mfg

,.·<:;>·,·21-23 cu.ft. regr
750 700 650 600 Annual Energy Use (kWh/yr)15%

550 500 Figure 4-9. Life-Cycle Costs: Side-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers with TTD Ice Service

4-34

# #4®7

REFERENCES The NPD Group, Inc., The NPD Group/NPD Houseworld - POS, Refrigerators, January - December 2004, 2005. Port Washington, NY. Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers , Summary Data Tables: Refrigerator

-Freezer Data Collectionfor Cost/Efficiency Informationfor DOEPetition, 2005

. Information provided by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers to the U.S. Department of Energy, May 1.3, 2005.

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

I' U.S. Department of Energy, Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products: Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, & Freezers, July 1995. Washington, DC. Report No. 'DOE/EE-0064. Code of Federal Regulations, Appendix Al to Subpart B of Part 430-Uniform Test Methodfor Measuring the Energy Consumption of Electric Refrigerators and Electric RefrigeratorFreezers. 10 CFR Pt. 430, Subpt. B, App. Al. California Energy Commission, Appliance Database, Refrigerator-Freezers, 2005. Sacramento, CA. File: comm refrig_frzrs.zip; Last modified, January 6, 2005. <http://www. energy. ca. gov/appliances/appliance/excel_based_files/refrigerators/> U.S. Department of Energy-Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers; Final Rule. Federal Register, 1997. 62(81): pp. 231.02-23116. U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2003, September 2004. Washington DC. Report No. DOE/EIA-0384(2003). Table 8-10, Average Retail Prices of Electricity, 1960-2003. U.S. Government Printing Office, Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2005, Section 10 - Gross Domestic Product and Implicit Outlay Deflators, Table 10.1 - Goss Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940-2009, 2005. Washington, DC. GPO Access: <http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/hist.html> Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, 2003 Fact Book, 2003. Washington, DC. Table 11. "The Life Expectancy/Replacement Picture," Appliance Magazine, September 2004. p. P-5. U.S. Department of Energy

-Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Programfor ConsumerProducts: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Furnaces and Boilers, September 2004. Washington, DC.

4-35 

# #4.7 REFERENCES

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 The NPD Group, Inc., The NPD GrouplNPD Houseworld

- 

## pas, Refrigerators,JanuaryDecember2004, 2005. PortWashington, NY. Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers, Summary Data Tables: Refrigerator-Freezer Data Collectionfor Cost/Efficiency InfonnationforDOEPetition, 2005. Information provided by the Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers to the U.S. Department of Energy, May 13, 2005. U.S. Department ofEnergy, Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Standardsfor ConsumerProducts: Rt;frigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, & Freezers, July 1995. Washington, DC. Report No. DOEIEE-0064. Code ofFederal Regulations, Appendix Al to Subpart B ofPart 430-UniformTest Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption ofElectric Refrigerators and Electric RefrigeratorFreezers. 10 CFR Pt. 430, Subpt. B, App. AI. CaliforniaEnergy Commission,ApplianceDatabase, Refrigerator-Freezers, 2005. Sacramento, CA. File: comm_refrig_frzrs.zip; Last modified, January 6,2005. <http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/appliance/exceLbased_files/refrigerators/> U.S. Depattment ofEnergy-Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Energy Conservation Programfor Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers; Final Rule. Federal Register, 1997. 62(81): pp. 23102-23116. U.S. Depattment ofEnergy-Energy Information Administration,AnnualEnergyReview 2003, September 2004. Washington DC. Report No. DOEIEIA-0384(2003). Table 8-10, Average Retail Prices ofElectricity, 1960-2003. U.S. Government Printing Office, Budget ofthe United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Yeat· 2005, Section 10

- Gross Domestic Product and Implicit Outlay Deflators, Table 10.1

- Goss Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940-2009, 2005. Washington, DC. GPO Access: <http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/hist.html> Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers, 2003 Fact Book, 2003. Washington, DC. Table 11.

10 "TheLife Expectancy/Replacement Picture,"ApplianceMagazine, September 2004. p. P-5.

11 U.S. Department ofEnergy-Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Programfor ConsumerProducts: Energy Conservation StandardsforResidential Furnaces andBoilers, September 2004. Washington, DC.

4-3512

13

14

15 The Federal Reserve Board, 1998 Survey of Consumer Finances, 1998. <http://www.federalreserve. gov/pubs/oss/oss2/98/scf98home

.html#summary> The Federal Research Board, Federal Reserve Statistical Interest Rates, H. 15 Historical Data, 2000. Damodaran Online Data Page, Historical Returns on Stocks, Bonds and Bills- United States. (Last accessed October 9, 2002), <http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/-adamodar/> U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2005, February, 2005. Washington, DC. Report No. DOE/EIA-0383(2005). 

# #4.7

12 TheFederal Reserve Board, 

### 1998 Survey ofConsumerFinances, 1998. <http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/98/scf98home.html#summary>

13 TheFederal Research Board, FederalReserve StatisticalInterest Rates, H.15 Historical Data, 2000.

14 Damodaran Online DataPage, Historical Returns on Stocks, Bonds andBills- United States. (Last accessed October 9, 2002),**<http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/>**
15 U.S. Department ofEnergy-Energy Information Administration,AnnualEnergy Outlook 2005, February, 2005. Washington, DC. Report No. DOE/EIA-0383(2005).

4-36

# #4®7 CHAPTER 5. NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

This chapter describes the national impact analysis, consisting of the determination of national energy savings (NES) and national net present value (NPV) from an energy conservation (or efficiency) standard that would require refrigerator-freezers to use 15 percent less energy than current baseline models. For purposes of this analysis, the Department assumed the effective date of such a standard would be the year 2010. The Department assumed the energy consumption of baseline products to equal the maximum energy consumption allowed by current energy conservation standards. Refrigerator-freezers with 15 percent less energy consumption correspond to products meeting current Energy Star requirements. For the purposes of this analysis, the Department analyzed the NES and NPV of amended energy conservation standards for the following two product classes of refrigerators, refrigerator. freezers, and freezers: (1) top-mounted freezer without through-the-door (TD) ice service, automatic defi-ost, and (2) side-mounted freezer with TTD ice service, automatic defrost.

5.1 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS CALCULATION Figure 5-1 illustrates the inputs, intermediate values, and outputs of the NES calculation. The NES is the difference between the national energy consumption in the base case (i.e., the case without amended energy conservation standards) and the standards case (i.e., the case with amended energy conservation standards). The Department developed a spreadsheet model to calculate the NES from refrigerator-freezer standards for the two product classes of interest to this analysis. The spreadsheet model calculated the stock of refrigerator-freezers for these two product classes in any given year by adding up the shipments of refrigerator-freezers in that year plus the preceding 18 years (based on a refrigerator-freezer lifetime of 19 years). The average unit (or annual) electricity consumption (UEC) of the refrigerator-freezer stock was calculated from the average UEC of shipments in each of the relevant years. This calculation wasperformed separately for the base case and the standards case. The total number of refrigeratorfreezers in the stock was then multiplied by the average UEC to calculate annual site electricity consumption. The site-to-source conversion factor for that year was then used to calculate source energy consumption in primary quadrillion (1015) British thermal units (quads). This was calculated for the base case and the standards case and the difference was taken to determine annual energy savings from a standard. The energy savings were summed for all of the years of the analysis period (2010-2035) to determine the cumulative national energy savings. 

# #4.7 CHAPTERS. NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

This chapter describes the national impact analysis, consisting ofthe determination of national energy savings (NES) and national net present value (NPV) from an energy conservation (or efficiency) standard that would require refrigerator-freezers to use15 percent less energy than current baseline models. Forpurposes ofthis analysis, the Department assumed the effective date ofsuch a standard would be the year 2010. The Department assumed the energy consumption ofbaseline products to equal the maximumenergy consumption allowed by CUlTent energy conservation standards. Refrigerator-freezers with 

### 15 percent less energy consumption correspond to products meeting current Energy Starrequirements. Forthe purposes ofthis analysis, the Department analyzed the NES and NPV ofamended energy conservation standards for the following two product classes ofrefrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers: (1) top-mounted freezer without tlu'ough-the-door (TID) ice service, automatic defrost, and (2) side-mounted freezer with TTD ice service, automatic defrost.


### 5.1 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS CALCULATION Figure 

### 5-1 illustrates the inputs, intermediate values, and outputs ofthe NES calculation. The NES is the difference between the national energy consumption in the base case (i.e., the case without amended energy conservation standards) and the standards case (i.e., the case with amended energy conservation standards). The Department developed a spreadsheet model to calculate the NES from refrigerator-freezer standards for the two product classes ofinterest to this analysis. The spreadsheet model calculated the stock ofrefrigerator-freezers for these two product classes in any given year by adding up the shipments ofrefrigerator-freezers in that year plus the preceding 18 years (based on a refrigerator-freezer lifetime of 19 years). The average unit (or annual) electricity consumption (VEC) ofthe refrigerator-freezer stock was calculated from the average VEC ofshipments in each ofthe relevant years. This calculation was performed separately for the base case and the standards case. The total number ofrefrigeratorfreezers in the stock was then multiplied by the average VEC to calculate annual site electricity consumption. The site-to-source conversion factor for that year was then used to calculate source energy consumption in primary quadrillion (10 15) British thermal units (quads). This was calculated for the base case and the standards case and the difference was taken to determine annual energy savings from a standard. The energy savings were summed for all ofthe years of the analysis period (2010-2035) to determine the cumulative national energy savings.

5-1Historical Shipments

Product Class Market Shares

Product Lifetime

Baseline Unit Electricity Consumption

Base Case UEC Market Shares 15% less energy Unit Electricity Consumption

Standards Case UEC Market Shares 25% less energy Unit Electricity Consumption

Site-to-Source Energy Conversion

Analysis Period Annual Electricity Savings

National Energy Savings Projected Shipments

L Shipments d

by ass

Bas e Case Unit Electricity -I Consumption

V Unit Electricity Savings (Base-Standards) Standards Case Unit Electricity Consumption

Figure 5-1

. Flow Diagram of National Energy Savings Calculation 

# I Historical Shipments

Product Class Market Shares

-_....__.._--------_ ...-. ProductLifetime

Baseline Unit

Electricity Consumption
BaseCase UEC Market Shares
15% less energy UnitElectricity Consumption
Standards Case UEC Market Shares
25% less energy UnitElectricity Consumption

Site-to-Source
: Energy Conversion

Analysis Period Projected Shipments 

# -------------7 Projected Shipments by 

# Z Product Class 

# --1 Base Case Unit

# I Electricity Consumption

Standards Case

# f Z UnitElectricity Consumption 

# t 

# #4.7



# If Unit Electricity

# / Savings (Base-Standards) 

# L( 

# / Al1IlUal Electricity

Savings

_._--

National Energy Savings

Figure 5-1. Flow Diagram ofNational Energy Savings Calculation

5-2

# #4®7

5.2 NET PRESENT VALUE CALCULATION Figure 5-2 illustrates the inputs, intermediate values, and outputs of the NPV calculation. The NPV is the difference between the sum of national total installed costs and operating costs in the base case and the sum of national total installed costs and operating costs in the standards case. For the purposes of this analysis, the total installed cost consists only of the consumer retail price of the refrigerator-freezer and the operating cost consists only of the electricity cost. A positive NPV occurs when the present value of electricity cost savings exceeds the present value of increased refrigerator-freezer retail prices associated with the standard. The=Department determined the NPV of standards with the same spreadsheet model used to calculate the NES. The electricity savings in each year were multiplied by that year's electricity price to determineannual electricity cost savings. For each year, the spreadsheet also calculated the weightedaverage consumer retail price of refrigerator-freezers in the base case and standards case, and took the difference to determine the incremental retail price per unit. To determine the annual incremental cost of efficiency, this incremental retail price was multiplied by the number of units shipped in that year. This incremental cost was subtracted from the annual electricity cost savings to determine annual net savings or costs. A discount factor was applied to each year's annual savings or costs to determine the net present value of the savings or costs. These savings or costs were then summed across all of the years of the analysis to give the total NPV of standards. 

# #4.7

5.2 NET PRESENT VALUE CALCULATION Figure 5-2 illustrates the inputs, intermediate values, and outputs ofthe NPV calculation. The NPV is the difference between the sum ofnational total installed costs and operating costs in the base case and the sumofnational total installed costs and operating costs in the standards case. Forthe purposes ofthis analysis, the total installed cost consists only ofthe consumer retail price ofthe refrigerator-freezer and the operating cost consists only ofthe electricity cost. A positive NPV occurs when the present value ofelectricity cost savings exceeds thepresent value ofincreased refrigerator-freezer retail prices associated with the standard. TheDepartment determined the NPV ofstandards with the same spreadsheet model used to calculatethe NBS. The electricity savings in each year were multiplied by that year's electricityprice to determine annual electricity cost savings. For each year, the spreadsheet also calculated the weightedaverage consumer retail price ofrefrigerator-freezers in the base case and standards case, and tookthe difference to determine the incrementalretailprice per unit. To determine the annual incremental cost ofefficiency, this incrementalretail price was multiplied by the number ofunits shipped in that year. This incremental cost was subtracted from the annual electricity cost savings to determine annual net savings orcosts. A discount factor was applied to each year's annual savings or costs to determine the net present value ofthe savings orcosts. These savings orcosts werethen summed across all ofthe years ofthe analysis to give the totalNPV of standards.

5-3Historical Shipments

Product Class Market Shares Projected Shipments by Product Class

Product Lifetime

Baseline Consumer Retail Price

15% less energy Consumer Retail Price

25% less energy Consumer Retail Price

Annual Electricit Savings (From NES Flow Diagram) Base Case Consumer Retail Price Base Case UEC Market Shares

Standards Case Consumer Retail Price Standards Case UEC Market Shares

y

Electricity Prices

Analysis Period

Discount Rate NPV Inputs Calculated Values j NPV Output

Incremental Retail Price (Base-Standards)

Annual Incremental Retail Price

Annual Electricity Cost Savings



# C Net Present Value

Figure 5-2. Flow Diagram of Net Present Value Calculation 

# #4.7 

# -1----- NRVlnpl!ts Historical

___ Projected**~.** Calculate4Values Shipments Shipments 

# • C)
..**N~y()U;Pllt**

.

### .

..... .. ProductClass Projected 

# ! Shipments by Market Shares 

# 1 Product Class

Product Lifetime

Baseline Consumer Retail Price

Base Case VEC Base Case 

# f Market Shares 

# 7 Consumer Retail Price 15% I ess energy

# ~ Incremental 

# / ConsumerRetail Retail Price Price (Base-Standards)
Standards Case SW,dM'"**C~,**

# f

VEC Market Shares 

# 7 Consumer Retail Price 

# -I / t AIIDual 25% less energy Incremental ConsumerRetail Retail Price Price 

# / Annual Electricity

# I- Savings (From

NES}I'low Diagram) Annual 

# / Electricity Cost 

# / Savings Electricity Prices

Analysis Period

I Discount Rate I NetPresent Value
Figure 5-2. Flow Diagram 

### ofNet Present Value Calculation

5-4

# #4

5.3 INPUTS TO THE NES AND NPV CALCULATIONS The following sections discuss and document the inputs to the calculation of the NES and NPV. 5.3.1 Shipments
5.3.1.1 Historical Shipments The Department obtained historical refrigerator-freezer shipment data from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (ARAM).' Table 5-1 shows historical refrigerator-freezer shipments from 1982 through 2004.

Table 5-1. Historical Refrigerator

-Freezer Shipments

1982
1984 1983
1985 1986 1.987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 4.36 5.34 5.88 6.00 6.41 6.75 6.73 6.45 6.46 6.41 6.72 7.05 7.59 7.65 7.98 7.92 8.77 9.10 9.22 9.31 9.74 10.02 10.92 Source: AHAM. 

# #4.7

5.3 INPUTS TO THE NES AND NPV CALCULATIONS The following sections discuss and document the inputs to the calculation ofthe NBS and 

### NPV.


### 5.3.1 Shipments
5.3.1.1 Historical Shipments The Department obtained historical refrigerator-freezer shipment datafromthe Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM).J Table 5-1 shows historical refrigerator-freezer shipments from 1982 through 2004. 

### Table 5-1. Historical Refrigerator-FreezerShipments

1982 4.36 1983 5.34 1984 5.88 1985 6.00 1986 6.41 1987 6.75 1988 6.73 1989 6.45 1990 6.46 1991 6.41 1992 6.72 1993 7.05 1994 7.59 1995 7.65 1996 7.98 1997 7.92 1998 8.77 1999 9.10 2000 9.22 2001 9.31 2002 9.74 2003 10.02 2004 10.92 Source: AHAM.

5-55.3.1.2 Projected Shipments The Department estimated future shipments from a linear extrapolation of the historical shipments growth trend in the years 1995 through 2004. Figure 5-3 shows the linear extrapolation and Table 5-2 shows projected refrigerator-freezer shipments for 2005 through 2035.

24 Shipments = 0.3306 * Year - 652.01 20 R2 = 0.9519
16

12
8

01995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Year Figure 5-3. Projection of Refrigerator-Freezer Shipments to 2035 

# #4.7 5.3.1.2 Projected Shipments The Department estimated future shipments from a linear extrapolation ofthe historical shipments growth trend in the years 1995 through 2004. Figure 5-3 shows the linear extrapolation and Table 5-2 shows projected refrigerator-freezer shipments for 2005 through 2035.



# - til c:

### ~ 

# 'e



# - til 

# - c: CI) E Co :2 (/) 

### 20 +--------------------4
16
12

8 Shipments 

## =0.3306 * Year

- 652.01 R2 

### =0.9519



## o**+------.------r_----~-----,------~----~------r_----~**

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Year 

### Figure 5-3. Projection ofRefrigerator-Freezer Shipments to 2035

5-6

# #4®7 Table 5-2. Projected Refrigerator

-Freezer Shipments

L 2005 10.84 2006 11.17 2007 11.50 2008 11.83 2009 12.17

. 2010 12.50 2011 12.83 2012 13.16 2013 13.49 2014 13.82 2015 14.15 2016 14.48 2017 14.81 2018 15.1.4 2019 15.47 2020 15.80 2021 16.13 2022 16.46 2023 16.79 2024 17.12 2025 17.46 2026 17.79 2027 18.12 2028 18.45 2029 18.78 2030 19.11 2031 19.44 2032 19.77 2033 20.10 2034 20.43 2035 20.76

5.3.1.3 Product Class Market Shares and Project Shipments by Product Class The Department used AHAM data on the market share of different refrigerator-freezer types to estimate the fraction of all refrigerator-freezer shipments that fall into the two product classes considered for this analysis (i.e., top-mount refrigerator-freezers without TTD ice service and side-mount refrigerator-freezers with TTD ice service), as well as the capacity size rangesincluded in this analysis.' Table 5-3 shows the AHAM market share data for top- or bottommounted refrigerator-freezers as well as for side-mount refrigerator-freezers. 5.3.1.3 Table 5-2. Projected Refrigerator-Freezer Shipments

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 11.17 11.50 11.83 12.17 12.50 12.83 13.16 13.49 13.82 14.15 14.48 14.81 15.14 15.47 15.80 16.13 16.46 16.79 17.12 17.46 17.79 18.12 18.45 18.78 19.11 19.44 19.77 20.10 20.43 20.76 

# #4.7

Product Class Market Shares and Project Shipments by Product Class The Department used AHAM data on the market share ofdifferent refrigerator-freezer types to estimate the fraction ofall refrigerator-freezer shipments that fall into the two product classes considered for this analysis (i.e., top-mount refrigerator-freezers without TTD ice service and side-mount refrigerator-freezers with TTD ice service), as well as the capacity size ranges included in this analysis. 1 Table 5-3 shows the AHAM market share data for top- orbottommounted refrigerator-freezers as well as for side-mount refrigerator-freezers.

5-7Table 5-3. Market Share of Refrigerator-Freezer Product Classes

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Source: AHAM. 69.27 68.82 68.33 67.53 66.59 63.70 63.41 ,per "'^'ent' 29.92 30.77 31.31 32.08 32.78 34.51 35.09

The Department estimated future market shares for these two categories of refrigeratorfreezers by performing a linear extrapolation of the market shares from 1998 to 2004. The third and fourth columns of Table 5-4 show the results of this extrapolation. Based on data from The NPD Group, the Department estimated that top-mount refrigerator-freezers without TTD ice service in the size category range of 14 to 21 cubic feetdcomprise 81.2 percent of total top- and bottom-mount refrigerators.2 It also estimated that sidemount refrigerator-freezers with TTD ice service in the size category range of 21 to 30 cubic feet comprise 98.4 percent of total side-mount refrigerator-freezer shipments.2 The Department applied these multipliers to the refr igerator-freezer shipments to calculate shipments of only those product classes covered by this analysis. The last two columns of Table 5-4 show the refrigerator-freezer shipments used in the analysis.

d Size category is based on cubic feet of total refrigerated volume (fresh food volume plus freezer volume).

5-8 

# #4.7 Table 5-3. MarketShare ofRefrigerator-FreezerProduct Classes

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Source: AHAM. 69.27 68.82 68.33 67.53 66.59 63.70 63.41**~RI:!I!!I!IIIlIJIP!III!**

The Department estimated future market shares for these two categories ofrefrigeratorfreezers byperforming a linear extrapolation ofthe market shares from 1998 to 2004. The third and fourth columns ofTable 5-4 show the results ofthis extrapolation. Based on data from The NPD Group, the Department estimated that top-mount refrigerator-freezers without TID ice service in the size categoryrange of 14 to 21 cubic feetd comprise 81.2 percent oftotaltop- and bottom-mountrefrigerators.2 It also estimated that sidemount refrigerator-freezers with TTD ice service in the size category range of21 to 30 cubic feet comprise 98.4 percent oftotal side-mount refrigerator-freezer shipments. 2 The Department applied these multipliers to the refrigerator-freezer shipments to calculate shipments ofonly those product classes coveredby this analysis. The last two columns ofTable 5-4 show the refrigerator-freezer shipments used in the analysis.

d Size category is based on cubic feet oftotal refrigerated volume (fresh food volume plus freezer volume).

5-8

# #4.7
Table 5-4

. Refrigerator

-Freezer Shipments Used in the Analysis Shipments of included Side- .:Mount Freezer

, (rriilliori 1995 7.65 73.18% 26.82% 4.55 2.02 1996 7.98 72.12% 27.88% 4.67 2.19 1997 7.92 71.07% 28.88% 4.57 2.25 1998 8.77 69.27% 29.92% 4.93 2.58 1999 9.10 68.82% 30.77% 5.09 2.76 2000 9.22 68.33% 31.31% 5.12 2.84 2001 9.31 67.53% 32.08% 5.10 2.94 2002 9.74 66.59% 32.78% 5.27 3.14 2003 10.02 63.70% 34.51% 5.18 3.40 2004 10.92 63.41% 35.09% 5.62 3.77 2005 10.84 62.62% 35.87% 5.52 3.83 2006 11.17 61.57% 36.74% 5.59 4.04 2007 11.50 60.51% 37.62% 5.65 4.26 2008 11.83 59.45% 38.49% 5.72 4.48 2009 12.17 58.40% 39.36% 5.77 4.71 2010 12.50 57.34% 40.24% 5.82 4.95 2011 12.83 56.29% 41.11% 5.86 5.19 2012 13.16 55.23% 41.98% 5.90 5.44 2013 13.49 54.1.8% 42.86% 5.94 5.69 2014 13.82 53.12% 43.73% 5.96 5.95 2015 14.15 52.06% 44.60% 5.98 6.21 2016 14.48 51.01% 45.48% 6.00 6.48 2017 14.81 49.95% 46.35% 6.01 6.76 2018 15.14 48.90% 47.22% 6.01 7.04 2019 15.47 47.84% 48.10% 6.01 7.32 2020 15.80 46.79% 48.97% 6.01 7.62 2021. 16.13 45.73% 49.85% 5.99 7.91 2022 16.46 44.67% 50.72% 5.97 8.22 2023 16.79 43.62% 51.59% 5.95 8.53 2024 17.12 42.56% 52.47% 5.92 8.84 2025 17.46 41.51% 53.34% 5.89 9.16 2026 17.79 40.45% 54.21% 5.84 9.49 2027 18.12 39.40% 55.09% 5.80 9.82 2028 18.45 38.34% 55.96% 5.74 10.16 2029 18.78 37.28% 56.83% 5.69 10.50 2030 19.11 36.23% 57.71% 5.62 10.85 2031 19.44 35.17% 58.58% 5.55 1.1.21 2032 19.77 34.12% 59.46% 5.48 11.57 2033 20.10 33.06% 60.33% 5.40 11.93 2034 20.43 32.01% 61.20% 5.31 12.31 2035 20.76 30.95% 62.08% 5.22 12.68 Sources: Columns 1-3: AHAM; Columns 4-5: The NPD Group/NPD Houseworld - POS. 

# #4.7
Table 5-4. Refrigerator-Freezer Sbipments Used in the Analysis**~"""'PBIf'!**

1995 7.65 73.18% 4.55 2.02 1996 7.98 72.12% 4.67 2.19 1997 7.92 71.07% 28.88% 4.57 2.25 1998 8.77 69.27% 29.92% 4.93 2.58 1999 9.10 68.82% 30.77% 5.09 2.76 2000 9.22 68.33% 31.31% 5.12 2.84 2001 9.31 67.53% 32.08% 5.10 2.94 2002 9.74 66.59% 32.78% 5.27 3.14 2003 10.02 63.70% 34.51% 5.18 3.40 2004 10.92 63.41% 35.09% 5.62 3.77 2005 10.84 62.62% 35.87% 5.52 3.83 2006 11.17 61.57% 36.74% 5.59 4.04 2007 11.50 60.51% 37.62% 5.65 4.26 2008 11.83 59.45% 38.49% 5.72 4.48 2009 12.17 58.40% 39.36% 5.77 4.71 2010 12.50 57.34% 40.24% 5.82 4.95 2011 12.83 56.29% 41.11% 5.86 5.19 2012 13.16 55.23% 41.98% 5.90 5.44 2013 13.49 54.18% 42.86% 5.94 5.69 2014 13.82 53.12% 43.73% 5.96 5.95 2015 14.15 52.06% 44.60% 5.98 6.21 2016 14.48 51.01% 45.48% 6.00 6.48 2017 14.81 49.95% 46.35% 6.01 6.76 2018 15.14 48.90% 47.22% 6.01 7.04 2019 15.47 47.84% 48.10% 6.01 7.32 2020 15.80 46.79% 48.97% 6.01 7.62 2021 16.13 45.73% 49.85% 5.99 7.91 2022 16.46 44.67% 50.72% 5.97 8.22 2023 16.79 43.62% 51.59% 5.95 8.53 2024 17.12 42.56% 52.47% 5.92 8.84 2025 17.46 41.51% 53.34% 5.89 9.16 2026 17.79 40.45% 54.21% 5.84 9.49 2027 18.12 39.40% 55.09% 5.80 9.82 2028 18.45 38.34% 55.96% 5.74 10.16 2029 18.78 37.28% 56.83% 5.69 10.50 2030 19.11 36.23% 57.71% 5.62 10.85 2031 19.44 35.17% 58.58% 5.55 11.21 2032 19.77 34.12% 59.46% 5.48 11.57 2033 20.10 33.06% 60.33% 5.40 11.93 2034 20.43 32.01% 61.20% 5.31 12.31 2035 20.76 30.95% 62.08% 5.22 12.68 Sources: Columns 1-3: AHAM; Columns 4-5: The NPD Group/NPD Houseworld

- 

### pos.

5-95.3.2 Unit Electricity Consumption and Consumer Retail Prices 5.3.2.1 Weighted-Average Unit Electricity Consumption and Per-Unit Consumer Retail Price for Baseline, 15 percent less energy, and 25 percent less energy Products For each of the two product classes, top-mount refrigerator-freezers and side-mount refrigerator-freezers, the Department calculated a representative weighted-average UEC and a representative weighted-average per-unit consumer retail price for a baseline refrigerator-freezer, for a refrigerator-freezer that consumes 15 percent less energy, and for a refrigerator-freezer that consumes 25 percent less energy. The UEC and retail price data are shown in Table 5-5 and Table 5-6 for top-mount and side-mount units, respectively. The Department used data from The NPD Group to estimate the percent of shipments allocated to each size category to arrive at weighted-average UEC and retail price values.' The UECs are from the life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) analysis. The retail prices are also from the LCC and PBP analysis and are based on the average manufacturing-cost-based retail prices as well as the regression analysis-based retail prices.Table 5-5. Weighted-Average UECs and Retail Prices: Refrigerator-Freezers with TopMount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

-7 7

14-17 21.9% 453 385 340 $329 $367 $704 $356 18-20 43.9% 493 419 370 $386 $420 $494 $434 21-22 26.3% 526 447 395 $457 $499 $613 $520 Weighted

-Avg. Value 493 419 370 $392 $430 $578 $440 Sources: Percent of Shipments: The NPD Group/NPD Houseworld - POS ; UEC: Table 4-17, LCC and PBP Analysis; Retail Price: Table 4-2 1, LCC and PBP Analysis.Table 5-6. Weighted-Average UECs and Retail Prices: Refrigerator-Freezers with SideMount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service -7 7

F.k [ ^ O } ^.w 1II y ... 11 1 F, E.1 - ,gg', JOS F 4i^L_ 21-23 25.1% 677 575 . 508 $702 $756 $955 $750 24-26 74.2% 719 611 539 $789 $824 $988 $855 27-30 0.3% 762 648 572 $926 $1,110 $1,209' $101.4 Weighted-Avg. Value 709 602 531 $767 $808 $980 $829
* Due to insufficient data, the value here is an approximation based on the price differential for the 25 % less energy model for the two smaller size categories. Sources: Percent of Shipments : The NPD Group/NPD Houseworld - POS ; UEC: Table 4-18, LCC and PBP Analysis; Retail Price: Table 4-24, LCC and PBP Analysis. 

# #4.7 5.3.2 Unit Electricity Consumption and ConsumerRetailPrices
5.3.2.1 Weighted-Average Unit Electricity Consumption and Per-Unit Consumer

Retail Price for Baseline, 15 percentless energy, and 25 percent less energy Products For each ofthe two product classes, top-mount refrigerator-freezers and side-mount refrigerator-freezers, the Department calculated a representative weighted-average UEC and a representative weighted-average per-unit consumer retail price for a baseline refrigerator-freezer, for a refrigerator-fi'eezer that consumes 15 percent less energy, and for a refrigerator-freezer that consumes 25 percent less energy. The UEC and retail price data are shown in Table 5-5 and Table 5-6 for top-mount and side-mount units, respectively. The Department used data from The NPD Group to estimate the percent ofshipments allocated to each size categoryto arrive at weighted-average UEC and retail price values. 1 The UECs are from the life-cycle cost (LCC) and paybackperiod (PBP) analysis. The retail prices are also from theLCC and PBP analysis and are based on the average manufacturing-cost-basedretail prices as well as the regression analysis-based retailprices.



### Table 5-5. Weighted-Average UECs and Retail Prices: Refrigerator-Freezers with TopMountFreezer and without TTD Ice Service

Table 5-6. Weighted-Average UECs and Retail Prices: Refrigerator-Freezers with SideMountFreezerand with TTD Ice Service

21-23 25.1% 677 575 508 $702 $756 $955 $750 24-26 74.2% 719 611 539 $789 $824 $988 $855 27-30 0.3% 762 648 572 $926 $1,110 $1,209* $1014 Weighted-Avg. Value 709 602 531 $767 $808 $980 $829 

### *Due to insufficient data, thevalue here is an approXimatIOn based on the plice differential for the energy

model for the two smaller size categories. Sources: Percent ofShipments: TheNPD GroupINPD Houseworld

- POS ;DEC: Table 4-18, LCC and PEPAnalysis; Retail Price: Table4-24, LCC and PEP Analysis.

5-10

# 4.7 5.3.2.2 Base Case and Standards Case Market Shares The UECs and consumer retail prices associated with the base case and standards case are dependent on the market shares of baseline, 15 percent less energy, and 25 percent less energy products. Base Case Market Shares

. The Department based the market share of baseline and current Energy Star (i.e., 15 percent less energy) products for top-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers in the years 2002-2004 on data provided by AHAM (Table 5-7).' Note that the market share of products with 25 percent less energy consumption for the years 2002-2004 is negligible. Also note that market share data were not made available for the first year (2001) in which the last set of refrigerator-freezer energy conservation standards became effective. Table 5-7. Market Share of Baseline and Current Energy Star Refrigerator-Freezers

2002 86% 14% 54% 46% 2003 79% 21% 49% 51% 2004 78% 22% 51% 49% Source: AHAM. For years after 2004, because the market share of current Energy Star products did not appreciably change from 2003 to 2004, the Department assumed for the base case that the market share of baseline and current Energy Star products remained essentially unchanged from their 2004 levels. From 2005 to 2035, the Department assumed that the market share of baseline and current Energy Star refrigerator-freezers stay fixed at 78 percent and 22 percent, respectively. For side-mount refrigerator-freezers, the Department assumed that the market share of baseline and current Energy Star products remained at 50 percent each from 2005 to 2035. Standards Case Market Shares. For a new amended energy conservation standard set at current Energy Star levels (i.e., 15 less energy consumption), the market share of the current Energy Star product (which would become the new baseline level) and any future Energy Star product can have a significant impact on the NES and NPV due to the new standard. Because it is difficult to forecast the market share of products once a new standard becomes effective, the Department analyzed the following two market share scenarios: (1) a No Future Energy Star scenario where 100 percent of the market is assumed to be at the new standard level (which is equivalent to the current Energy Star level), and (2) a Current Energy Star scenario where market shares of current and future Energy Star are assumed to be equivalent to the market shares of current baseline and current Energy Star products. Under the Current Energy Star scenario, the future Energy Star level. is assumed to have 25 percent less energy consumption than current baseline products. Table 5-8 shows the standards case market shares for top-mount refrigerators under the No Future Energy Star and Current Energy Star market share scenarios. Under the Current Energy Star scenario, after the standard becomes effective in 2010, the market share of current and future Energy Star products in the years 2011-2013 are assumed to be equivalent to the market share of current baseline and current Energy Star products in the years 2002-2004. For

5-11 

# #4.7
5.3.2.2 Base Case and Standards Case Market Shares The UECs and consumer retail prices associated with the base case and standards case are dependent onthe market shares ofbaseline, 15 percent less energy, and 25 percent lessenergy products. 

### Base Case Market Shares. The Departmentbased the market share ofbaseline and current Energy Star (i.e., 15 percent less energy) products for top-mount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers in the years 2002-2004 on data provided by AHAM (Table 5-7).1 Note that the market share ofproducts with 25 percent less energy consumption for the years 2002-2004 is negligible. Also note that market share data were not made available for the fIrst year (2001) in which the last set ofrefrigerator-freezer energy conservation standards became effective. Table 5-7. Market Share ofBaseline andCurrentEnergy StarRefrigerator-Freezers

For years after 2004, because the market share ofcurrentEnergy Starproducts did not appreciably change from 2003 to 2004, the Department assumed for the base case that the market share ofbaseline and current Energy Starproducts remained essentially unchanged fromtheir 2004 levels. From 2005 to 2035, the Department assumed that the market share ofbaseline and current Energy Starrefrigerator-freezers stay fIxed at 78 percent and 22 percent, respectively. For side-mount refrigerator-freezers, the Department assumed that the market share ofbaseline and current Energy Starproducts remained at 50percent each from 2005 to 2035. 

### Standards Case Market Shares. For a new amended energy conservation standard set at current Energy Star levels (i.e., 15 less energy consumption), the market share ofthe current Energy Star product (which would become the new baseline level) and any future Energy Star product can have a signifIcant impact onthe NES and NPV due to the new standard. Because it is difficult to forecast the market share ofproducts once a new standardbecomes effective, the Department analyzed the following two market share scenarios: (1) a No Future Energy Star scenario where 100 percent ofthe market is assumed to be at the new standard level (which is equivalent to the current Energy Star level), and (2) a CUlTent Energy Star scenario where market shares ofcurrent and future Energy Star are assumed to be equivalent to the market shares ofcurrent baseline and current Energy Starproducts. Under the CurrentEnergy Star scenario, the future Energy Star level is assumed to have 25 percent less energy consumption than current baseline products. Table 5-8 shows the standards case market shares for top-mount refrigerators under the No FutureEnergy Star and CUlTent Energy Starmarket share scenarios. Under the Current Energy Star scenario, after the standard becomes effective in 2010, the market share ofcurrent and future Energy Starproducts in the years 2011-2013 are assumed to be equivalent to the market share ofCUlTent baseline and current Energy Starproducts in the years 2002-2004. For

5-11subsequent years out to 2035, the market shares are equivalent to what is assumed in the base

case for current baseline and current Energy Star products (i.e., 78 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Because data were not available to show the market share of current Energy Star products in 2001, the Department assumed that the market shares of current and future Energy Star products in 2010 are 90 percent and 10 percent, respectively. Table 5-8. Standards Case Market Share Scenarios : Refrigerator-Freezers with TopMount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

2002 86% 14% 0% 86% 14% 0% 2003 79% 21% 0% 79% 21% 0% 2004 78% 22% 0% 78% 22% 0% 2005 78% 22% 0% 78% 22% 0% 2006 78% 22% 0% 78% 22% 0% 2007 78% 22% 0% 78% 22% 0% 2008 78% 22% 0% 78% 22% 0% 2009 78% 22% 0% 78% 22% 0% 2010 0% 100% 0% 0% 90% 10% 2011 0% 100% 0% 0% 86% 14% 2012 0% 100% 0% 0% 79% 21% 2013 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2014 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2015 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2016 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2017 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2018 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2019 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2020 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2021 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2022 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2023 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2024 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2025 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2026 0% 100% 0% 0% 78 % 22% 2027 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2028 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2029 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2030 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2031 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2032 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2033 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2034 0% 100% 

## 0% 0% 78% 22% 2035 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22%
Table 5-9 shows the standards case market shares for side-mount refrigerators under the No Future Energy Star and Current Energy Star market share scenarios. Under the Current Energy Star scenario, after the standard becomes effective in 2010, the market share of current

5-12 

# #4.7 subsequent years outto 2035, the market shares are equivalent to what is assumed in the base case for currentbaseline and current Energy Starproducts (i.e., 78 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Because data were not available to show the market share ofcurrent Energy Star products 

### in 2001, the Department assumed that the market shares ofcurrent and future Energy Starproducts in 2010 are 90 percent and 10 percent, respectively. 

### Table 5-8. Standards Case Market Share Scenarios: Refrigerator-Freezers with TopMountFreezer and 

### without TTD 

### Ice Service

2002 86% 14% 0% 86% 14% 0% 2003 79% 21% 0% 79% 21% 0% 2004 78% 22% 0% 78% 22% 0% 2005 78% 22% 0% 78% 22% 0% 2006 78% 22% 0% 78% 22% 0% 2007 78% 22% 0% 78% 22% 0% 2008 78% 22% 0% 78% 22% 0% 2009 78% 22% 0% 78% 22% 0% 2010 0% 100% 0% 0% 90% 10% 2011 0% 100% 0% 0% 86% 14% 2012 0% 100% 0% 0% 79% 21% 2013 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2014 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2015 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2016 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2017 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2018 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2019 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2020 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2021 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2022 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2023 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2024 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2025 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2026 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2027 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2028 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2029 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2030 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2031 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2032 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2033 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2034 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 2035 0% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22%

Table 5-9 shows the standards case market shares for side-mount refrigerators under the No Future Energy Star and Current Energy Star market share scenarios. Under the Current Energy Star scenario, after the standard becomes effective in 2010, the market share ofcurrent

5-12

# #4®7

and future Energy Star products in the years 2011-2013 would be equivalent to the market share of current baseline and current Energy Star products in the years 2002-2004. For subsequent years out to 2035, the market shares are equivalent to what is assumed in the base case for current baseline and current Energy Star products (i.e., 50 percent). Because data were not available to show the market share of current Energy Star products in 2001, the Department assumed that the market shares of current and future Energy Star products in 2010 are 75 percent and 25 percent, respectively.Table 5-9. Standards Case Market Share Scenarios: Refrigerator-Freezers with SideMount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

2002 54% 46% 0% 2003 49% 51% 0% 2004 51% 49% 0% 2005 50% 50% 0% 2006 50% 50% 0% 2007 50% 50% 

## 0% 2008 

### 50% 50% 

## 0% 2009 50% 50% 0% 2010 0% 100% 0% 2011 0% 100% 0% 2012 0 % 100% 0% 2013 0% 100% 0% 2014 0% 100% 0% 2015 0% 100% .0% 2016 0% 100% 0% 2017 0% 100% 0% 2018 0% 100% 0% 2019 0% 100% 0% 2020 0 % 100% 0% 2021 0% 100% 0% 2022 0% 100% 0% 2023 0% 100% 0% 2024 0% 100% 0% 2025 0 % 100% 0% 2026 0% 100% 0% 2027 0% 100% 0% 2028 0% 100% 0% 2029 0% 100% 0% 2030 0% 100% 0% 2031 0% 100% 0% 2032 0% 100% 0% 2033 0% 100% 0% 2034 0% 100% 0% 2035 0% 100% 0% 54% 49% 51% 50% 50% 

## 50% 50% 50% 46%

51% 49% 50% 50% 

### 50% 50% 50% 75% 54% 49% 51% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

## 0% 0% 25% 46% 51% 49% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 

# #4.7
and future Energy Starproducts in the years 2011-2013 would be equivalent to the market share ofcurrent baseline and current Energy Starproducts in the years 2002-2004. For subsequent years outto 2035, the market shares are equivalent to what is assumed in the base**c£l~~** for current baseline and current Energy Starproducts (i.e., 50 percent). Because data were not available to show the market share ofcurrent Energy Starproducts in 2001, the Department assumed that the market shares ofcurrent and future Energy Starproducts in 2010 are 75 percent and 25 percent, respectively. Table 5-9. Standards 

### Case Market Share Scenarios: Refrigerator-Freezers with SideMount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

2002 54% 46% 0% 54% 46% 0% 2003 49% 51% 0% 49% 51% 0% 2004 51% 49% 0% 51% 49% 0% 2005 50% 50% 0% 50% 50% 0% 2006 50% 50% 0% 50% 50% 0% 2007 50% 50% 0% 50% 50% 0% 2008 50% 50% 0% 50% 50% 0% 2009 50% 50% 0% 50% 50% 0% 2010 0% 100% 0% 0% 75% 25% 2011 0% 100% 0% 0% 54% 46% 2012 0% 100% 0% 0% 49% 51% 2013 0% 100% 0% 0% 51% 49% 2014 0% 100% 0% 0% 50% 50% 2015 0% 100% 0% 0% 50% 50% 2016 0% 100% 0% 0% 50% 50% 2017 0% 100% 0% 0% 50% 50% 2018 0% 100% 0% 0% 50% 50% 2019 0% 100% 0% 0% 50% 50% 2020 0% 100% 0% 0% 50% 50% 2021 0% 100% 0% 0% 50% 50% 2022 0% 100% 0% 0% 50% 50% 2023 0% 100% 0% 0% 50% 50% 2024 0% 100% 0% 0% 50% 50% 2025 0% 100% 0% 0% 50% 50% 2026 0% 100% 0% 0% 50% 50% 2027 0% 100% 0% 0% 50% 50% 2028 0% 100% 0% 0% 50% 50% 2029 0% 100% 0% 0% 50% 50% 2030 0% 100% 0% 0% 50% 50% 2031 0% 100% 0% 0% 50% 50% 2032 0% 100% 0% 0% 50% 50% 2033 0% 100% 0% 0% 50% 50% 2034 0% 100% 0% 0% 50% 50% 2035 0% 1000() 0% 0% 50% 50%

5-135.3.2.3 Base Case and Standards Case Unit Electricity Consumption and Consumer Retail Prices Based on the weighted-average UEC and per- unit consumer retail price data in Table 5-5 and Table 5-6, and the base case and standards case market share data in Table 5-7, Table 5-8, and Table 5-9, the Department determined the average annual UEC and consumer retail price of new product shipments corresponding to each year of the base case and standards case forecast. Base Case and Standards Case Unit Energy Consumption

. Table 5-10 and Figure 5-4 show the average UECs of new product shipments in the base case and standards case for the top-mount refrigerator-freezer product class. Table 5-1.1. and Figure 5-5 show the average UECsof new product shipments in the base case and standards case for the side-mount refrigeratorfreezer product class. Under the standards case there are two scenarios considered; the No Future Energy Star and Current Energy Star scenarios. 

# #4.7 5.3.2.3 Base Case and Standards Case Unit Electricity Consumption and

ConsumerRetail Prices Based on the weighted-average UEC and per-unit consumerretail price data in Table 5-5 and Table 5-6, and the base case and standards case market share data in Table 5-7, Table 5-8, and Table 5-9, the Department determined the average annual UEC and consumer retail price of new product shipments corresponding to each year ofthe base case and standards case forecast. 

### Base Case andStandards Case Unit Energy Consumption. Table 5-10 and Figure 5-4 show the average UECs ofnew product shipments in the base case and standards case for the top-mount refrigerator-freezer product class. Table 5-11 and Figure 5-5 show the average UECs ofnew product shipments in the base case and standards case for the side-mount refrigeratorfreezer product class. Under the standards case there are two scenarios considered; the No FutureEnergy Star and Current Energy Star scenarios.

5-14

# #4®7

Table 5-10

. Base Case and Standards Case Average UECs for New Product Shipments: Refrigerator

-Freezers with Top

-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

: { t .E^i 1. ^^I. RI1.11l y,'n Ir ^b'.^yI I I II c' _ 2002 483 483 483 2003 477 477 477 2004 477 477 477 2005 477 477 477 2006 477 477 477 2007 477 477 477 2008 477 477 477 2009 477 477 477 2010 477 419 414 2011 477 419 412 2012 477 419 409 2013 477 419 408 2014 477 419 408 2015 477 419 408 2016 477 419 408 2017 477 419 408 2018 477 419 408 2019 477 419 408 2020 477 419 408 2021 477 419 408 2022 477 419 408 2023 477 419 408 2024 477 419 408 2025 477 419 408 2026 477 419 408 2027 477 419 408 2028 477 419 408 2029 477 419 408 2030 477 419 408 2031 477 419 408 2032 477 419 408 2033 477 41.9 408 2034 477 419 408 2035 477 419 408 

# #4.7
Table 5-10. Base Case and Standards Case Average UECs for New Product Shipments: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service



### 2002 483 483 483 2003 477 477 477 2004 477 477 477 2005 477 477 477 2006 477 477 477 2007 477 477 477 2008 477 477 477 2009 477 477 477 2010 

### 477 419 414 2011 477 419 412 2012 477 419 409 2013 477 419 408 2014 477 419 408 2015 477 419 408 2016 477 419 408 2017 477 419 408 2018 477 419 408 2019 477 419 408 2020 477 419 408 2021 477 419 408 2022 477 419 408 2023 477 419 408 2024 477 419 408 2025 477 419 408 2026 477 419 408 2027 477 419 408 2028 477 419 408 2029 477 419 408 2030 477 419 408 2031 477 419 408 2032 477 419 408 2033 477 419 408 2034 477 419 408 2035 477 419 408

5-15Figure 5-4. Base Case and Standards Case Average UECs for New Product Shipments: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

5-16 490 480**~**1m. 470 460 "i:" >-**~** 450

## ~ () 440 w ::;) 430 420 fl"-u-u-o--c 410**~** 400 2001 2005 2009 2013 

# #4.7

Base Case

, 1

No Future EnergyStar Scenario Standards Case :::l--{]--{:j---Cr--Q'

..........

O

............·Q

.........u-{:}--·r.l---i::l--(:}-()-

.........

Cf.

..·

..· ......,[)_

..o-c :::j.-n-r.l-(1

CurrentEnergyStar Scenario Standards Case 2017

Year 2021 2025 2029 2033
Figure 5-4. Base Caseand Standards Case Average UECs for New Product Shipments: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-MountFreezer and without TTD Ice Service

5-16

# #4 ®7

Table 5-11. Base Case and Standards Case Average UECs for New Product Shipments: Refrigerator

-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

^•H.c. ( ^`-d cl.. ^^ jiJ ^i`_iiell^3.,' iv^R 'r g..^.:-'r ^^dalV;lp±
ht''d!' I+Js.^ ^_ -^ rl ,l^tt I - _carea;t.... 2002 660 660 660 2003 654 654 654 2004 656 656 656 2005 655 655 655 2006 655 655 655 2007 655 655 655 2008 655 655 655 2009 655 655 655 2010 655 602 585 2011 655 602 570 2012 655. 602 566 2013 655 602 568 2014 655 602 567 2015 655 602 567 2016 655 602 567 201.7 655 602 567 2018 655 602 567 2019 655 602 567 2020 655 602 567 2021 655 602 567 2022 655 602 567 2023 655 602 567 2024 655 602 567 2025 655 602 567 2026 655 602 567 2027 655 602 567 2028 655 602 567 2029 655 602 567 2030 655 602 567 2031 655 602 567 2032 655 602 567 2033 655 602 567 2034 655 602 567 2035 655 602 567 

# #4.7
Table 5-11. Base Case and Standards Case Average UECs for New Product Shipments: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service



### 2002 660 660 660 2003 654 654 654 2004 656 656 656 2005 655 655 655 2006 655 655 655 2007 655 655 655 2008 655 655 655 2009 655 655 655 2010 

### 655 602 585 2011 655 602 570 2012 655 602 566 2013 655 602 568 2014 655 602 567 2015 655 602 567 2016 655 602 567 2017 655 602 567 2018 655 602 567 2019 655 602 567 2020 655 602 567 2021 655 602 567 2022 655 602 567 2023 655 602 567 2024 655 602 567 2025 655 602 567 2026 655 602 567 2027 655 602 567 2028 655 602 567 2029 655 602 567 2030 655 602 567 2031 655 602 567 2032 655 602 567 2033 655 602 567 2034 655 602 567 2035 655 602 567

5-17660
650
640

620
610 U 600
590 630 Base Case

No Future Energy Star Scenario Standards Case

Current Energy Star Scenario Standards Case

Year Figure 5-5. Base Case and Standards Case Average UECs for New Product Shipments: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

Base Case and Standards Case Unit Consumer Retail Prices. Table 5-12 and Figure 5- 6 show the average per-unit consumer retail prices of new product shipments in the base case and standards case for the top-mount refrigerator-freezer product class. Table 5-13 and Figure 5-7 show the average per-unit consumer retail prices of new product shipments in the base case and standards case for the side-mount refrigerator-freezer product class. Under the standards case there are two scenarios considered; the No Future Energy Star and Current Energy Star scenarios. For the No Future Energy Star scenario, retail prices are based on the two sets of price estimates; average manufacturing cost-based and regression analysis-based. As noted earlier, the Current Energy Star scenario is composed of products with 15 percent less energy consumption and 25 percent less energy consumption. Because the Department could not use the regression analysis to generate prices for products with 25 percent less energy consumption, retail prices under the Current Energy Star scenario are based only on manufacturing costs.

5-18 660 

### "\

....w650 640 630
'i:' 620 

## ?: I!! 1\ 'l

### ~ 610 (.) w 600 ::I 590 \ 580 570 5602001 2005 2009 

# \ ""-

### ,...
2013 

# #4.7

Base CaseNo Future EnergyStar Scenario Standards Case
-

Current EnergyStar Scenario Standards Case

_

2017

Year 2021 2025 2029 2033 I

Figure 5-5. Base Case and Standards Case Average UECs for New Product Shipments: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

Base Case andStandards Case Unit ConsumerRetailPrices. Table 5-12 and Figure 5- 6 show the average per-unit consumer retail prices ofnew product shipments in the base case and standards case for the top-mount refrigerator-freezer product class. Table 5-13 and Figure 5-7 show the average per-unit consumerretailprices ofnew product shipments in the base case and standards case for the side-mount refrigerator-freezer product class. Under the standards case there are two scenarios considered; the No Future Energy Star and Current Energy Star scenarios. Forthe No Future Energy Star scenario, retail prices are based on the two sets ofprice estimates; average manufacturing cost-based and regression analysis-based. As noted earlier, the Current Energy Star scenario is composed ofproducts with 15 percent less energy consumption and 25 percent less energy consumption. Because the Department could not use the regression analysis to generate prices for products with 25 percent less energy consumption, retail prices under the Current Energy Star scenario are based only on manufacturing costs.

5-18

# #4®7

Table 5

-12. Base Case and Standards Case Average Per-Unit Consumer Retail Prices for New Product Shipments : Refrigerator

-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

2002 $398 $398 2003 $400 $400 2004 $401 $401 2005 $401 $401 2006 $401 $401 2007 $401 $401 2008 $401 $401 2009 $401 $401 2010 $401 $430 2011 $401 $430 2012 $401 $430 2013 $401 $430 2014 $401 $430 2015 $401 $430 2016 $401 $430 2017 $401 $430 2018 $401 $430 2019 $401 $430 2020 $401 $430 2021 $401 $430 2022 $401 $430 2023 $401 $430 2024 $401 $430 2025 $401 $430 2026 $401 $430 2027 $401 $430 2028 $401 $430 2029 $401 $430 2030 $401 $430 2031 $401 $430 2032 $401 $430 2033 $401 $430 2034 $401 $430 2035 $401 $430 $398 $400 $401 $401 $401 $401 $401 $401 $445 $451 $461 $463 $463 $463 $463 $463 $463 $463 $463 $463 $463 $463 $463 $463 $463 $463 $463 $463 $463 $463 $463 $463 $463 $463 $399

$402 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 X399

$402 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403 $403. $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 $440 

# #4.7
Table 5-12. Base Case and Standards Case Average Per-Unit ConsumerRetail 

### Prices

### for

New Product Shipments: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezerand without TTD Ice Service



### 2002 $398 $398 $398 $399 $399 2003 $400 $400 $400 $402 $402 2004 $401 $401 $401 $403 $403 2005 $401 $401 $401 $403 $403 2006 $401 $401 $401 $403 $403 2007 $401 $401 $401 $403 $403 2008 $401 $401 $401 $403 $403 2009 1 1 $401 $403 $403 2010 

### $401 $430 $445 $403 $440 2011 $401 $430 $451 $403 $440 2012 $401 $430 $461 $403 $440 2013 $401 $430 $463 $403 $440 2014 $401 $430 $463 $403 $440 2015 $401 $430 $463 $403 $440 2016 $401 $430 $463 $403 $440 2017 $401 $430 $463 $403 $440 2018 $401 $430 $463 $403 $440 2019 $401 $430 $463 $403 $440 2020 $401 $430 $463 $403 $440 2021 $401 $430 $463 $403 $440 2022 $401 $430 $463 $403 $440 2023 $401 $430 $463 $403 $440 2024 $401 $430 $463 $403 $440 2025 $401 $430 $463 $403 $440 2026 $401 $430 $463 $403 $440 2027 $401 $430 $463 $403 $440 2028 $401 $430 $463 $403 $440 2029 $401 $430 $463 $403 $440 2030 $401 $430 $463 $403 $440 2031 $401 $430 $463 $403 $440 2032 $401 $430 $463 $403 $440 2033 $401 $430 $463 $403 $440 2034 $401 $430 $463 $403 $440 2035 $401 $430 $403 $440

5-19

# .... _..._.... -_...... _--__ Mfg Cost-Based Retail Price: Current Energy Star Scenario Standards Case

Regression-Based Retail Price: No Future Energy Star Scenario Standards Case

.................. Mfg Cost-Based Retail Price: No Future Energy Star Scenario Standards Case
Regression
-Based Retail Price : Base Case ...__......... .-_

1 

### deo' ......&_........._........g..._ -0 .......0 ....10 .....0 .....1C,...._0'....10.........0..._p...._p.......p......p.......p......Gz......p............G;......p......q......^y.......0 ...._0...._0 ...... Mfg Cost

-Based Retail Price : Base Case

Figure 5-6. Base Case and Standards Case Average Per-Unit Consumer Retail Prices for New Product Shipments: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service

5-20 

# #4.7**$470~-----------------------·----·····------·--------·-·---·-** ..-----....-.-..- ..--.----.. --, Mfg Cost-Based Retail Price: CurrentEnergyStar Scenario Standards Case**$460+----------------1-~~----------------------------------~** 

## i $450 -l-----------------}L---- Regression-Based Retail Price: 

### g 

# I No Future EnergyStar Scenario Standards Case

### ~**~** (I) $440**~~~-..~,...,..c,...,** (,) ";:: 0..**~** $430

------- .. -- , a: Mfg Cost-Based Retail Price: lii $420 -J---------fl-------- No Future Energy Star Scenario Standards Case
- E ::J III 

## g $410

...........-------..---...... -_.-.........................._ ....--....-.- Regression-Based Retail Price: Base Case

....-....-......... 

## / u**~**.....'tk-

...., ...Ii!l

......., .....-1j

......<>.....-0

......<:>
......"

.....<>......6--

..-0

......6-

......"'

.....-0

......6-

...--0

......{>

......<>...-o-...(,

......."

......{>

......<>......"

......<>
......"

......{>

...<>
......"

......**$400~y~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~** Mfg Cost-8ased Retail Price: Base case/**$390+-~--~~~-r--~~--~~--~--~-r--~~--~~--~~** 2001 2005 2009 2013 2017 Year 2021 2025 2029 2033 

### Figure 5-6. Base Case and Standards Case Average Per-Unit ConsumerRetail Prices for

New Product Shipments: Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-MountFreezer and without TTD Ice Service

5-20

# #4.7

Table 5-13. Base Case and Standards Case Average Per-Unit Consumer Retail Prices for New Product Shipments: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TT D Ice Service

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 $786

$788 $787 $788 $788 $788 $788 $788 $786

$788 $787 $788 $788 $788 $788 $788 $786

$788 $787 $788 $788 $788 $788 $788 $796

$799 $797 $798 $798 $798 $798 $798 %96

$799 $797 $798 $798 $798 $798 $798 2010 $788 $808 $851 $798 $829 2011 $788 $808 $887 $798 $829 2012 $788 $808 $896 $798 $829 2013 $788 $808 $892 $798 $829 2014 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2015 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2016 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2017 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2018 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2019 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2020 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2021 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2022 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2023 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2024 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2025 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2026 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2027 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2028 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2029 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2030 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2031 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2032 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2033 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2034 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2035 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 

# #.4.7
Table 5-13. Base Case and Standards Case Average Per-Unit ConsumerRetail

### Pricesfor New Product Shipments: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer 

### andwith TTD Ice Service



### 2002 $786 $786 $786 $796 $796 2003 $788 $788 $788 $799 $799 2004 $787 $787 $787 $797 $797 2005 $788 $788 $788 $798 $798 2006 $788 $788 $788 $798 $798 2007 $788 $788 $788 $798 $798 2008 $788 $788 $788 $798 $798 2009 $788 $788 $788 $798 $798 2010 

### $788 $808 $851 $798 2011 $788 $808 $887 $798 $829 2012 $788 $808 $896 $798 $829 2013 $788 $808 $892 $798 $829 2014 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2015 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2016 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2017 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2018 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2019 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2020 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2021 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2022 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2023 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2024 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2025 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2026 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2027 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2028 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2029 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2030 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2031 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2032 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2033 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2034 $788 $808 $894 $798 $829 2035 $788 $808 $894 8 $829

5-21$900

$880

m V a. $840 d d E $820 U) a 0 U V $800

$7802001 2005 Mf Cost-Based Retail Price : Current Ener Star Scenario Standards Case

2009 2013 2017 2021 Year 2025 2029 2033 Figure 5-7. Base Case and Standards Case Average Per-Unit Consumer Retail Prices for New Product Shipments: Refrigerator

-Freezers with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service
5.3.3 Product Lifetime As described in the LCC and PBP analysis, the Department estimated the product lifetime from a prior technical support document (TSD) the Department published in 1995 to assess whether amended energy conservation standards were warranted for refrigerator-freezers.' The product lifetime from the prior TSD was estimated to be 19 years. As noted in the LCC and PBP analysis, the length of first ownership is shorter than the product lifetime. The Department has accounted for the length of first ownership in past standards rulemakings, specifically, in the technical analysis that was conducted in support of the most recent clothes washer Final Rule.` The shipments and national impact analyses accounted for the length of clothes washer first ownership and how it related to the market of used clothes washers. For purposes of this national impact analysis for refrigerator-freezers, the Department did not address the issues of first ownership and a used appliance market. If the Department pursues a standards rulemaking, the extent to which first ownership and a used appliance market are addressed will depend on the input of stakeholders.
5.3.4 Electricity Price As described in the LCC and PBP analysis, the Department calculated electricity prices for the residential sector from the Energy Information Administration (EIA)'s Annual Energy - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

# . .................... 77

Regression-Based Retail Price: No Future Energy Star Scenario Standards Case .............{,,...._ .............,....._ ....... ......., _............, .--A............._ ........A...._..............y...............................................A........ Mfg Cost

-Based Retail Price: / No Future Energy Star Scenario Standards Case
/ Regression
-Based Retail Price : Base Case

Mfg Cost•Based Retail Price: Base Case

5-22 0' 

### :g $900
$880**~** $860**~** .;: /l.
.- $840

### ~ a::

.... Q) E $820 ::s III c: o () $800
$7802001 =-

IlL III" 2005 

# #4.7

Mfa Cost-Based Retail Price: CurrentEnerav Star Scenario Standards Case

## (~



# I
I



# t ...t;;
......t;;
...... /i

......t;; ! 

## 'T

2009 2013 ........

Regression-Based Retail Price: No Future Energy Star Scenario Standards Case**~**

...-!J.

.......t>
......-!J.

.......&

...... t>
......{).

......t.
.......-!J.·······{).······t,·······-b;······u······-!J.········t>·····-/i-·

....-!J.

.......-!J.

....... /i

.....**~**.......{).

......, Mfg Cost-Based Retail Price: /'No Future EnergyStar Scenario Standards Case Regression-Based Retail Price: Base Case

__**~ ~.**  Mfg Cost-Based Retail Price: Base Case

2017

Year 2021 2025 2029 2033 

### -

Figure5-7. Base Case and Standards Case Average Per-Unit ConsumerRetail Pricesfor New ProductShipments: Refrigerator-Freezers with Side-Mount :Freezer and with TTD Ice Service
5.3.3 ProductLifetime As described in the 

### Lee and PBP analysis, the Department estimated the productlifetime from a priortechnical support document (TSD) the Departmentpublished in 1995 to assess whether amended energy conservation standards were warranted for refrigerator-freezers. 3 The productlifetime from theprior TSD was estimated,to be 19 years. As noted in the 

### Lee and PBP analysis, the length offirst ownership is shorterthan the product lifetime. The Department has accounted forthe length offirst ownership in past standards rulemakings, specifically, in the technical analysis that was conducted in support ofthe most recent clothes washer Final Rule. 4 The shipments and national impact analyses accounted for the length ofclothes washer first ownership and how it related to the market ofused clothes washers. For purposes ofthis national impact analysis for refrigerator-freezers, the Department did not address the issues offIrst ownership and a used appliance market. Ifthe Department pursues a standards rulemaking, the extent to which first ownership and a used appliance market are addressed will depend on the input ofstakeholders.


### 5.3.4 Electricity Price As described in the 

### Lee and PBP analysis, the Department calculated electricity prices for the residential sector from the Energy Information Administration (EIA)'sAnnualEnergy

5-22

# #4®7

Review (AER) 2003.5 Electricity prices are provided by EIA in nominal dollars and 2000 dollars for the years 1960-2003. The Department used gross domestic product (GDP) implicit price deflators to convert values into 2005 dollars.6 The Department then used EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2005 (AEO 2005) Reference Case? residential electricity price forecast to project prices from 2003 to 2035. The Department used a linear extrapolation based on the last ten years (2015-2025) in the forecast to project prices to the end of the analysis period (2035). Table 5-14 shows the forecasted electricity prices based on a 2003 price of 8.93 cents per kilowatt-hour. (0/kWh).

Table 5-14. Historical and Forecasted Electricity Prices

r^; k^<1'i tiil' 4 F. E.}r SI 2001 9.19 2026 8.54 2002 8.87 2027 8.56 2003 8.93 2028 8.58 2004 8.86 2029 8.59 2005 8.84 2030 8.61 2006 8.57 2031 8.63 2007 8.25 2032 8.65 2008 8.08 2033 8.67 2009 8.09 2034 8.68 2010 8.07 2035 8.70 2011 8.08 2036 8.72 2012 8.13 2037 8.74 2013 8.20 2038 8.76 2014 8.29 2039 8.77 2015 8.31 2040 8.79 2016 8.29 2041 8.81 2017 8.31 2042 8.83 2018 8.37 2043 8.85 2019 8.45 2044 8.87 2020 8.48 2045 8.88 2021 8.52 2046 8.90 2022 8.50 2047 8.92 2023 8.48 2048 8.94 2024 8.49 2049 8.96 2025 8.52 2050 8.97 Source : EIA AER 2003; EIAAEO 2005.
5.3.5 Site-to

-Source Energy Conversion Factors The Department calculated energy savings as site energy, which it then converted to source energy- the energy that electric power plants consume. As shown in Table 5-15, the Department used site-to-source energy conversion factors from the AEO 2005. The Department extrapolated the values in later years (after 2025) from their relative sources because the AEO

5-23 

# #4.7
Review (AER) 2003.5 Electricityprices are provided byEIAin nominal dollars and 2000 dollars for the years 1960-2003. The Department used gross domestic product (GDP) implicitprice deflators to convert values into 2005 dollars.6 The Department then used EIA'sAnnualEnergy Outlook 2005 (AEO 2005) Reference Case7 residential electricity price forecast to project prices from 2003 to 2035. The Department used a linear extrapolation based on the last ten years (2015-2025) in the forecast to project prices to the end ofthe analysis period (2035). Table 5-14 shows the forecasted electricityprices based on a 2003 price of8.93 cents perkilowatt-hour (¢/kWh). Table 5-14. Historical and Forecasted Electricity Prices
2001 9.19 2026 8.54 2002 8.87 2027 8.56 2003 8.93 2028 8.58 2004 8.86 2029 8.59 2005 8.84 2030 8.61 2006 8.57 2031 8.63 2007 8.25 2032 8.65 2008 8.08 2033 8.67 2009 8.09 2034 8.68 2010 8.07 2035 8.70 2011 8.08 2036 8.72 2012 8.13 2037 8.74 2013 8.20 2038 8.76 2014 8.29 2039 8.77 2015 8.31 2040 8.79 2016 8.29 2041 8.81 2017 8.31 2042 8.83 2018 8.37 2043 8.85 2019 8.45 2044 8.87 2020 8.48 2045 8.88 2021 8.52 2046 8.90 2022 8.50 2047 8.92 2023 8.48 2048 8.94 2024 8.49 2049 8.96 2025 8.52 2050 8.97 Source: EIA AER 2003; EIA AEO2005.

5.3.5 Site-to-Source Energy Conversion Factors The Department calculated energy savings as site energy, which it then convertedto source energy- the energy that electric power plants consume. As shown in Table 5-15, the Department used site-to-source energy conversion factors from theAEO2005. The Department extrapolated the values in later years (after 2025) from their relative sources because theAEO

5-23does not forecast beyond 2025. To arrive at values for these later years, the Department used the

forecast's trend from 2015 to 2025 to establish conversion factors in the years 2025 to 2035.

Table 5-15. Site-to

-Source Conversion Factors

2004 10,960 2005 10,942 2006 10,916 2007 10,900 2008 10,855 2009 10,805 2010 10,757 2011 10,709 2012 10,662 2013 1.0,631 2014 10,591 2015 10,541 2016 10,498 2017 10,463 201.8 1.0,419 2019 10,388 2020 10,352 2021 10,329 2022 10,302 2023 10,279 2024 10,259 2025 10,240 2026 10,210 2027 10,180 2028 10,151 2029 10,121 2030 10,092 2031 10,063 2032 1.0,034 2033 10,005 2034 9,975 2035 9,947 Source : EIA, AEO 2005.
5.3.6 Discount Rate The Department calculated the NPV of cost savings with both a three-percent and a seven-percent real discount rate. It used the three-percent real discount rate to represent the rate at which society discounts future consumption flows to their present value, and the seven

-percent

5-24 

# #4.7
does not forecast beyond 2025. To arrive at values for these later years, the Department used the forecast's trend from 2015 to 2025 to establish conversion factors in the years 2025 to 2035. Table 5-15. Site-to-Source ConversionFactors

2004 10,960 2005 10,942 2006 10,916 2007 10,900 2008 10,855 2009 10,805 2010 10,757 2011 10,709 2012 10,662 2013 10,631 2014 10,591 2015 10,541 2016 10,498 2017 10,463 2018 10,419 2019 10,388 2020 10,352 2021 10,329 2022 10,302 2023 10,279 2024 10,259 2025 10,240 2026 10,210 2027 10,180 2028 10,151 2029 10,121 2030 10,092 2031 10,063 2032 10,034 2033 10,005 2034 9,975 2035 9,947 Source: ElA, AEO2005.

5.3.6 Discount Rate The Department calculated the NPV ofcost savings with both a three-percent and a seven-percent real discount rate. Itused the three-percent real discount rate to represent the rate at which society discounts future consumption flows to their present value, and the seven-percent

5-24

# #4®7

real discount rate to represent the average real rate of return on private investment in the U.S. economy. The Department used these discount rates in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)'s guidance to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A-4, September 17, 2003), and section E, "Identifying and Measuring Benefits and Costs," therein. 5.3.7 Analysis Period For purposes of calculating the NES and NPV, the Department used an analysis period of 2010 (the assumed effective date of new energy conservation standards) through 2035. For the calculation of the NPV, DOE determined increases in the national consumer retail prices for each year of the analysis period (2010-2035); it determined national electricity cost savings for each year beginning from the start of the analysis period (2010) to the year when products purchased in the year 2035 retired.

5.4 NES AND NPV RESULTS Table 5-16, Figure 5-8, and Figure 5-9 summarize the NES and NPV due to new energy conservation standards set at 15 percent lower energy consumption than current energy conservation standards. Results of the national impact analysis are provided for the two standards case scenarios (No Future Energy Star and Current Energy Star), the two retail price estimates (manufacturing cost-based or regression analysis-based), and the two discount rates (three percent and seven percent real) considered for the national. impact analysis. As noted earlier, regression analysis-based retail prices are applicable only to the No Future Energy Star scenario.For the No Future Energy Star standards case scenario, the NES due to standards for topmount and side- mount refrigerator-freezers are 2.4 quads of primary energy (1.1 quads from topmount refrigerator-freezers and 1.3 quads from side-mount refrigerator-freezers). For the Current Energy Star standards case scenario, the savings are 3.4 quads of primary energy (1.3 quads from top-mount refrigerator-freezers and 2.1 quads from side-mount refrigerator-freezers). The NPV of standards depends on the scenario, the retail price estimate, and the discount rate. For a discount rate of three percent real, both standards case scenarios have a positive NPV. The NPV of the No Future Energy Star scenario is $10.1. billion with manufacturing cost-based retail prices and $8.0 billion with regression-based retail prices. The NPV of the Current Energy Star scenario is $3.3 billion. For a discount rate of seven percent real, the No Future Energy Star scenario still yields a positive NPV, $3.3 billion with manufacturing cost-based prices and $2.2 billion with regression-based prices, but the NPV under the Current Energy Star scenario becomes negative at -$1.2 billion. 

# #4.7
real discount rate to represent the average real rate ofreturn onprivate investment inthe U.S. economy. The Department used these discount rates in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)'s guidance to Federal agencies onthe developmentof regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A-4, September 17, 2003), and section E, "Identifying and Measuring Benefits and Costs,"therein.


### 5.3.7 Ana1ysis 

### Period Forpurposes ofcalculating the NES and NPV, the Department used an analysis period of 2010 (the assumed effective date ofnew energy conservation standards) through 2035. Forthe calculation ofthe NPV, DOE determined increases in the national consumerretailprices for each year ofthe anaJysis period (2010-2035); it determined national electricity cost savings for each year beginning from the start ofthe analysis period (2010) to the year when products purchased in the year 2035 retired.

5.4 NES AND NPV RESULTS Table 5-16, Figure 5-8, and Figure 5-9 summarize the NES and NPV dueto new energy conservation standards set at 15 percent lower energy consumption than current energy conservation standards. Results ofthe national impact analysis are provided for the two standards case scenarios (No FutureEnergy Star and Current Energy Star), the two retail price estimates (manufacturing cost-based orregression analysis-based), and the two discount rates (three percent and seven percent real) considered for the national impact analysis. As noted earlier, regression analysis-based retail prices are applicable only to the No FutureEnergy Star scenario. Forthe No Future Energy Star standards case scenario, the NES due to standards for topmount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers are 2.4 quads ofprimary energy (1.1 quads from topmount refrigerator-freezers and 1.3 quads from side-mount refrigerator-freezers). Forthe Current Energy Star standards case scenario, the savings are 3.4 quads ofprimary energy (1.3 quads from top-mount refrigerator-freezers and 2.1 quads from side-mount refrigerator-freezers). The NPV ofstandards depends on the scenario, the retail price estimate, and the discount rate. For a discount rate ofthree percent real, both standards case scenarios have a positive NPV. The NPV ofthe No Future Energy Star scenario is $10.1 billion with manufacturing cost-based retail prices and $8.0 billion with regression-based retail prices. The NPV ofthe Current Energy Star scenario is $3.3 billion. For a discount rate ofseven percent real, the No Future Energy Star scenario still yieJds a positive NPV, $3.3 billion with manufacturing cost-basedprices and $2.2 billion with regression-based prices, but the NPV under the Current Energy Star scenario becomes negative at -$1.2billion.

5-25Table 5-16. National Energy Savings and Net Present Value of Standards for RefrigeratorFreezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service & with Side-Mount

Freezer and with TTD Ice Service (2010-2035)

No Future Energy Star Regress. 3% Current Energy Star Mfg. Cost No Future Energy Star Mfg. Cost Regress. 1 7% 1.3 2.1 I 3.4 1.3 2.4 1.3 1 2.1 1 3.4 11 Current Energy Star I Mfg. Cost

4.0 Side-Mount ElTop- Mount

2.4

0.0-I 3.4 $3.3 $4.7 $8.0 $2.4 $0.9 $3.3 $1.3 $2.0 $3.3 $0.9 $1.3 $2.2 $0.2 1 ($1.4)

No Future Energy Star Current Energy StarFigure 5-8. National Energy Savings from Standards for Refrigerator-Freezers with TopMount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service & with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

5-26 

# #4.7 Table 5-16. National Energy Savings and Net Present Value ofStandardsfor RefrigeratorFreezers with Top-MountFreezerand withoutTTD Ice Service & 

### with Side-Mount Freezerand with TTD Ice Service (2010-2035)

III Side-Mount 

### 3.4 3.5 IIITop- Mount 1----------------- ------j 

## 'F !"II**,~** 3.0 -1------------------- c..**~** 

### 2.4**~** 2.5 +-------
----------- ..!:!: II)**~** 2.0 

### +
.._._........-............... 'S; !"II en**~** 1.5+----
>- CI) c: w 1.0+---- iij c: o ;;**~** 0.5+----
0.0+---- No Future Energy Star Current Energy Star Figure 5-8. National Energy Savings from Standardsfor Refrigerator-Freezers with TopMountFreezer and without TTD Ice Service & with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTDIce Service

5-26

# #4e7

3% real discount rate 7% real discount rate $12 $10.1 I Side-Mount- 10 M t T $ ® op- oun car 0 $8.0 N $8 C 0 6 $ as $4 .. ._..__ -- - .._.._._ ^__...__ $3.3 _.... .......... . _. _.$3.3 .... ..__. _......... _.

........ $2.2 $2

- j ^ -$1.2 $0

2 -$ Mg Cost-Based: Regress-Based: Mfg Cost-Based: Mfg Cost-Based: Regress-Based: Mfg Cost -Based: No Future Energy No Future Energy Current Energy No Future Energy No Future Energy Current Energy Star Star Star Star Star Star Figure 5-9. Net Present Value from Standards for Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-Mount Freezer and without TTD Ice Service & with Side-Mount Freezer and with TTD Ice Service

5-27 $12 $10 (ii: U'l 0 0 $8 N c 

### g 

# e $6
Q) :::J iii $4 >


## ... c Q) I/j $2 Q)


### ... a.



## ... Q) $0 Z 3% real discount rate $10.1

Mfg Cost-Based: Regress-Based: No Future Energy No Future Energy Star Star Mfg Cost·Based: Current Energy Star 

# #4.7

7% real discount rateIISide-Mount IITop- Mount

$2.2

Mfg Cost·Based: Regress-Based: Mfg Cost-Based: No Future Energy No Future Energy Current Energy Star Star Star Figure 5-9. Net PresentValue from Standardsfor Refrigerator-Freezers with Top-MountFreezer and without TTD Ice Service & with Side-MountFreezer and with TTD Ice Service

5-27REFERENCES

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Summary Data Tables: Refrigerator-Freezer Data Collection for Cost/Efficiency Information for DOE Petition, 2005. Information provided by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) to the U.S. Department of Energy, May 13, 2005.

2

3

4 The NPD Group, Inc., The NPD GroupINPD Houseworld - POS, Refrigerators, January - December. 2004, 2005. Port Washington, NY. U.S. Department of Energy, Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products: Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, & Freezers, July 1995. Washington, DC. Report No. DOE/EE-0064. U.S. Department of Energy, Final Rule Technical Support Document (TSD): Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products : Clothes Washers, December 2000. Washington, DC. Chapter 9. U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2003, September 2004. Washington DC. Report No. DOE/EIA-0384(2003). Table 8-10, Average Retail Prices of Electricity, 1960-2003.
6 U.S. Government Printing Office, Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2005, Section 10 - Gross Domestic Product and Implicit Outlay Deflators, Table 10.1 - Goss Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940-2009, 2005. Washington, DC. GPO Access: <http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/hist.html> U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2005, February 2005. Washington, DC. Report No. DOE/EIA-0383(2005). 

# #4.7 REFERENCES

2

3

4

5

6

7 Association ofHomeAppliance Manufacturers, Summary Data Tables: Refrigerator-Freezer Data CoUectionfor Cost/Efficiency InfonnationforDOEPetition, 2005. Information providedby the Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) to the U.S. Department ofEnergy, May 13, 2005. The NPD Group, Inc., The NPD GrouplNPD Houseworld

- POS, Refrigerators, JanuaryDecember 2004,2005. PortWashington, NY. U.S. Department ofEnergy, Technical SupportDocument: Energy £;fficiency Standardsfor ConsumerProducts: Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, & Freezers, July 1995. Washington, DC. Report No. DOEIEE-0064. U.S. Department ofEnergy, Final Rule Technical SupportDocument (TSD): Energy Efficiency Standardsfor ConsumerProducts: Clothes Washers, December 2000. Washington, DC. Chapter 9. U.S. Department ofEnergy-Energy Information Administration,AnnualEnergy Review 2003, September 2004. Washington DC. Report No. DOEIEIA-0384(2003). Table 8-10, Average Retail Prices ofElectricity, 1960-2003. U.S. Government Printing Office, Budget ofthe United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2005, Section 10

- Gross Domestic Product and Implicit Outlay Deflators, Table 10.1

- Goss Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940-2009, 2005. Washington, DC. GPO Access: <http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudgetlfy05/hist.html> U.S. Department ofEnergy-Energy Information Administration,AnnualEnergy Outlook 2005, February 2005. Washington, DC. Report No. DOEIEIA-0383(2005).

5-28

### CHAPTER 6. MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS

The Department carried out a preliminary evaluation of the impact of potential new regulations on manufacturer financial performance, domestic refrigerator-freezer manufacturing capacity and employment levels, and product utility and innovation. A primary focus was to identify the cumulative burden that industry faces from the overlapping effect of new or recent DOE standards and/or other regulatory action affecting the same product or industry. The primary sources of information for this evaluation were the 2005 structured interviews with manufacturers of refrigerator-freezers (see Appendix D). In order to maintain confidentiality, information disclosed by individual manufacturers is not identified with a specific manufacturer. Instead, this evaluation reports only aggregated information and does not disclose sensitive information or identify company-specific information.

6.1 IMPACT ON FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE The Department received manufacturers' views on what they perceived to be the possible impact of potential new standards on their future profitability. As stated by manufacturers, a new energy conservation standard has the potential to impact financial performance in several different ways. The capital investment needed to upgrade or redesign products and product platforms before they have reached the end of their useful life can require conversion costs that otherwise would not be expended, resulting in stranded investments. In addition, higher efficiency standards can result in higher per-unit costs that may deter some customers from buying higher-margin units with more features, decreasing manufacturer profitability. Manufacturers stated that the prospect of product redesign as a result of standards penalizes established manufacturers and alters the playing field for entry to the market by new competitors who do not carry debt burdens from recent investments in new product lines. In their view, this can decrease the relative barrier for competitors entering the market, thereby increasing market competition, reducing incumbent manufacturer profitability, and decreasing U.S.-based production.

6.1.1 Conversion Costs Typically, in the absence of new energy efficiency regulations, a refrigerator-freezer production line would have a life cycle of approximately 1.5 to 20 years. During that period, manufacturers would not make major product changes that altered the underlying platforms. Thus, a standard that took effect and resulted in a major product platform redesign before the end of the platform's life would cannibalize a portion of the earlier capital investments. Based on discussions with manufacturers, most have made significant capital investments to meet the DOE efficiency standard levels that took effect in 2001; new standards that required platform changes could strand assets before the end of their useful life. The 1995 TSD estimated the capital conversion costs for the 2001 standard at approximately 725 million dollars. Based on the interviews, this figure is low by a factor of two compared. to the actual level of investment by the refrigerator-freezer industry in the years leading up to and immediately following the 2001 standards implementation. It must be noted, however, that not all these costs can be attributed to

6-1 

# #4.7 CHAPTER6. MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS

The Department carried out a preliminary evaluation ofthe impact ofpotential new regulations on manufacturer financial performance, domestic refrigerator-freezer manufacturing capacity and employment levels, and product utility and innovation. A primary focuswasto identify the cumulative burden that industry faces from the overlapping effect ofnew orrecent DOE standards and/or other regulatory action affecting the same product orindustry. The primary sources ofinformation for this evaluation were the 2005 structured interviews with manufacturers ofrefrigerator-freezers (see Appendix D). In order to maintain confidentiality, information disclosed by individual manufacturers is not identified with a specific manufacturer. Instead, this evaluation reports only aggregated information and does not disclose sensitive information or identify company-specific information.


### 6.1 IMPACT ON FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE The Department received manufacturers' views on what they perceived to be the possible impact ofpotential new standards on their future profitability. As statedby manufacturers, a new energy conservation standard has the potential to impact financial performance in several different ways. The capital investment needed to upgrade orredesign products and product platforms before they have reached the end oftheir useful life canrequire conversion costs that otherwise would not be expended, resulting in stranded investments. In addition, higher efficiency standards can result in higher per-unit costs that may deter some customers from buying higher-margin units with more features, decreasing manufacturer profitability. Manufacturers stated that the prospect ofproductredesign as a result ofstandards penalizes established manufacturers and alters the playing field for entry to the market bynew competitors who do not carry debt burdens from recent investments in new product lines. Intheir view, this can decrease the relative barrier for competitors entering the market, thereby increasing market competition, reducing incumbent manufacturer profitability, and decreasing U.S.-based production.


### 6.1.1 Conversion Costs Typically, in the absence ofnew energy efficiency regulations, a refrigerator-freezer production line would have a life cycle ofapproximately 15 to 20 years. During that period, manufacturers would not make major product changes that altered the underlying platforms. Thus, a standard that took effect and resulted in a major productplatformredesign before the end ofthe platform's life would cannibalize a portion ofthe earlier capital investments. Based on discussions with manufacturers, most have made significant capital investments to meet the DOE efficiency standard levels that took effect in 2001; new standards that required platformchanges could strand assets before the end oftheir useful life. The 1995 TSD estimatedthe capital conversion costs for the 2001 standard at approximately 725 million dollars. Based on the interviews, this figure is low by a factor oftwo compared to the actual level ofinvestment by the refrigerator-freezer industry in the years leading up to and immediately following the 2001 standards implementation. It must be noted, however, that not all these costs canbe attributed to

6-1efficiency standards since the platform changes entailed other product enhancements and cost

reduction initiatives. The Department asked manufacturers what level of conversion costs they anticipated if new efficiency standards required a 15 percent reduction in unit energy consumption relative to the current standards

. The level of expected conversion costs varied widely between manufacturers, depending on such factures as the energy performance of their current products, whether their current products could achieve the 15 percent reduction via component-level modifications or needed platform modifications , and the extent to which manufacturers expected to upgrade their platforms to allow for a future Energy Star level

. At a minimum, a typical manufacturer would need to spend approximately 30 million dollars if no platform redesigns were needed. More likely, some manufacturers would need some level of platform redesign to reach a 15 percent improvement, particularly when the investments are taken in context with future Energy Star levels

. The potential for costs on the order of several hundred million dollars exists if even a single major manufacturer 's product platforms undergo a full redesign

. Capital expenditures would account for roughly 75 to 80 percent of the cost , with product development expenses accounting for the remaining portion. When asked to quantify the investments engendered by a 25 percent efficiency improvement, manufacturers referred to the investment level required by the 2001 standards and gave estimates totaling well over one billion dollars. 6.1.2 Profitability Several manufacturers indicated that a new standard level would cause existing pressures on margins and profitability to increase because only a limited portion of customers are willing to pay more for energy efficiency

. Manufacturers believe that they could not pass on to customers all of the cost increases required to meet the standard

. since historically, the appliance industry has not able been to recover standard

-induced capital:costs in prices

. Over time industry margins have actually decreased as large manufacturers , who need certain volumes to operate efficiently, are willing to reduce margins to increase volumes. The profit margin impact would be minimized if manufacturers could produce higher-efficiency products at small incremental. costs without lowering product utility. However, an increase in unit cost to customers may tend to decrease the quantity of non-energy features that customers purchase , and manufacturers indicated that products with such features can often command greater premiums than energyefficient products. In addition, several manufacturers noted that new standards would facilitate the entry of foreign competitors in the U.S. market. Without new standards, a new manufacturer would need to make large capital investments to build production capacity, --investments that existing manufacturers would not need to make. In the case of new standards , however, most manufacturers would need to carry out product platform redesigns for some of their products to meet the new standards

. This would neutralize much of the cost advantage from existing infrastructure that current manufacturers have relative to new, foreign

-based manufacturers. In fact, should they elect to relocate to a lower cost country to be cost competitive with the new market entrants, conversion costs would tend to be higher for domestic manufacturers due to the additional costs associated with the closure of existing facilities.

6-2 

# #4.7 efficiency standards since the platform changes entailed otherproduct enhancements and cost reduction initiatives. The Department asked manufacturers what level ofconversion costs they anticipated if new efficiency standards required a 15 percent reduction in unit energy consumptionrelative to the current standards. The level ofexpected conversion costs varied widely between manufacturers, depending on such factures as the energy performance oftheir current products, whether their current products could achieve the 15 percent reduction via component-level modifications orneeded platform modifications, and the extent to which manufactw·ers expected to upgrade theirplatforms to allow for a future Energy Starlevel. At a minimum, a typical manufacturer would need to spend approximately 30 million dollars ifno platformredesigns were needed. Morelikely, some manufacturers would need some level ofplatform redesign to reach a 15 percent improvement, particularly when the investments are taken in context with future Energy Star levels. Thepotential for costs on the order ofseveral hundred million dollars exists ifeven a single major manufacturer's product platforms undergo a full redesign. Capital expenditures would account for roughly 75 to 80 percent ofthe cost, with product development expenses accounting for the remaining portion. When asked to quantify the investments engendered by a 25 percent efficiency improvement, manufacturers referred to the investment level required by the 2001 standards and gave estimates totaling well over one billion dollars.


### 6.1.2 Profitability Several manufacturers indicated that a new standard level would cause existing pressures on margins and profitabilityto increase because only a limited portion ofcustomers are willing to pay more for energy efficiency. Manufacturers believe that they could not pass onto customers all ofthe cost increases required to meet the standard. sincehistorically, the appliance industry has not able been to recover standard-induced capital'costs in prices. Over time industry margins have actually decreased as large manufacturers, who need certain volumes to operate efficiently, are willing to reduce margins to increase volumes. Theprofit margin impact would be minimized ifmanufacturers could produce higher-efficiency products at small incremental costs without lowering product utility. However, an increase in unit costto customers may tend to decrease the quantity ofnon-energy features that customers purchase, and manufacturers indicated that products with such features can often command greaterpremiums than energyefficient products. In addition, several manufacturers noted that new standards would facilitate the entry of foreign competitors in the U.S. market. Without new standards, a new manufacturer would need to make large capital investments to build production capacity, --investments that existing manufacturers would not need to make. In the case ofnew standards, however, most manufacturers would need to carry out product platformredesigns for some oftheir products to meet the new standards. This would neutralize much ofthe cost advantage from existing infrastructure that current manufacturers have relative to new, foreign-based manufacturers. In fact, should they elect to relocate to a lower cost country to be cost competitive with the new market entrants, conversion costs would tend to be higher for domestic manufacturers due to the additional costs associated with the closure ofexisting facilities.

6-2

# #4®7 Finally, multiple manufacturers noted that product quality and reliability could suffer for a period of time after the new standards are in effect, particularly if a product and its platform required wholesale redesign to meet the standards. This could increase warranty costs to manufacturers as these problems are resolved and, if customers find major quality issues, could damage a manufacturer's reputation and decrease their market share. 6.1.3 Impact on Export Sales Overall, manufacturers indicated that the export of U.S. refrigerator-freezers to other countries was a small portion of the market. In most cases, new efficiency standards would not have a large impact on export sales except in cases where the standards resulted in a product redesign that would increase product dimensions; product redesign is an important parameter in some export markets.

6.2 IMPACT ON U.S. PRODUCTION AND JOBS The impact of new efficiency standards on employment is an important consideration in the rulemaking process. In order to assess how domestic employment patterns might be affected by new energy efficiency standards for refrigerator-freezers, the Department posed several questions to manufacturers related to this topic. Over the past several years, some refrigerator-freezer manufacturers have moved a portion of their production out of the U.S., primarily driven by concerns about profitability and the opportunity for lower labor costs. Mexico is the most common location for both U.S. and foreign manufacturers to establish new production capacity to serve the U.S. refrigerator-freezer market, since it offers low labor rates (relative to the U.S.) and proximity. to the U.S. market. Based on information obtained from the interviews, the Department estimates that approximately 25 percent of all residential refrigerator-freezers sold in the U.S. are manufactured in Mexico and that this portion is likely to increase within a few years. Manufacturers indicated that they anticipate new standards would accelerate the trend to manufacture refrigerator-freezers outside of the country. New standards may alter the rate at which refrigerator-freezer production is moved to Mexico because if manufacturers need to make large capital investments to produce redesigned product platforms, they have strong financial. incentives to invest in a location with lower labor costs. Multiple manufacturers commented that as more production moves out of the U.S., design and R&D functions could also be exported. To date, an initial review of the trade news publications by the Department could not confirm this trend. Recently, Asian, and to a lesser extent, European manufactures, have begun to seek a larger share of the U.S. market. The domestic manufacturers interviewed stated that due to shipping times and costs, these foreign companies would rely primarily upon new production capacity in the U.S. and Mexico to meet the needs of the U.S. market. An initial review of the trade news publications by the Department confirms this trend. 

# #4.7 Finally, multiple manufacturers noted that product quality and reliability couldsufferfor a period oftime after the new standards are in effect, particularly ifa product and its platform required wholesale redesign to meet the standards. This could increase warranty costs to manufacturers as these problems are resolved and, ifcustomers find major quality issues, could damage a manufacturer's reputation and decrease their market share.


### 6.1.3 Impact on Export Sales Overall, manufacturers indicated thatthe export ofU.S. refrigerator-freezers to other countries was a small portion ofthe market. In most cases, new efficiency standards would not have a large impact on export sales except in cases where the standards resulted in a product redesign that would increase product dimensions; productredesign is an importantparameter in some export markets.


### 6.2 IMPACT ON U.S. PRODUCTION AND JOBS The impact ofnew efficiency standards on employment is an important consideration in the rulemaking process. In orderto assess how domestic employment patterns might be affected by new energy efficiency standards for refrigerator-freezers, the Department posed several questions to manufacturers related to this topic. Over the past several years, some refrigerator-freezer manufacturers have moved a portion oftheir production out ofthe U.S., primarily driven by concerns about profitability and the oppOltunity for lower labor costs. Mexico is the most common location for both U.S. and foreign manufacturers to establish new production capacity to serve the U.S. refrigerator-freezer market, since it offers low laborrates (relative to the U.S.) and proximity to the U.S. market. Based on information obtained from the interviews, the Department estimates that approximately 25 percent ofall residential refrigerator-freezers sold in the U.S. are manufactured inMexico and that this portion is likely to increase within a few years. Manufacturers indicated thatthey anticipate new standards would accelerate the trend to manufacture refrigerator-freezers outside ofthe country. New standards may alter the rate at which refrigerator-freezerproduction is moved to Mexico because ifmanufacturers need to make large capital investments to produce redesigned product platforms, they have strong financial incentives to invest in a location with lower labor costs. Multiple manufacturers commented that as more production moves out ofthe U.S., design and R&D functions could also be exported. To date, an initial review ofthe trade news publications by the Department could not confirm this trend. Recently, Asian, and to a lesser extent, European manufactures, have begun to seek a larger share ofthe U.S. market. The domestic manufacturers interviewed statedthat due to shipping times and costs, these foreign companies would rely primarily upon new production capacity in the U.S. and Mexico to meet the needs ofthe U.S. market. An initialreview ofthe trade news publications by the Department confirms this trend.

6-36.2.1 Industry Consolidation New standards can cause manufacturers to exit one or more portions of the markets affected by the standards. Thus, standards also affect the degree of industry consolidation, that is, the degree to which a limited number of companies dominate a market. At present, four companies, Electrolux, General Electric, Maytag, and Whirlpool, account for a large majority of refrigerator-freezer sales. Recently, several organizations, including a major domestic refrigerator-freezer manufacturer have made offers to purchase Maytag. Manufacturers indicated that more stringent energy efficiency standards might lead togreater outsourcing for the production of lower-margin units, such as top-mount refrigeratorfreezers. For example, since the 2001 rulemaking, at least one major manufacturer has stopped producing top-mount units and elected to source them from another major manufacturer and market them with their brand. If a company currently producing top-mounts needs to undergo major product platform redesign to meet a new standard level, they may decide that the large capital and R&D resource investments would not yield sufficient profits and also may decide to exit that portion of the market. One manufacturer also noted that the residential freezer market, a subset of the products covered by the petition, already has a high degree of consolidation, i.e., two major market players. Although freezers are not explicitly included in the preliminary analysis, they would be included in a possible future refrigerator-freezer rulemaking. Ultimately, the decision by any manufacturer to exit refrigerator-freezer production would require an assessment of the linkages between that business and other appliances. Manufacturers and their retail partners generally perceive some value in being a full-line producer. If a manufacturer perceived significant value in other white goods and if the total.product line generated acceptable rates of return, it might continue to produce refrigeratorfreezers, even in the face of declining company values due to investment in new refrigeratorfreezer technology. Alternately, as stated above, manufacturers may elect to label products manufactured by their competitors, effectively concentrating the production of these models.

6.3 IMPACT ON PRODUCT UTILITY AND INNOVATION New standards can impact purchasers of refrigerator freezers by increasing or decreasing products' utility, e.g., the interior volume or non-energy features. Manufacturers generally believed that more stringent energy efficiency standards, particularly the 25 percent improvement level, would decrease product innovations and, in some cases, result in reduced product utility. All manufacturers stated that more stringent standards would require re-design of some portion of their products. This consumes research and development (R&D) resources, both human and financial, and directs these assets away from other potential investments that would normally go toward enhancing the functionality of existing products or developing new products. Many manufacturers indicated that they could achieve a 15 percent UEC reduction using component-.level changes to products, which would result in more modest diversion of funds. Nonetheless, some manufacturers may still redesign product platforms so that they can continue

6-4 

# #4.7 6.2.1 Industry Consolidation New standards cancause manufacturers to exit one ormore portions ofthe markets affected bythe standards. Thus, standards also affect the degree ofindustry consolidation, that is, the degree to which a limited number ofcompanies dominate a market. At present, four companies, Electrolux, General Electric, Maytag, and Whirlpool, account for a large majority of refrigerator-freezer sales. Recently, several organizations, including a major domestic refrigerator-freezer manufacturer have made offers to purchase Maytag. Manufacturers indicated that more stringent energy efficiency standards might lead to greateroutsourcing for the production oflower-margin units, such as top-mount refrigeratorfreezers. For example, since the 2001 rulemaking, at least one major manufacturer has stopped producing top-mount units and elected to source them from another major manufacturer and market them with theirbrand. Ifa company currently producing top-mounts needs to undergo majorproductplatformredesign to meet a new standard level, they may decide that the large capital and R&D resource investments would not yield sufficient profits and also may decide to exit that portion ofthe market. One manufacturer also notedthat the residential freezer market, a subset ofthe products covered bythe petition, already has a high degree ofconsolidation, i.e., two major market players. Although freezers are notexplicitly iJ)cluded in the preliminary analysis, they would be included in a possible future refrigerator-freezer rulemaking. Ultimately, the decision by any manufacturer to exit refrigerator-freezer production would require an assessment ofthe linkages between that business and other appliances. Manufacturers and their retailpartners generally perceive some value in being "a full-line producer. Ifa manufacturer perceived significant value in other white goods and ifthe total product line generated acceptable rates ofreturn, it might continue to produce refrigeratorfreezers, even in the face ofdeclining compnny values due to investment in new refrigeratorfreezer technology. Alternately, as stated above, manufacturers may elect to label products manufacturedby their competitors, effectively concentrating the production ofthese models.


### 6.3 IMPACT ON PRODUCT UTILITY AND INNOVATION New standards can impact purchasers ofrefrigerator freezers by increasing ordecreasing products' utility, e.g., the interior volume ornon-energy features. Manufacturers generally believed that more stringent energy efficiency standards, particularly the 25 percent improvement level, would decrease product innovations and, in some cases, result in reduced product utility. All manufacturers stated that more stringent standards would require re-design ofsome portion oftheirproducts. This consumes research and development (R&D) resources, both human and financial, and directs these assets away from other potential investments that would normally go toward enhancing the functionality ofexisting products or developing new products. Many manufacturers indicated that they could achieve a 

### 15 percent UEC reduction using component-level changes to products, which would result in more modest diversion offunds. Nonetheless, some manufacturers may still redesign product platforms so that they can continue

6-4

# #4e7

to produce both standard-level and Energy Star products for marketing reasons. For products and product platforms that would require a complete re-design, a common theme raised by manufacturers when discussing a 25 percent UEC decrease, the required R&D investments would be significantly greater. A platform redesign takes approximately three years and would have a correspondingly larger impact on product innovation and functionality. Higher efficiency levels could also decrease product utility. Multiple manufacturers indicated that to achieve a 25 percent - or, for some products, a 15 percent - lower UEC, theywould use thicker insulation. To a large extent, the maximum dimensions of refrigeratorfreezers are fixed by builders, i.e., a standard space exists for refrigerator freezers in kitchens, and manufacturers design units to fit within these dimensions to avoid decreasing their potential market size. This is particularly the case for higher-end counter-depth and built-in products that are designed to have a depth equal to kitchen counters and, practically speaking, whose depth cannot exceed 61cm. (24 inches). Consequently, thicker wall insulation would lead to a decrease in interior dimensions and internal volume. In addition, at least one manufacturer noted that reduced unit volume would likely reduce the size of interior features in an attempt to minimize the impact of smaller dimensions of product utility. More stringent standards could also decrease the range of products available to customers. When presented with a hypothetical new standard representing a 15 percent UEC decrease relative to the current DOE standards, manufacturers indicated that they might discontinue certain products for which it may prove challenging to meet the standard level, such as built-in and counter-depth units. Alternately, they might outsource production of those units and continue to sell units under their brand. When manufacturers were asked about a hypothetical Energy Star UEC 25 percent lower than the current DOE standards, several manufacturers stated that they might discontinue making some or all Energy Star products. Manufacturers noted that they often do not necessarily maintain their margins for higher-cost Energy Star units because they believe that consumers do not think that the additional cost can justify the relatively modest savings. To date, however, many have produced Energy Star units because they need them to have their product line marketed via major retail chains, to sell to government, and to have their products part of utility rebate programs. As discussed previously, achieving a 25 percent UEC reduction would require extensive product and product platform redesign for most manufacturers. For certain mainstream products, multiple manufacturers indicated that the market benefit of having Energy Star would not be sufficient to overcome the capital costs required to re-design the products and production to meet the new Energy Starperformance level. In other cases, manufacturers are not sure if they could produce costeffective units that achieve the 25 percent reduction relative to the current standard.

6.4 CUMULATIVE BURDEN When assessing the benefits and burdens of a potential revision of product energy standard levels, the Department considers several. factors in addition to energy savings potential. and cost-effectiveness. It also takes into account the regulatory burden that will impact the manufacturers of the product at or around the time the new standards would come into effect. Based on its own research and discussions with manufacturers, the Department identified several existing or pending regulations relevant to residential refrigerators, including:

6-5 

# #4.7
to produce both standard-level and Energy Starproducts for marketing reasons. Forproducts and product platforms that would require a complete re-design, a commontheme raisedby manufacturers when discussing a 25 percent VEC decrease, the required R&D investments would be significantly greater. A platformredesign takes approximately three years and would have a correspondingly larger impact onproduct innovation and functionality. Higher efficiency levels could also decrease product utility. Multiple manufacturers indicated that to achieve a 25 percent

- or, for some products, a 15 percent

- lower 

### DEC, they would use thicker insulation. To a large extent, the maximum dimensions ofrefrigeratorfreezers are fixed by builders, i.e., a standard space exists for refrigerator freezers inkitchens, and manufacturers design units to fit within these dimensions to avoid decreasing theirpotential market size. This is particularly the case for higher-end counter-depth and built-in products that are designed to have a depth equal to kitchen counters and, practically speaking, whose depth cannot exceed 61cm (24 inches). Consequently, thicker wall insulation would lead to a decrease in interior dimensions and internal volume. In addition, at least one manufacturer noted that reduced unit volume would likely reduce the size ofinterior features in an attempt to minimize the impact ofsmaller dimensions ofproductutility. More stringent standards could also decrease the range ofproducts available to customers. When presented with a hypothetical new standard representing a 15 percentVEC decrease relative to the current DOE standards, manufacturers indicated that they might discontinue certainproducts for which it mayprove challenging to meet the standard level, such as built-in and counter-depth units. Alternately, they might outsourceproduction ofthose units and continue to sell units under their brand. When manufacturers were asked about a hypothetical Energy Star VEC 25 percent lowerthan the current DOE standards, several manufacturers stated that they might discontinue making some or all Energy Starproducts. Manufacturers noted that they often do not necessarily maintain their margins for higher-cost Energy Star units because they believe that consumers do not think that the additional cost can justify the relatively modest savings. To date, however, many have producedEnergy Starunits because they need them to have their product line marketed via major retail chains, to sell to government, and to have their productspart ofutility rebate programs. As discussed previously, achieving a 25 percent VEC reduction would require extensive product and product platform redesign for most manufacturers. For certain mainstream products, multiple manufacturers indicated that the market benefit ofhaving Energy Star would not be sufficient to overcome the capital costs required to re-design the products and production to meet the new Energy Star performance level. In other cases, manufacturers are not sure ifthey could produce costeffective units that achieve the 25 percent reduction relative to the current standard.


### 6.4 CUMULATIVE BURDEN When assessing the benefits and burdens ofa potentialrevision ofproduct energy standard levels, the Department considers several factors in addition to energy savings potential and cost-effectiveness. It also takes into account the regulatory burden that will impact the manufacturers ofthe product at or around the time the new standards would come into effect. Based on its own research and discussions with manufacturers, the Depmtment identified several existing orpending regulations relevant to residential refrigerators, including:

6-5• Existing energy efficiency standard for refrigerator-freezers

• Insulation blowing agent phase out • Energy efficiency standards for other products made by the same manufacturers • State energy efficiency standards • International energy efficiency standards • Waste disposal and recycling requirements Complying with these regulations requires that corporations invest both human and capital resources. The following subsections discuss in greater detail regulations impacting the refrigerator-freezer industry.
6.4.1 Existing Energy Efficiency Standard for Refrigerator-Freezers In 1987, the National. Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) was signed into lawestablishing minimum energy efficiency standards for residential refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers. NAECA specified for twelve product classes the maximum allowable energy in kilowatt-hours per year for products manufactured on or after January 1, 1990. Subsequent to the NAECA requirements, revised minimum efficiency standards for residential refrigeration products became effective first in 1993 then again in 2001. The minimum efficiency standards of 1993 eliminated 99 percent of the models previously manufactured and increased efficiency by 25 to 30 percent relative to the initial NAECA requirements. The minimum efficiency standards that became effective on July 1, 2001 increased the efficiency of the most popular product class, top mount refrigerator-freezers with auto-defrost, by approximately 30 percent relative to the 1993 standards. Table 6-1 presents values from the 1995 TSD for estimates of the tooling, equipment, buildings, and research and development investments needed to convert from producing equipment that performed at the TSD Baseline level to units whose UEC meets either the 2001 standard level or a level 15 percent lower than the 2001 standard for a typical large manufacturer.' The values are very low compared to the actual expenditures that manufacturers reported during the interviews.

Table 6-1. Estimated Investments and Expenses to Reach Various Efficiency Levels, from 1993 Standard Levels

Top-Mount Side-Mount $154 $20 $83/$254 $100 $83 million path used

vacuum panels Note: The TSD Baseline energy use is .16 percent below the 1993 Standard for the side-mount Source: DOE 1995 TSD.

6-6 

# #4.7

• Existing energy efficiency standard for refhgerator-freezers

• Insulationblowing agent phase out

• Energyefficiency standards for otherproducts madebythe same manufacturers

.. State energy efficiency standards

• International energy efficiency standards

• Waste disposal and recycling requirements Complying with these regulations requires that corporations invest both human and capitalresources. The following subsections discuss in greater detail regulations impacting the refrigerator-freezer industry.


### 6.4.1 ExistingEnergy Efficiency Standard for Refrigerator-Freezers In 1987, the National ApplianceEnergy Conservation Act (NAECA) was signed into law establishing minimumenergy efficiency standards for residential refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers. NAECA specified for twelve product classes the maximum allowable energy in kilowatt-hours peryear for products manufactured on or after January 1, 1990. Subsequent to the NAECArequirements, revised minimumefficiency standards for residential refrigerationproducts became effective tirst in 1993 then again in 2001

..The minimum efficiency standards of 1993 eliminated 99 percent ofthe models previously manufactured and increased efficiency by 25 to 30percent relative to the initial NAECA requirements. The minimum efficiency standards that became effective on July 1, 2001 increased the efficiency of the most popular product class, top mount refrigerator-freezers with auto-defrost, by approximately 30percent relative to the 1993 standards. Table 6-1 presents values from the 1995 TSD for estimates ofthe tooling, equipment, buildings, and research and development investments needed to convert fromproducing equipmentthat performed at the TSD Baseline level to units whose UEC meets either the 2001 standard level or a level 15 percent lowerthan the 2001 standard for a typical large manufacturer.1 The values are very low compared to the actual expenditures that manufacturers reported during the interviews.



### Table 6-1. Estimated Investments and Expenses to Reach Various Efficiency Levels, from 1993 Standard Levels

## I~~ 

# • ridel

### ~ 

# f.1?**iBaseli'l.~01'·1**

# Nfl**leliq~to.Below**

# 21 .:;; 1992$,

# mn !P**~ ~;**  .'.: 

### 1992$, ous)

. . Comments •

# ••**0~~.**

# :.**~~I ~**  

### Top-Mount $154 $83/$254 $83 million path used vacuumpanels 

### Side-Mount $20 $100 Note: The TSD Baselme energy use 1S 16 percentbelow the 1993 Standard for the side-mount Source: DOE 1995 TSD.

6-6

# #4®7

6.4.2 Insulation Blowing Agent Phase Out Production of refrigerator foam insulation uses a blowing agent. The Montreal Protocol required that the U.S. begin to phase out the blowing agent HCFC-141b beginning in January 2003. This impacted refrigerator-freezers produced in the U.S. and caused manufacturers to switch to other blowing agents with a much lower ozone depletion potential, such as HFC-245fa. Several manufacturers indicated that they have switched to HFC-245fa. Only one company, however, holds a license to produce HFC-245fa for the U.S. market. This represents a significant challenge for manufacturers to control product costs and avoid future production disruptions. Alternative blowing agents such as HFC-134a or cyclopentane have other drawbacks, such as lower thermal resistance and/or increased implementation costs due to flammability. On the other hand, use of HCFC-141b for refrigerators imported into the U.S. may continue in countries with a later phase-out date, such as Mexico.
6.4.3 Energy Conservation Standards for Other Products Made by the Manufacturers of Refrigerator

-Freezers Most manufacturers. of refrigerator-freezers produce other white goods that have been subject to NAECA, including dishwashers, clothes washers, and clothes dryers. Notably, new efficiency standards will come into effect for clothes washers in 2007. The capital conversion costs to increase clothes washer efficiency from the level established in the rule published in May, 1991 (taking effect in May, 1994) to that taking effect in 2004 were estimated to be $631 million for the entire industry.2 6.4.4 State Energy Conservation Standards In addition to Federal regulations, certain states have proposed conservation standards for similar types of products. For example, California's Title 20 regulates wine chiller energy consumption.3 6.4.5 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 On August 8th, 2005, President George W. Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) into law.4 EPACT 2005 contains several energy efficiency provisions, including energy efficiency standards for a host of consumer products and commercial equipment, directives for the Secretary of Energy to set standards for other products and equipment, and a package of financial incentives for efficient products, buildings, and vehicles. The manufacturer incentives for residential refrigerators and the standards for commercial. refrigerators, freezers and refrigerator-freezers, in particular, will affect the same manufacturers impacted by the new DOE standard considered in this document.' The following reviews the standards and financial incentives as provided in EPACT 2005 and signed into law, and highlights relevant products in more detail. Table 6-2 provides a general overview of those products and standards affected by EPACT 2005.

e According to the Act, `refrigerators' refers to residential model automatic defrost refrigerator-freezers with an internal volume of at least 16.5 cubic feet.

6-7 

# #4.7 6.4.2 Insulation Blowing Agent Phase Out Production ofrefrigerator foaminsulation uses a blowing agent. The MontrealProtocol required that the U.S. begin to phase outthe blowing agent HCFC-141b beginning inJanuary 2003. This impacted refrigerator-freezers produced inthe U.S. and caused manufacturers to switch to otherblowing agents with a much lower ozone depletion potential, such as HFC-245fa. Several manufacturers indicatedthat they have switched to HFC-245fa. Only one company, however, holds a license to produce HFC-245fa for the U.S. market. This represents a significant challenge for manufacturers to control product costs and avoid future production disruptions. Alternativeblowing agents such as HFC-134a or cyclopentane have other drawbacks, such as lowerthermalresistance and/or increased implementationcosts dueto flammability. On the otherhand, use ofHCFC-141b for refrigerators imported into the U.S. may continue In countries with a laterphase-out date, such as Mexico.


### 6.4.3 Energy Conservation Standardsfor OtherProducts MadebytheManufacturersof Refrigerator-Freezers Most manufacturers ofrefrigerator-freezers produce other white goods that have been subject to NAECA, including dishwashers, clothes washers, and clothes dryers. Notably, neW efficiency standards will come into effect for clothes washers in 2007. The capitalconversion costs to increase clothes washer efficiency from the level established in the rule published in May, 1991 (tiling effect in May, 1994) to that taking effect in 2004 were estimatedto be $631 million for the entire industry.2


### 6.4.4 State Energy Conservation Standards In addition to Federalregulations, certain states have proposed conservation standards for similar types ofproducts. For example, California's Title 20 regulates wine chiller energy . 3 consumptIon.


### 6.4.5 The Energy Policy Act of2005 On August 8th

, 2005, President George W. Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of2005 (EPACT 2005) into law.4 EPACT 2005 contains several energy efficiencyprovisions, including energy efficiency standards for a host ofconsumer products and commercial equipment, directives for the Secretary ofEnergy to set standards for other products and equipment, and a package offinancial incentives for efficient products, buildings, and vehicles. The manufacturer incentives for residential refrigerators and the standards for commercialrefrigerators, freezers and refrigerator-freezers, in particular, will affect the same manufacturers impactedby the new DOE standard considered in this document.e The following reviews the standards and financial incentives as provided in EPACT 2005 and signed into law, and highlights relevant products in more detail. Table 6-2 provides a general overview ofthose products and standards affected by EPACT2005.

e According 10 the Act, 'refrigerators' refers toresidential model automatic defrost refrigerator-freezers with an internal volume ofat least 16.5 cubic feet.

6-7Table 6-2.Product and Equipment Measures Overview

Tax Incentives Residential Refrigerators (refrigerator-freezers) Residential Clothes Washers Residential Dishwashers New and Existing Homes Commercial Buildings Heating and Cooling Equipment Stationary Fuel Cells Transportation Tax Incentives Standards Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers Automatic Commercial Ice Makers Dehumidifiers Commercial Clothes Washers Commercial Packaged Heating and Air Conditioning Equipment Ceiling Fans and Ceiling Fan Light Kits Torchiere Lamps Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Compact-Fluorescent Lamps Low-Voltage, Dry-Type Distribution Transformers Exit Signs Traffic Signal Modules and Pedestrian Signals Pre-Rinse Spray Valves Mercury Vapor Lamp Ballasts (Phaseout) Unit Heaters Rulemaking Directives Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers Refrigerated Bottle or Canned Vending Machines Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies Ceiling Fans and Ceiling Fan Light Kits EPACT 2005 provides tax credits to manufacturers for the production of energy-efficient residential refrigerators, clothes washers, and dishwashers. The total credit for residential refrigerators is equal to an applicable credit amount multiplied by the eligible production. Table 6-3 highlights the applicable credit amount along with credit limitations. According to EPACT 2005, eligible production for refrigerators equals the number of appliances produced in a year over 110% of the average number of appliances produced during the preceding three-year period. Table 6-3. Refrigerator

-Freezer Tax Incentives

15% $75 Up to Equals the number of appliances produced in a $20,000,000 ^ year over 110% of the average number of 20% $125 Up to appliances produced during the preceding three25% $175 $75,000,000* year period. Notes: According to EPACT 2005, `refrigerators' refers to residential model automatic defrost refrigerator-freezers with an internal volume of at least 16.5 cubic feet. Applicable equipment includes refrigerator-freezers manufactured in 2006 with savings between 15-20% (15%), and those manufactured in 2006 or 2007 with savings between 20-25% (20%) or at least 25%. Percentage savings refer to 2001 energy conservation standards. * Reduced by the amount of credit taken in previous years

6-8 

# #4.7 Table 6-2.Product and EquipmentMeasures Overview**(iene~al;** 

### - jSureDescdptions**an(j~oirer~ ioaucts'~$m** **.!IiZ~ ~'"**  %;y 

### qwpt»ent ''0 )**2~** "' Tax Incentives Residential Refrigerators (ref'rigerator-freezers) Residential Clothes Washers Residential Dishwashers New andExisting Homes Commercial Buildings Heating and CoolingEquipment StationaryFuel Cells Transportation Tax Incentives Standards Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers Automatic Commercial Ice Makers Dehumidifiers Commercial Clothes Washers Commercial Packaged Heating and Air Conditioning Equipment CeilingFans and Ceiling Fan Light Kits Torchiere Lamps Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Compact'FluorescentLamps Low-Voltage, Dry-Type Distribution Transformers Exit Signs Traffic Signal Modules and Pedestrian Signals Pre-Rinse Spray Valves Mercury Vapor Lamp Ballasts (Phaseout) Unit Heaters Rulemaking Directives Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers Refrigerated Bottle or Canned Vending Machines Battery Chargers andExternal Power Supplies CeilingFans and Ceiling Fan Light Kits EPACT 2005 provides tax credits to manufacturers for the production ofenergy-efficient residential refrigerators, clothes washers, and dishwashers. The total credit for residential**rr~frigerators** is equal to an applicable credit amount multiplied by the eligible production. Table 6-3 highlights the applicable credit amount along with credit limitations. According to EPACT 2005, eligible production for refrigerators equals the number ofappliances produced in a year over 110% ofthe average number ofappbances produced during the preceding three-year period. 

### Table 6-3. Refrigerator-FreezerTax Incentives

### ~:~,~!n~",~ #"

## nlicaH1••LimitationS;' "liT 'b"'

# ~o~.n**?z~1/02** \§iUf j!" 0, /J$

## :l~**~~~** /i'01j$: JId**~at:@!ll;;t rf~**  JjI**~ ~~q'$'~~<4~+';S"~!"** **;;j»5~~** ft% yft**z~f%;/'00;?s;iU;,Ij:g ~e**  I ,,)llOnD zwfo:**"1t~~~0"t,*~~'"),,(",,",****"S0~~ ~** '" #st ?V;;;;'Y}0;"t2G1"2!kJ!**0~** ;\; ;;; >0""" \/0&"", 15% $75 Up to Equals the number ofappliances produced in a $20,000,000 year over 110% ofthe average number of 20% $125 Up to appliances produced during the preceding three25% $175 $75,000,000* yearperiod. Notes: Accordmg to EPACT 2005, 'refngerators' refers to resIdentIal model automatIc defi'ost refrIgerator-freezers with an internal volume ofatleast 16.5 cubic feet. Applicable equipment includes refrigerator-freezers manufactured in 2006 with savings between 15-20% (15%), ancl those manufactured in 2006 or 2007 with savings between 20-25% (20%) or at least 25%. Percentage savings refer to 2001 energy conservation standards. 

### *Reduced by the amount ofcredit taken in previous years

6-8

# #4,7

Some of the same manufacturers regulated by standards for residential refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers are also covered under other product standards in EPACT 2005. For example, EPACT 2005 sets standards for products and equipment includingdehumidifiers, commercial clothes washers, commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers, commercial heating and cooling, and vending machines. The increased stringency of standards for regulated equipment varies. However, new standards for equipment mentioned above generally coincide with recent or existing Energy Star standards. For example, the new energy consumption standards for solid door refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers, as specified in EPACT 2005, are roughly the same as current energy star criteria. The new standards for dehumidifiers generally raises the energy factor to existing Energy Star criteria, if not slightly below in some casesf and the new energy factor standard for commercial clothes washers matches the pre-2004 Energy Star standard 5,6,7 Many provisions of the recently passed Energy Policy Act of 2005 may have some impact on manufacturers; including State consumer rebates for Energy Star products, as well as the federal manufacturer tax incentives and product standards noted above. However, this report does not attempt to project the impact of these new provisions. 6.4.6 -International Energy Efficiency Regulations Most refrigerator-freezer manufacturers sell a small portion of their total production to countries besides the U.S. In those cases, the products must meet the standards for each country. Based on manufacturer interviews, companies may design some units to meet more stringent standards than the U.S., e.g., for the European Union, to minimize the number of product variations. In general, however, most other countries have less stringent standard levels than the U.S.

6.4.7 Waste Disposal and Recycling Requirements Several manufacturers noted that their products exported to Europe and the Canadian province of Ontario will fall under recent laws mandating that manufacturers of electronic and electrical equipment, which includes residential. refrigerators and freezers, take back such equipment from consumers in a manner that is at least cash-neutral to the consumer. In January 2003, the European Union approved the "Waste from Electronic and Electrical Equipment" (WEEE) directive with the goal of "promoting waste recovery with a view to reducing the quantity of waste for disposal and saving natural resources, in particular by reuse, recycling, composting, and recovering energy from waste". Refrigerators (and other white goods) fall under this regulation. It requires that manufacturers selling a range of products, including refrigerators and freezers, in the EU dispose of, recycle, or recover goods that they manufacture after August 13, 2005. Toward this end, it requires that "users of electrical and electronic equipment from private household should have the possibility of returning WEEE at least free of charge ... each producer should be responsible for financing the management of the waste from his own. Note: The new standards categorize capacity groupings into five bins as opposed to the three originally used by Energy Star so categories overlap.

6-9 

# #4.7

Some ofthe same manufacturers regulated by standards for residentialrefrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers are also covered under other product standards inEPACT 2005. For example, EPACT 2005 sets standards for products and equipment including dehumidifiers, commercial clothes washers, commercialrefrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers, commercial heating and cooling, and vending machines. The increased stringency ofstandards for regulated equipment varies. However, new standards for equipment mentioned above generally coincide with recent orexisting Energy Star standards. Forexample, the new energy consumption standards for solid door refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers, as specified in EPACT 2005, areroughly the same as current energy star criteria. The new standards for dehumidifiers generally raises the energy factorto existing Energy Star criteria, ifnot slightly below in some casesf and the new energy factor standard for commercial clothes washers matches the pre-2004 Energy Star standard.5,6,7 Many provisions ofthe recentlypassed Energy Policy Act of2005 may have some impact on manufacturers; including State consumer rebates for Energy Starproducts, as well as the federal manufacturer tax incentives and product standards noted above. However, this report does not attempt to project the impact ofthese new provisions.


### 6.4.6

.International Energy'Efficiency Regulations Mostrefrigerator-freezer manufacturers sell a small portion oftherr totalproductionto countries besides the U.S. In those cases, the products must meet the standards for each country. Based**o~** manufacturer interviews, companies may design some units to meet more stringent standards than the U.S., e.g., for the EuropeanUnion, to minimize the number ofproduct variations. In general, however, most other countries have less stringent standard levels than the U.S.


### 6.4.7 'Vaste Disposal and Recycling Requirements Several manufacturers notedthat their products exportedto Europe and the Canadian province ofOntario will fall under recent laws mandating that manufacturers ofelectronic and electrical equipment, which includes residentialrefrigerators and freezers, take back such equipment from consumers in a manner that is at least cash-neutral to the consumer. InJanuary 2003, the European Union approved the "Waste from Electronic and ElectricalEquipment" (WEEE) directive with the goal of"promoting waste recovery with a view to reducing the quantity ofwaste for disposal and saving natural resources, in particularby reuse, recycling, composting, and recovering energy from waste". Refrigerators (and other white goods) fall under this regulation. It requires that manufacturers selling a range ofproducts, including refrigerators and freezers, in the EU dispose of, recycle, orrecover goods that they manufacture after August 13,2005. Towardthis end, it requires that "users ofelectrical and electronic equipment from private household should have the possibility ofreturning WEEE at least free ofcharge

... each producer should be responsible for financing the management ofthe waste from his own

fNote: The new standards categorize capacity groupings into five bins as opposed to the three originally used by Energy Star so categories overlap.

6-9products." Producers also have explicit minimum recovery rates that they must achieve by

December 31, 2006, i.e., in the case of residential refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; it equals 80 percent of refrigerators by weight. It also requires the producers to recover portions of the waste from products manufactured prior to August 13, 2005, based on their past market share.8 Under the Ontario Waste Diversion Act of 2002, the government of the Canadian province of Ontario has recently requested the development of a waste diversion program for WEEE materials, including refrigerators.9'10 Although the process for WEEE recovery and required recovery rates have yet to be established, it also requires manufacturers to take responsibility for diversion of WEEE.6,u The request commissions a study for completion in mid-2005 that will explicitly include recommendations on the adequacy of a year-long timeline for developing the program. This implies that a program could be finalized in 2006, with a launch possible in 2007.6'12 At present, the U.S. does not have waste disposal or recycling requirements for refrigerator-freezers. Some manufacturers indicated that they believe similar requirements could be extended to all of Canada and, in the future, potentially to the U.S. This could cause manufacturers to alter product re-designs to facilitate product recycling. At this point in time, the Department is not familiar with any similar legislation in the United States, but acknowledges that the Ontario legislation could have an impact on refrigerator-freezer design because of the tight integration of the U.S. and Canadian white goods markets.
6.4.8 'Restriction of Hazardous Substances In early 2003, the EU published the "The Restriction of Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (ROHS)" Directive. This directive pertains to white goods covered by the WEEE regulation (discussed above) and explicitly states that "Member States shall ensure that, from 1 July 2006, new electrical and electronic equipment put on the market does not contain lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) or polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE)." Multiple manufacturers noted that this would impact refrigerator-freezer units that they export to Europe. In addition, the directive states that the European Commission and the Council of the EU can agree to prohibit "other hazardous substances" "as soon as scientific evidence is available" in the future, i.e., other materials may be prohibited from refrigerators sold to the EU in the future.13 A limited number of exemptions exist, many for mercury (in lamps) and lead9, as well as for defense products and certain types of medical equipment.14 The European Committee of household appliance manufacturers, CECED, presents the following "critical examples of applications [that] are banned"10: • Lead in solder for electrical and electronic parts • Lead in PVC and other types of plastics • Chromium VI on screws and other metallic parts, and • Platings and coatings using the materials (each layer is considered as a separate part). 

# #4.7 products." Producers also have explicit minimum recovery rates that they must achieve by December 31,2006, i.e., in the case ofresidentialrefrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; it equals 80percent ofrefrigerators by weight. It also requires the producers to recover portions ofthe waste fromproducts manufactured prior to August 13, 2005, based on their past market share.8 Under the Ontario Waste Diversion Act of2002, the government ofthe Canadian province ofOntario has recently requested the development ofa waste diversion program for WEEE materials, including refrigerators.9,lO Although the process for WEEErecovery and required recovery rates have yet to be established, it also requires manufacturers to take responsibility for diversion ofWEEE. 6,1l The request commissions a study for completion in mid-200S that will explicitly include recommendations on the adequacy ofa year-long timeline for developing the program. This implies that a programcould be finalized in 2006, with a launch possible in 2007. 6,12 At present, the U.S. does not have waste disposal orrecycling requirements for refrigerator-freezers. Some manufacturers indicated that they believe similarrequirements could be extended to all ofCanada and, in the future, potentially to the U.S. This could cause manufacturers to alter productre-designs to facilitate product recycling. At this point in time, the Dep.artment is not familiar with any similar legislation in the United States, but

.. acknowledges that the Ontario legislation could have an impact on refrigerator-freezer design

because ofthe tight integration ofthe U.S. and Canadian white goods markets.

6.4.8 .Restriction ofHazardous Substances In early 2003, the EUpublished the ''The Restriction ofHazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (ROHS)" Directive. This directive pertains to white goods covered by the WEEEregulation (discussed above) and explicitly states that "Member States shall ensure that, from 1July 2006, new electrical and electronic equipment put on the market does not contain lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) orpolybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE)." Multiple manufacturers noted that this would impact refrigerator-freezer units that they export to Europe. In addition, the directive states that the European Commission and the Council ofthe EU can agree to prohibit "other hazardous substances" "as soon as scientific evidence is available" in the future, i.e., other materials may be prohibited from refrigerators sold to the EU in the future.13 A limited number ofexemptions exist, many for mercury (in lamps) and lead9

, as well as for defense products and certain types ofmedical equipment. 14 The European Committee ofhousehold appliance manufacturers, CECED, presents the following "critical examples ofapplications [that] are banned"1 0:
• Lead in solder for electrical and electronic parts • Lead in PVC and othertypes ofplastics • Chromium VI on screws and other metallic parts, and • Platings and coatings using the materials (each layer is considered as a separate patt).

6-10

# #4®7

6.4.9 Microwave Oven Radio Frequency Emission Regulations Microwave ovens have recently been subject to FCC requirements, which limit radio frequency emissions onto the power lines serving these units'. Previously microwave ovens were subject only to regulations governing externally leaked emissions to assure safety of nearby people. Microwave ovens have been regulated since October 1971 by the FDA for limitation of radiated emissions (the limit is 5 milliwatts of microwave radiation per square centimeter at approximately 2 inches from the oven surface). The recent FCC regulation addresses possible interference of microwave ovens with power line carrier and RF devices resulting from emissions of RF frequencies onto electric power lines. The regulation adopts the requirements of the international standard IEC/CISPR Publication 11, which sets limits for conducted emissions in the frequency ranges 9kHz to 30MHz. These standards took effect July 10, 2005, for all microwave ovens sold in the U.S.
6.4.10 Arc-Fault Protection for Window Air-Conditioning Unit Power Cords The 2002 National Electric Code (which is referenced by many local codes) added requirement 440.65 which states that window air-conditioners with single-phase cord and plug electrical connection must incorporate either arc fault protection or leakage current detection in the power supply cord within 12" of the attachment plug. This requirement took effect August 1, 2004. These changes aim to reduce the risk of fire associated, for example, with the fatigue of conductors and insulation leading to development of high-impedance arcs against which conventional circuit breakers provide no protection.

6.4.11 Flammable Vapor Resistance Standard for Water Heaters A voluntary standard has been adopted by water heater manufacturers to improve resistance of residential water heaters to igniting flammable vapors from external sources such as spilled gasoline. The standard mandates design changes, which make the water heaters resistant to igniting flammable vapors outside of the water heater. Initial adoption of the standard for conventional (i.e. atmospherically-fired, natural draft vented) 30, 40, and 50-gallon residential gas water heaters occurred July 1, 2003, and it was extended to power vented and larger models on July 1, 2005.

6.4.12 Water Factor Standards for Clothes Washers Water factor standards for clothes washers have been pursued by California and other states. In California, water factor standards for commercial clothes washers took effect in 2004. California standards for residential clothes washers call for a maximum water factor (gallons of water used per cubic feet of washer capacity) of 8.5 to take effect on January 1, 2007, and a water factor of 6.0 by January 1, 2010. California must get a waiver from DOE, since regulation of residential appliance efficiency is under the jurisdiction of the federal government. A request for a waiver has been submitted to DOE. A number of states have also adopted or are considering the same commercial clothes washer standards, which were enacted in California. 

# #4.7 6.4.9 Microwave Oven Radio Frequency Emission Regulations Microwave ovens have recently been subject to FCC requirements, which limitradio frequency emissions onto the power lines serving these units l

. Previously microwave ovens were subject only to regulations governing externally leaked emissions to assure safety ofnearby people. Microwave ovens have beenregulated since October 1971 by the FDA for limitation of radiated emissions (the limit is 5 milliwatts ofmicrowave radiation per square centimeter at approximately 2 inches from the oven surface). The recent FCC regulation addresses possible interference ofmicrowave ovens with power line carrier and RF devices resulting from emissions ofRF frequencies onto electric power lines. The regulation adopts the requirements of the international standard IEC/CISPR Publication 11, which sets limits for conductedemissions in the frequency ranges 9kHz to 30MHz. These standards took effect July 10, 2005, for all microwave ovens sold in the U.S.

6.4.10 Arc-Fault Protection for Window Air-Conditioning Unit Power Cords The 2002 National Electric Code (which is referenced by many local codes) added requirement 440.65 which states that window air-conditionerswith single-phase cord and plug electrical connection must incorporate either arc fault protection orleakage current detection in the power supply cord within 12" ofthe attachment plug. This requirement took effect August 1, 2004. These changes aimto reduce the risk offire associated, for example, with the fatigue of conductors and insulation leading to development ofhigh-impedance arcs against which conventional circuit breakers provide no protection.

6.4.11 Flammable Vapor Resistance Standard for Water Heaters A voluntary**s~andard** has been adopted by water heater manufacturers to improve resistance ofresidential water heaters to igniting flammable vapors from external sources such as spilled gasoline. The standard mandates design changes, which make the waterheaters resistant to igniting flammable vapors outside ofthe waterheater. Initial adoption ofthe standard for conventional (i.e. atmospherically-fired, natural draft vented) 30, 40, and 50-gallonresidential gas waterheaters occurred July 1,2003, and it was extended to power vented and larger models onJuly 1, 2005.

6.4.12 Water Factor Standards for Clothes Washers Water factor standards for clothes washers have been pursued by California and other states. In California, water factor standards for commercial clothes washers took effect in 2004. California standards for residential clothes washers call for a maximum water factor (gallons of water used per cubic feet ofwasher capacity) of8.5 to take effect on January 1,2007, and a water factor of6.0 by January 1, 2010. California must get a waiver from DOE, since regulation ofresidential appliance efficiency is under thejurisdiction ofthe federal government. A request for a waiver has been submitted to DOE. A number ofstates have also adopted or are considering the same commercial clothes washer standards, which were enacted in California.

6-116.4.13 Indoor Air Quality Regulations for Ranges and Ovens In 2002 Assembly Bill 1173 (Keeley, 2002; California Health and Safety Code Section 39930) was enacted. This bill required the California Air Resources Board to prepare a report on the growing issue of Indoor Air Quality. The report was completed in July 20052. One of the sources of indoor pollutants discussed in the report is unvented cooking appliances fired with natural gas or propane, such as residential ranges or ovens. Such appliances were identified as sources of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particles, soot, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The authors put these appliances on a list of "High Priority Source Categories for Mitigation" with such sources as ozone-generating air cleaners, tobacco smoke, and radon. One of the key mitigation strategies mentioned for such appliances is to require venting, an action, which would require significant design modifications for such appliances. Since the report has just recently been submitted to the legislature, it is not clear at this stage whether any such regulations are likely to be considered for passage into law. 6.4.14 Impact of Cumulative Burden on Small Manufacturers The manufacturer interviews indicated that smaller refrigerator manufacturers typically have smaller corporate research and development staffs than larger manufacturers. Although small manufacturers often have a more limited product range than major manufacturers, the effort to address some aspects of regulations are relatively fixed and. do not scale directly with the number of products or product platforms produced. Consequently, the cumulative burden of regulations will tend to place more of a burden on smaller manufacturers because of their more limited resources. 

# #4.7 6.4.13 IndoorAir Quality Regulations for Ranges and Ovens In 2002 Assembly Bill 1173 (Keeley, 2002; California Health and Safety Code Section 39930) was enacted. This billrequired the California Air Resources Boardto prepare arepOlt on the growing issue ofIndoorAir Quality. The report was completed in July 20052• One ofthe sources ofindoorpollutants discussed in the report is unvented cooking appliances fIred with natural gas orpropane, such as residential ranges orovens. Such appliances were identified as sources ofcarbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, pmticles, soot, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The authors putthese appliances on a list of"High Priority Source Categories for Mitigation" with such sources as ozone-generating air cleaners, tobacco smoke, and radon. One ofthe key mitigation strategies mentioned for such appliances is to require venting, an action, which would require significant design modifications for such appliances. Since the report has justrecently been submittedto the legislature, it is not clear at this stage whether any such regulations are likely to be considered for passage into law.


### 6.4.14 Impact ofCumulative Burden on SmallManufacturers The manufacturer interviews indicated that smaller refrigerator manufacturers typically have smaller corporateresearch and development statIs than larger manufacturers. Although small manufacturers oftenhave a more limited productrange than major manufacturers, the effort to address some aspt<cts ofregulations are relatively fixed' anddo not scale directly with the number ofproducts orproduct platforms produced. Consequently, the cumulative burden of regulations will tend to place more ofa burden on smaller manufacturers because oftheir more limited resources.

6-12114



# . TT4 7
REFERENCES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 U.S. Department of Energy, Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Standards fo Consumer Products: Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, & Freezers, July 1995. Washington, DC. Report No

. DOE/EE-0064. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Final Rule Technical Support Document (TSD): Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products: Clothes Washers, December 2000

. Washington, DC. Available at: http://www

.eere.energy
.gov/buildings/appliance standards/residenti

.ai/cl.wash 0900 r

.html. California Energy Commission, Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Regulations, April 2005. Sacramento, CA. Report No. CEC 400-2005-012. Available at: http://www.energy.ca. ov/2005publ.ications/CEC-400-2005-012/CEC-400-2005-012.PDF. U.S. Congress. Energy Policy Act of 2005 (H.R. 6). Conference report passed by House on July 28`h, 2005 and passed by Senate on July 29`h, 2005. Signed into law August 8`h, 2005. Energy Star Program. "Clothes Washers Key Product Criteria." Available online at http://www.energystar.gov/i.nclex.cf]x1?c=clot:.heswash..pr_crit clothes washers . "Energy Star Program Requirements for Commercial Solid Door Refrigerators and Freezers Eligibility Criteria" http://www.energvstar.gov/ia/partners/12rod.uct s pets/eligibil

.ity/commer refrig elig.ppdf

"Energy Star Program Requirements for Dehumidifiers: Partner Commitments." Available online at http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/product specs/program regs/dehumi.d prog retpdf European Union, "Directive 2002/96/96/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)," Official Journal ofthe European Union, pp. L37/24-L37/38. Available at: http ://europa.eu.int/eurlex/pri/en/oi/dat/2003/1 037/1 03720030213en002400 38. pdf. Waste Diversion Ontario, Waste Diversion Act, 2002 (Bill 90), Ascended to on June27. Available at: http://www.elaws.gov.on.ea/DBLaws/Source/Statutes/English/2002/S02006 e.htm. Ontario, Letter by L. Dombrowsky, Minister of the Environment of Ontario, Canada, to B. Balkisson, Chair, Waste Diversion Ontario, Dated 20 December, 2004. Available at: htt ://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envi.sion/lancVWI)A/electronics/letter1220()4.pdf. Waste Diversion Ontario, "Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment," Ontario Regulation 393/04 - Made Under the Waste Diversion Act, 2002, Made and Filed 14 December, 2004, Ontario Gazette, January 1, 2005. Available at: htt.://www.elaws.gov.on.ca[DBLaws/Source/Regis/Enalish/2004/R04393 e.htm.

6-13 

# #4.7 REFERENCES

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 

# u.s. Department ofEnergy, Technical SupportDocument: Energy Efficiency Standardsfor ConsumerProducts: Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, 

### &Freezers, July 1995. Washington, DC. Report No. DOEIEE-0064. 

# u.s. Department ofEnergy, Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, FinalRule Technical SupportDocument (TSD): Energy Efficiency Standardsfor ConsumerProducts: Clothes Washers, December 2000. Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.eere.energv.goY/buildings/appliance standards/residcntiallclwash 0900 r.html. CaliforniaEnergy Commission, Title 

### 20ApplianceEfficiency Regulations, April 2005. Sacramento, CA. Report No. CEC 400-2005-012. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.govI2005publications/CEC-400-2005-012/CEC-400-2005-012.PDF. U.S. Congress. EnergyPolicy Act of2005 (H.R. 6). Conference report passedbyHouse on July 28th

, 2005 and passed by Senate onJuly 29th

, 2005. Signed into law August 8th

, 2005. Energy Star Program. "Clothes Washers Key Product Criteria." Available online at http://www.energystar.govlindex.cfm?c=c1otheswash.pr crit clothes washers

___. "Energy StarProgramRequirements for Commercial Solid DoorRefrigerators and Freezers Eligibility Criteria" http://www.energ:vstar.gov/ialpartners/product specs/eIigibiIitvlcommer refhg elig.pdf

___ . "Energy StarProgram Requirements for Dehumidifiers: Partner Commitments." Available online at http://www.enen!ystar.gov/ialpartners/product specs/program reqs/dehumid prog reg.pdf European Union, "Directive 2002/96/96IEC ofthe European Parliament and ofthe Council of27 January 2003 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)," Official Journal of the European Union, pp. L37l24-L37/38. Available at: http://europa.eu.inUcurlexlpri/en/oi/dat/200311 03711 03720030213en00240038.pdf. Waste Diversion Ontario, Waste DiversionAct, 2002 (Bill 90), Ascended to onJune27. Available at: http://www.claws.go\..on.ca/DBLaws/Source/Statutes/Englishl2002/S02006c.htm.

10 Ontario, Letter by L. Dombrowsky, Minister ofthe Environment ofOntario, Canada, to 

### B. Balkisson, Chair, Waste Diversion Ontario, Dated 20 December, 2004. Available at: http://www.cnc.goY.on.ca/enYision/laneVWDlVelectronics/letterl22004.pdf.

I J Waste Diversion Ontario, "Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment," Ontario Regulation 393/04

- Made Under the Waste Diversion Act, 2002, Made and Filed 14 December, 2004, Ontario Gazette, January 1, 2005. Available at: http://www.elaws.gov.on.cafDBLaws/Source/Rezs/English/2004/R04393e.htm.

6-1312 McGuire, J.M., "Canada Including Appliances in WEEE Program," Appliance Design, April

1, 2005

. Available at: http://www.ammagazine.com/CDA/AiticleInformation/features/BNP Features ItemIO,2606.14772 2,00.htlnl.

13

14 European Union, "Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical. and Electronic Equipment ", Official Journal ofthe European Union, L 37, February 13, 2003, pp. 19 - 23. Available at: http://europa.eu.int/eurlex/prileii/oj/dat/2003/] 037/1 03720030213en00i90023.pdt'. CEDED, "RoHS Guide," Frequently Asked Questions about Directive 2002/95/EC, PP 05- 03, February 9, 2005. Available at: http://www. aharn. org./l ibrary/.tiles/PP %200503 %20R.oHS %2 0Gui.de. p d1.'. 

# #4.7

12 McGuire, J.M., "Canada Including Appliances in WEEE Program,"ApplianceDesign, April 1,2005. Available at: http://www.ammagazine.comlCDNArticlelnformationlfeatures/BNP Features ItemlO,2606.14772 2,OO.html.

13 European Union, "Directive 2002/95IEC ofthe European Parliament and ofthe Council of 27 January 2003 onthe Restriction ofthe Use ofCertain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment", Official Journal of the European Union, L 37, February 13, 2003, pp. 19

- 23. Available at: http://europa.eu.intieurlex!priJen!oj/datI2003/1 0371l 03720030213en00190023.pdf.

14 CEDED, "RoHS Guide," Frequently Asked Questions about Directive 2002/951EC, 

### PP 05- 03, February 9,2005. Available at: http://www.aham.org/librarylfiles/PP% 200503%20RoHS%20Guide.pdf.

6-14

# 4®7 APPENDIX A. AHAM DATA SUBMITTAL REQUEST Excerpt from AHAM's request to manufacturers for cost data, described above in the AHAM Data Submittal and Consolidation Section, is reproduced below.
Please return the attached survey, indicating the average incremental production cost to take your basic models in the categories shown from the current DOE minimum efficiency level. to 15% better. In other words, if it costs $200 to produce a basic model at the current baseline minimum efficiency level, and it costs $230 to make it 15% more efficient, the incremental cost difference is $30. If you have more than one basic model at the minimum efficiency level in each of the size categories indicated, average the incremental costs and show that number. We want to submit an aggregate shipment weighted average, so please indicate your approximate annual shipment volumes for each category. Also, in order to provide the contractors with some sensitivity around the average numbers, for those categories where you have more than one basic model, please indicate the minimum and maximum incremental costs. A description of the costs to include are noted under the tables on the survey form attached. Shipments For the Top Freezer and Side-By-Side tables, in the last column please indicate the total shipment numbers for all models (those that are already Energy Star compliant and those that are not). The cost should be the average, minimum or maximum cost to raise the units from current DOE compliant models to the current DOE Energy Star level. For the tables of the New Energy Star levels for Top Freezer and Side-By-Side, please indicate in the last column an approximate number of new Energy Star units that might be shipped, given an approximate Energy Star level as described below. Another Element We would also ask that you consider another element in the cost of refrigerator efficiency improvements. If the minimum efficiency level is raised to the current Energy Star level, models will meet the existing Energy Star level and this will result in DOE Energy Star office seeking an increase in the Energy Star qualification level. We believe that the cost of increasing some portion of your models to the NEW Energy Star level should be accounted for in this efficiency/cost data collection. Obviously, it is difficult to envision what this new Energy Star level might be. For purposes of this data collection, we would suggest that the companies estimate the cost of having some number of units to an Energy Star level equivalent to the energy 25% less than today's DOE Minimum Efficiency level across all the categories. The shipment numbers in the far right column would then be the approximate number of units that will then be sold as the new Energy Star units. We recognize this is a hypothetical estimate. We have included two new tables in the enclosed form. We need this information separately in order to discuss this scenario with DOE and the contractor. 

# #4.7 APPENDIX A. AHAM DATA SUBMITTAL REQUEST Excerpt from AHAM's request to manufacturers for cost data, described above inthe AHAMData Submittal and Consolidation Section, is reproduced below.

Please return the attached survey, indicating the average incrementalproductioncost to take your basic models in the categories shown from the current DOE minimum efficiency level to 15% better. In other words, ifit costs $200 to produce a basic model at the currentbaseline minimum efficiency level, and it costs $230to make it 15% more efficient, the incremental cost difference is $30. Ifyou have more than one basic model at the minimumefficiencYlevelin each ofthe size categories indicated, average the incremental costs and show that number. We want to submit an aggregate shipment weighted average, so please indicate your approximate annual shipment volumes for each category. Also, in orderto provide the contractors with some sensitivity around the average numbers, for those categories where you have more than one basic model, please indicate the minimum and maximumincremental costs. A description ofthe costs to include are noted under the tables onthe survey form attached. Shipments Forthe Top Freezer and Side-By-Side tables, in the last column please indicate the total shipment numbers for all models (those that are already Energy Star compliant and those that are not). The cost should be the average, minimum ormaximum cost to raise the units from current DOE compliant models to the current DOE Energy Star level. For the tables ofthe New Energy Starlevels for Top Freezer and Side-By-Side, please indicate in the last column an approximate number ofnew Energy StaJ.' units that might be shipped, given an approximate Energy Starlevel as described below. AnotherElement We would also ask that you consider another element in the cost ofrefrigerator efficiency improvements. lfthe minimum efficiency level is raised to the current Energy Star level, models will meet the existing Energy Star level and this will result in DOE Energy Staroffice seeking an increase in the Energy Star qualification level. We believe that the cost ofincreasing some portion ofyour models to the NEWEnergy Star level should be accounted for in this efficiency/cost data collection. Obviously, it is difficult to envision what this new Energy Star level might be. Forpurposes ofthis data collection, we would suggest that the companies estimate the cost ofhaving some number ofunits to an Energy Star level equivalent to the energy 25% less than today's DOE Minimum Efficiency level across all the categories. The shipment numbers in the faJ.· right column would then be the approximate number ofunits that will then be sold as the new Energy Starunits. Werecognize this is a hypothetical estimate. We have included two new tables in the enclosed form. We need this information separately in orderto discuss this scenario with DOE and the contractor.

A-ICONFIDENTIAL Refrigerator

-Freezer Data Collection for Cost/

Efficiency Information for DOE Petition Top Freezers

- Auto Defrost Size2, Average Minimum4 Maximums Approximate Ft.3 Incremental Cost per Incremental Cost per Incremental Cost per Total

product to Achieve 15% product to Achieve 15% product to Achieve 15% Annual Better Eff. than Min. Better Eff. than Min. Better Eff. than Min. Shipments DOE Std DOE Std DOE Std 14-17 18-20 21-22 23-25 Top Freezers

- Auto Defrost

-Increase for New Energy Star Level

(Approximately 25% less energy than today's DOE Standard) Size2, Average3' Minimum4 Maximums Approx. Ft.3 Incremental Cost per Incremental Cost per Incremental Cost per Annual

product to increase to product to increase to product to increase to Shipments of New Energy Star level new Energy Star Level new Energy Star Level New Energy Star units 14-17 18-20 21-22 23-25 Side By Sides

- Auto Defrost with Through

-the-Door Ice & Water Size2, Averages"3 Minimum4 Maximums Approximate Ft.3 Incremental Cost per Incremental Cost per Incremental Cost per Total

product to Achieve 15% product to Achieve 15% product to Achieve 15% Annual Better Eff. than Min. Better Eff. than Min. Better Eff. than Min. Shipments DOE Std DOE Std DOE Std 18-20 21 - 23 24-26 27-30 Side By Sides - Auto Defrost with Through

-the-Door Ice & Water-Energy Star Size2, Average3" Minimum4 Maximums Approximate Ft.3 Incremental Cost per Incremental Cost per Incremental Cost per Annual Shipments

product to increase to product to increase to product to increase to of New Energy Star New Energy Star level new Energy Star Level new Energy Star Level Units 18-20 21- 24-26 27-30 (Approximately 25% less energy than today's DOE Minimum)

A-2 Size2, Ft. 3



### 14 -17 18 -20 21-22 23 -25

Size2, Ft. 3



### 14 -17 18 -20 21-22 23 -25

Size2, Ft. 3



### 18 -20 21-23 24-26 27 -30 

# #4.7 CONFIDENTIAL Refrigerator-FreezerData Collection for CostlEfficiencyInformation for DOE Petition Top Freezers

- Auto Defrost Average Minimum4 

### MaximumS Approximate Incremental Cost per Incremental Cost per Incremental Cost per Total product to Achieve 15% product to Achieve 15% product to Achieve 15% Annual

Better Eff. than Min. Better Eff. than Min. Better Eff. than Min. Shipments DOEStd DOE Std DOE Std



### Top Freezers

- Auto Defrost-Increase for New Energy StarLevel (Approximately 25% less energy than today's DOE Standard)**Average3~** 

### Minimum4 

### MaximumS Approx. Incremental Costper Incremental Costper Incremental Costper Annual product to increase to product to increase to product to increase to Shipments of New Energy Star level new Energy StarLevel new Energy Star Level New Energy Starunits



### Side By 

### Sides

- AutoDefrost with Through-the-DoorIce & 

### Water Average1

### '3 Minimum4 

### MaximumS Approximate Incremental Costper Incremental Cost per Incremental Cost per Total product to Achieve 15% product to Achieve 15% product to Achieve 15% Annual

Better Eff. than Min. Better Eff. than Min. Better Eff. than Min. Shipments DOEStd DOEStd DOE Std



### Side By 

### Sides

- Auto Defrost with Through-the-DoorIce & 

### Water-Energy Star (A t I 25o/t I 

### th t d 'DOEM' . )

_pproXlma e y 0 

### ess energy an o ay s lmmum Size2, 

### Average3'7 Minimum4 

### MaximumS Approximate Ft. 3 Incremental Cost per Incremental Costper Incremental Cost per Annual Shipments product to increase to product to increase to product to increase to ofNewEnergy Star New Energy Star level new Energy Star Level new Energy Star Level Units 

### 18 -20 21-23 24-26 27 -30
A-2

# #4,7

1. Incremental cost data (in U.S. $) includes the materials, burdened labor, and amortization of capitol expense needed to take basic models from the current minimum DOE baseline efficiency standard to a 15% improvement in energy efficiency. 2. For sizes between the ranges shown above, just include units in the nearest size category. 3. In the "Average" column, average the incremental cost for all products in that size range. 4. For the "Minimum" column, show the incremental cost for the basic model with the lowest associated cost. 5. For the "Maximum" column, show the incremental cost for the basic model with the highest associated cost. 6. There are a variety of different ways manufacturers may choose to achieve the higher efficiency level. (e.g., more insulation, better gaskets, improved control and defrost schemes, more efficient compressors and fan motors, etc.). All manufacturers will not use the same design options for all models. Therefore, instead of listing design options (some of which may include proprietary information) we are choosing to just show the incremental cost associated with whatever means a manufacturer may choose, without disclosing each manufacturers' specific approach. 7. The incremental cost to achieve the New Energy Star levels would be the cost to raise whatever current units or platforms to the new (hypothetical) Energy Star level approximately 25% improvement in energy over today's DOE Minimum Efficiency level. 

# #4.7
1. Incremental cost data (in U.S. $) includes the materials, burdened labor, and amortization ofcapitol expense needed to take basic models from the current minimum

### DOEbaseline efficiency standard to a 15% improvement in energy efficiency. 2. For sizes between the ranges shown above,just include units in the nearest size category. 3. In the "Average" column, average the incremental cost for all products in that size range. 4. Forthe "Minimum" column, show the incremental cost for the basic model withthe lowest associated cost. 5. Forthe "Maximum" column, show the incremental cost for the basic modelwiththe highest associated cost. 6. There are a variety ofdifferent ways manufacturers may choose to achieve the higher efficiency level (e.g., more insulation, better gaskets, improved control and defrost schemes, more efficient compressors and fan motors, etc.). All manufacturers will not use the same design options for all models. Therefore, instead oflisting design options (some ofwhich may include proprietary information) we are choosing tojust show the incremental cost associated with whatever means a manufacturer may choose, without disclosing each manufacturers' specific approach. 7. The incremental cost to achieve the New Energy Starlevels would be the costto raise whatever current units orplatforms to the new (hypothetical) Energy Starlevel approximately 25% improvement in energy over today's DOE MinimumEfficiency level.

A-3APPENDIX B. CONSUMER RETAIL PRICE DATASET: SUMMARY DATA AND REGRESSION ANALYSIS DETAILSTable B-1 provides the variable statistics for the top-mount and side-mount refrigeratorfreezers from The NPD Group dataset that were used for establishing the baseline consumer retail price and the incremental retail price of current Energy Star products. Table B-l. Variable Statistics for Basic Side-Mount and Top

-Mount Refrigerator

-Freezers

_ Refrigerator Size and Efficiency Variables 1. Price 896.6 65.0 1397.2 552.5 53.0 4327.0 2. Capacity (cu. ft.) 24.1 18.0 27.0 18.3 8.5 26.0 3. Electricity use (kWh/yr) NA NA NA NA NA NA 4. Energy Star 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 1.0 5. Sales 1866.5 1 58460 2602 1 104649 Refrigerator Attributes 1. Through door Ice and Water 0.9 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 2. Icemaker Standard 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 1.0 3. Water Filter 0.9 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 1.0 4. Contoured Door 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 5. Meat and Crisper Drawers 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 1.0 6. Glass Shelves 0.2 0.0 1..0 0.3 0.0 1.0 7. Wire Shelves 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 1.0 8. Spill proof Shelves 0.7 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 1.0 Refrigerator Brands 1. Amana 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2. Avanti pro NA NA NA 0.0 0.0 1.0 3. Danby NA NA NA 0.0 0.0 1.0 4. Frigidaire 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 1.0 5. General Electric 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 1.0 6. Haier 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 7. Hot Point 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 8. Kitchen aid 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 9. LG Electronics 0.1. 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 10. Magic Chef NA NA NA 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.1. Maytag 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 1..0 12. Roper 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 13. Viking 0.3 0.0 1.0 NA NA NA 14. Summit NA NA NA 0.0 0.0 1.0 15. Whirlpool 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 1.0
Table B-2 shows the details of the "long" regression analysis performed to establish the retail price increment of current Energy Star products for top-mount refrigerator-freezers. There are two sets of results; one set summarizes the details for the non-sales-weighted regression while the other set summarizes the details for the sales-weighted regression. 

# #4.7 APPENDIX B. CONSUMER RETAIL PRICE DATASET: SUMMARY DATA AND REGRESSION ANALYSIS DETAILS
Table 

### B-1 provides the variable statistics for the top-mount and side-mount refrigeratorfreezers from The NPD Group dataset that were used for establishing the baseline consumer retailprice and the incrementalretail price ofcurrent Energy Starproducts. Table B-1. Variable Statistics for Basic Side-Mount and Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers

1. Price 65.0 1397.2 552.5 53.0 4327.0 2. Capacity (cu. ft.) 18.0 27.0 18.3 8.5 26.0 3. Electricity use (kWh/yr) NA NA NA NA NA 4. Energy Star 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 1.0 5. Sales 1 58460 2602 1 104649 0.9 0.0 1.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 1.0 3. WaterFilter 0.9 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 1.0 4. Contoured Door 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 5. Meat and CrisperDrawers 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 1.0 6. Glass Shelves 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 1.0 7. Wire Shelves 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 1.0 8. 0.7 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 1.0 1. Amana 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2. A vanti pro NA NA NA 0.0 0.0 1.0 3. Danby NA NA NA 0.0 0.0 1.0 4. Frigidaire 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 1.0 5. General Electric 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 1.0 6. Haier 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 7. Hot Point 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 8. Kitchen aid 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.] 0.0 1.0 9. LG Electronics 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 10. Magic Chef NA NA NA 0.0 0.0 1.0 11. Maytag 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 12. Roper 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 13. Viking 0.3 0.0 1.0 NA NA NA 14. Summit NA NA NA 0.0 0.0 1.0 15. 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 1.0

Table B-2 shows the details ofthe "long" regression analysis performed to establish the retail price increment ofcurrent Energy Starproducts for top-mount refrigerator-freezers. There are two sets ofresults; one set summarizes the details for the non-sales-weighted regression while the other set summarizes the details for the sales-weighted regression.

B-1Table B-2. Details of the "Long" Regression Analysis to determine the Energy Star Retail Price Increment: Top-Mount Refrigerator

-Freezers

Top-Freezer Price Regression Refrigerator Price, depandent variable regression coefficients statistical significance Sales-weighted Top-Freezer Price Regression

Refrigerator Price, depandent variable regression coefficients statistical

significance (sprice/Aenergy t(362) (Aprice/Aenergy Z Focus Variables star) Focus Variables star) Intercept 29 4 7.44 Intercept 223.7 385.1 Energy Star 44,39 4.63 Energy Star 323 350.8 Total volume '97 3.48 Total volume I113 878.1 Attribute Variables Attribute Variables No through door Ice and Water 2.35 No through door Ice and Water 321.0 214.7 Ice only 32.03 0.98 Ice only 70.6 115.9 No Icemaker > 1407 -3.92 No Icenraker 51.2 -493.1 Ice maker optional 41,72 -2.97 Icennkeroptional -36.4 -412.1 No Water filter 5.56 0.34 No Water filter -26.5 -116.3 Not contoured door -1.44 -0.09 Not contoured door -53.1 -331.0 Crisper drawer only -1.82 -0.17 Crisper drawer only _18 -39.9 Wire shelves 29.60 -2.39 Wire shelves .49.5 -487.3 Glass shelves -3.13 -0.27 Glass shelves -12.1 -150.4 Plastic shelves -82.21 -1.79 Plastic shelves 38.5 -36.8
Brand Variables Brand Variables Amana 9.97 0.28 Annna 7?5 132.1 Avantipro -35.41 -1.08 Avantipro -9.3 -31.6 Danby -44.61 -1.38 Danby 24.7 90.8 Prigidaire -20.84 -1.50 Frigidaire 39.1 -373.2 GenElec :_'8,89 2.24 GcnFiec -39 -2,5.9 Haler -1 .33 -0.05 Haier -28.9 -150.3 Hotpoint .65.50 -3.44 Hotpoint -29.3 -74.8 Kitchenniaid 55.2 2.48 Kitchenmaid 65

.0 43.7 LGEec 45.51 1.43 LGnec 951 223.3 MagicChef -51.19 -1.75 MagicChef -65.0 -169.4 Maytag -13,10 2.38 Maytag 383 184.1 Roper -29.16 -1.55 Roper -40.44 -380.7 Highlighted coefficients are si gnificant at the 95% level. Highlighted coefficients are significant at the 95% level.

Table B-3 shows the details of the "long" regression analysis performed to establish the retail price increment of current Energy Star products for side-mount refrigerator-freezers. There are two sets of results; one set summarizes the details for the non-sales-weighted regression while the other set summarizes the details for the sales-weighted regression. 

# #4.7

Table B-2. Details ofthe "Long"Regression Analysis to determine the Energy StarRetail Price Increment: Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers

Top-lireezerPrice Regression Sales-weighted Top-I'reezer !,rice Regression RefrigeratorPrice,depandentvariable Refrigerator Price,depandentvariable regression statistical regressicn statistical coefficients significance coefficients significance (ll.price/ll.energy t(362) (ll.price/ll.energy z Focus Variables star) Focus Variables star) hnercept 295A7 7.44 Intercept :2"' -, -,,">.1 385.1 Energy Star 44.39 4.63 Energy Star 39.3 350.8 Total volu!re S.Y'! 3.48 Total volume U.S 878.1 Attribute Variables Attribute Variables No through doorIce and Wate,**5~}ff:r:** 2.35 No through doorlee and Water 121.(} 214.7 lee only 32.03 0.98 lee only 70.6 115.9 No !cemaker -6\.07 -3.92 No leemaker -51.2 -493.1 Icemakeroptional

..·W!] -2.97 Icennkeroptional -36.4 -412.1 No Waterfilter 5.56 0.34 No Waterfilter -26.5 -116.3 Not contoured door -1.44 -0.09 Not contoured door ··5:'.1 -331.0 Crisperdrawer only -1.82 -0.17 Crisperdraweronly -3.8 -39.9 Wire shelves ·,),9.60 -2.39 Wire shelves ·49.5 -487.3 Glass shelves -3.13 -0.27 Glass shelves -12.1 -150.4 Plastic shelves -82.21 -1.79 Plastic shelves -38.5 -36.8 Brand Variables Bralld Variables Amana 9.97 0.28 Amana 735 132.1 Avantipro -35.41 -1.08 Avantipro -9.3 -31.6 Danby -44.61 -1.38 Danby 24.7 90.8 Frigidaire -20.84 -1.50 Frigidaire -39.1 -373.2 GenBec 28.88 2.24 C",nBec ··3.9 -25.9 Haier -1.33 -0.05 Haier -28.9 -150.3 Hotpoint

..65.50 -3.44 Hotpoint**":~t).3** -74.8 Kitchenmaid 65.7"::. 2.48 Kitchenmaid 65.0 43.7 LGElec 45.51 1.43 LGElec 9Ll 223.3 MagicOJef -51.19 -1.75 MagicChef -(,').0 -169.4 Maytag -13.10 2.38 Maytag 3K3 184.1 Roper -29.16 -1.55 Roper

..40.4 -380.7 Hi<>hlighted coefficients are significant at the 95% level. Highlighted coetticients are significant at the 95% level.

Table B-3 shows the details ofthe "long" regression analysis performed to establish the retail price increment ofcurrent Energy Starproducts for side-mount refrigerator-freezers. There are two sets ofresults; one set summarizes the details for the non-sales-weighted regression while the other set summarizes the details for the sales-weighted regression.

B-2Table B-3. Details of the "Long" Regression Analysis to determine the Energy Star Retail Price Increment: Side-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers

Side by Side Price Regression Refrigerator Price, depandent variable regression coefficients statistical

significance Sales-Weighted Side by Side Price Regression

Refrigerator Price, dependent variable regression statistical coefficients significance (Apiice/Aenergy t(283) (iprice/t,energy z Focus Variables star) Focus Variables star) Intercept 415.2 1.8 Intercept 1'21.78 30.86 Energy star (d 4 2.4 Energy Star 819'7 340.21 Capacity 6.3 0.8 Capacity 25,6` 287.17 Attribute Variables Attribute Variables No through door Ice andWatei 113.4 1.8 No through doorlce and Water 992-; 47.16 No Icemaker -58.1 -0.7 No lcemaker 22.14 -7.94 No water filter 7.8 0.2 No Water filter 25. 0 34.66 Not contoured doors 6 2.l Flat, uncontoured Door 38.51 -36.61 Crisper drawers 7.8 0.3 Crisper drawer (no neat drawer) 9. 9. 5 -284.10 Wire shelves -63.4 -0.3 Wire shelves
- 16, 2.2 -21.87 Glass shelves 68.5 0.4 Glass shelves -53,75 -12.70 Spillproof shelves 105.1 0.6 Plastic shelves 1'3,x33 4.63 Brand Variables Brand Variables Roper -118.0 -0.9 Arnana- "96 46.81 Amana -48.6 -0.5 Frigidaire t 7.28 26.27 Frigidaire 10.6 0.1 Genllec 19.3.12 71.09 GeneralFlectic 0.1 0.0 Hotpoint -6.93 -1.73 Hotpoint -184.6 -1.6 Kitchennnrid 1,4.9,1 25.04 Kitchenmaid 53.4 0.5 Maytag 1'-9.26 68.89 Maytag 22.1 0.2 Roper 3.37 1.30 Whirlpool 5.9 0.1 Whirlpool 12:.21 47.91 Highlighted coefficients are sig nificant at the 95% level. .Highlighted coefficients are significant at the 95% level. 

# #4.7 Table B-3. Details ofthe "Long" Regression Analysis to determine the Energy StarRetail Price Increment: Side-MountRefrigerator-Freezers

Side by Side Price Regression Sales-WeightedSide by Side Price Regression RefrigeratorPrice,depandentvariable RefrigeratorPrice,depandent variable regression statistical regression statistical coefficients si Jnifif.'ance coefficients significance (t.pricelt.energy t(283) (t.pricelt.energy z Focus Variables star) Focus Variables star) Intercept 415.2 1.8 Intercept J23.7g 30.86 Fnergy star (,0

... 2.4 Energy Star**~1.m** 340.21 Capacity 6.3 0.8 Capacity 25.65 287.17 Attribute Variables Attribute Variables No through doorIce and Wate, 113.4 1.8 No through doorIce and Water S9,'27 47.16 No Icemaker -58.1 -0.7 No lcemaker p22.14 -7.94 No waterfilter 7.8 0.2 No Waterfilter 26,10 34.66 Notcontoured doors :;8.0 2.1 ,",lat, uneontoured Door ':58.55 -36.61 Gisperdrawers 7.8 0.3 Crisperdmwer (no**n~at** dmwer) ··7R.95 -284.10 Wire shelves -63.4 -0.3 Wire shelves ··115.2), -21.87**G1a~s** shelves 68.5 0.4 Glass shelves ··5:.;,75 -12.70 Spillproofshelves 105.1 0.6 Plastic shelves H()3 4.63 Brand Variables Brand Variables Roper -118.0 -0.9 Amma' 46.81 Amana -48.6 -0.5 Frigidaire**67.2~** 26.27 Frigidaire 10.6 0.1 GenEiec ](;:U2 71.09 GenemlEiechlc 0.1 0.0 Hotpoint -6.93 -1.73 Hotpoint -184.6 -1.6 Kitchenmlid I!;l"'l 25.04 Kitchenmaid 53.4 0.5 Maytag 17926 68.89 Maytag 22.1 0.2 Roper 3.37 1.30 Whirlpool 5.9 0.1 Whirlpool 122.2. 47.91 Highlighted coefficients are significant at the 95% level. Highlighted coefficients are significant at the 95% level.

B-3

# #4®7
APPENDIX C. DETAILS OF FOCUSED MATCHED PAIRSTable C-I and Table C-2 show the details of the focused matched pair analysis for topmount and side-mount refrigerator

-freezers, respectively

. Details include the annual energy consumption, retail prices, and model features. 

# #4.7 APPENDIX C. DETAILS OF FOCUSED MATCHED PAIRS
Table C-l and Table C-2 show the details ofthe focused matched pair analysis for topmount and side-mount refrigerator-freezers, respectively. Details include the annualenergy consumption, retailprices, and model features.

C-l

# #4,7 Table C-1. Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezer Matched Pairs

`•^ ^' d•1 ! i•^^•• _ +-, . s ^`'v sr.'"d'YP • t (DIY • = ^It tll. 9d ^
^ _ .r..

Baseline GE GE GTS22KBPWW 21.7 15

.4 6.4 25.7 448

. 7 529 81 Energy Star GE GE GTH22KBRWW 21.7 15.4 6.4 25.7 448.7 448
Baseline Frigidaire Frigidaire FRT21C5A 20.5 15

.3 5.3 23

.8 433

.2 509 77 Energy Star Frigidaire Frigidaire FRT21HC5D 20.6 15

.3 5.3 23

.8 433.2 432
Baseline Whirlpool Whirlpool ETIMHKXM 21.0 14

.6 6.4 25

.0 443

. 1 514 71 Energy Star Whirlpool Whirlpool ET1MTEXM 21.0 14

.5 6.5 25.1 443.6 443
Baseline Kenmore 74192 20

.6 15.4 5.3 23.9 434

. 1 509 77 Energy Star Kenmore 74172 20.6 15

.4 5.3 23

.9 434.1 432
Baseline Whirlpool Whirlpool ET8MHKXM 18.2 13.2 5.0 21

.4 412.4 484 72 Energy Star Whirlpool Whirlpool ET8FTEXM 18.2 13

.2 5.0 21

.4 412.4 412
Baseline GE GE GTS18KBPWW 17.9 12.9 5.0 21.0 409

.4 482 72 Energy Star GE GE GTH18BRWW 17.9 12.9 5

.0 21.0 409.4 410
Baseline GE GE GTR16BBSRWW 15.7 11

.6 4.1 18.3 386

.6 455.0 69 Energy Star GE GE GTH16BBSLWW 15.7 11.4 4

.1 18.1 385.6 386.0
Baseline GE GE GTR15BBR 14.9 10

. 8 4.1 17

.5 380

.0 447 67 Energy Star GE GE GTH15BBR 14.9 10

.7 4.1 17

.4 379.4 380 

# #4.7 Table C-l. Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezer Matched Pairs

GE GE GTS22KBPWW 21.7 15.4 6.4 25.7 448.7 529 81 GE GE GTH22KBRWW 21.7 15.4 6.4 25.7 448.7 448
Baseline Frigidaire Frigidaire FRT21C5A 20.5 15.3 5.3 23.8 433.2 509 77 Energy Star FRT21HC5D 20.6 15.3 5.3 23.8 433.2 432
Baseline Whirlpool Whirlpool ET1MHKXM 21.0 14.6 6.4 25.0 443.1 514 71 Energy Star Whirlpool Whirlpool ET1MTEXM 21.0 14.5 6.5 25.1 443.6 443
Baseline Kenmore 74192 20.6 15.4 5.3 23.9 434.1 509 77 Star Kenmore 74172 20.6 15.4 5.3 23.9 434.1 432
Baseline Whirlpool Whirlpool ET8MHKXM 18.2 13.2 5.0 21.4 412.4 484 72 Energy Star Whirlpool Whirlpool ET8FTEXM 18.2 13.2 5.0 21.4 412.4 412
Baseline GE GE GTS18KBPWW 17.9 12.9 5.0 21.0 409.4 482 72 Energy Star GE GE GTH18BRWW 17.9 12.9 5.0 21.0 409.4 410
Baseline GE GE GTR16BBSRWW 15.7 11.6 4.1 18.3 386.6 455.0 69 Star GE GE GTH16BBSLWW 15.7 11.4 4.1 18.1 385.6 386.0
GE GE GTR15BBR 14.9 10.8 4.1 17.5 380.0 447 67 GE GE GTH15BBR 14.9 10.7 4.1 17.4 379.4 380

C-2Table C-1. Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezer Matched Pairs (cont.)

Baseline GE GE GTS22KBPWW $799.00 $649.88 $799.00 $729.00 Energy Star GE GE GTH22KBRWW $849.00 $50.00 Not Listed $849.00 $50.00 $759.00 $30.00
Baseline Frigidaire Frigidaire FRT21C5A $449.00 Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Energy Star Frigidaire Frigidaire FRT21 HC5D $549.00 $100.00 Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed
Baseline Whirlpool Whirlpool ETIMHKXM $599.00 Not Listed $577.00 Not Listed Energy Star Whirlpool Whirlpool ETiMTEXM $759.00 $160.00 Not Listed $727.00 $150.00 Not Listed
Baseline Kenmore 74192 $499.98 $499.98 Not listed Not Listed Energy Star Kenmore 74172 $679.99 $180.01 $549.88 $49.90 Not listed Not Listed
Baseline Whirlpool Whirlpool ET8MHKXM $549.00 Not Listed $527.00 Not Listed Energy Star Whirlpool Whirlpool ET8FTEXM $599.00 $50.00 $569.99 $583.12 $56.12 Not Listed
Baseline GE GE GTS18KBPWW $709.00 649.9 647.0 629.0 Energy Star GE GE GTH18BRWW $729.00 $20.00 Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed

Baseline GE GE GTR16BBSRWW $579.00 Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Energy Star GE GE GTH16BBSLWW $609.00 $30.00 Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed
Baseline GE GE GTR15BBR $579.00 $549.99 Not Listed $499.00 Energy Star GE GE GTH15BBR $609.00 $30.00 $549.99 $0.00 Not Listed Not Listed

# #4.7
Table C-l. Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezer Matched Pairs (cont.)

Baseline GE GE GTS22KBPWW $799.00 $649.88 $799.00 $729.00 Energy Star GE GE GTH22KBRWW $849.00 Not Listed $849.00 $50.00 $759.00
Baseline Frigidaire Frigidaire FRT21C5A $449.00 Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed re Frigidaire FRT21 HC5D $549.00 $100.00 Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed
Baseline Whirlpool Whirlpool ET1MHKXM $599.00 Not Listed $577.00 Not Listed Energy Star Whirlpool ET1MTEXM $759.00 $160.00 Not Listed $727.00 $150.00 Not Listed
Baseline Kenmore 74192 $499.98 $499.98 Not listed Not Listed Energy Star Kenmore 74172 $679.99 $180.01 $549.88 $49.90 Not listed Not Listed Whirlpool ET8MHKXM $549.00 Not Listed $527.00 Not Listed Whirlpool ET8FTEXM $599.00 $50.00 $569.99 $583.12 $56.12 Not Listed
GE GTS18KBPWW $709.00 649.9 647.0 629.0 GE GTH18BRWW $729.00 $20.00 Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed
Baseline GE GE GTR16BBSRWW $579.00 Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Energy Star GE GE GTH16BBSLWW $609.00 $30.00 Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed
Baseline GE GE GTR15BBR $579.00 $549.99 Not Listed $499.00 Star GE GE GTH15BBR $609.00 $30.00 $549.99 $0.00 Not Listed Not Listed

C-3Table C-1. Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezer Matched Pairs (cont.)

Baseline GE GE GTS22KBPWW Not Listed $649.00 Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Ener Star GE GE GTH22KBRWW Not Listed $679.00 $30.00 $672.94 $649.00 Not Listed Baseline Frigidaire Frigidaire FRT21C5A $426.00 $479.00 $430.59 Not Listed $419.00 Ener Star Fri idaire Frigidaire FRT21HC5D $521.00 $95.00 Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Baseline Whirlpool Whirlpool ETIMHKXM $599.00 $529.00 $556.25 $529.00 $449.00 Energy Star Whirlpool Whirlpool ET1 MTEXM $599.00 $0.00 $629.00 $100.00 $600.00 $43.75 $649.00 $120.00 $529.00 $80.00
Baseline Kenmore 74192 Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Energy Star Kenmore 74172 Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed
Baseline Whirlpool Whirlpool ET8MHKXM $499.00 $489.00 $530.00 $489.00 $429.00 Ener Star Whirlpool Whirlpool ET8FTEXM $499.00 $0.00 $549.00 $60.00 $561.25 $31.25 $549.00 $60.00 $479.00 $50.00
Baseline GE GE GTS18KBPWW Not Listed. Not Listed $627.50 $649.00 Energy Star GE GE GTH18BRWW Not Listed Not Listed $652.50 $25.00 Not Listed
Baseline GE GE GTR16BBSRWW Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Ener Star GE GE GTH16BBSLWW Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed
Baseline GE GE GTR15BBR Not Listed' Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Ener y Star GE GE GTH15BBR Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed GE GE Frigidaire

Whirlpool

GE GE GE GE GE GE
GE GE 

### Table C-l. Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezer Matched Pairs (cont.)

74192 74172
ET8MHKXM

GTR16BBSRWW GTH16BBSLWW
GTR15BBR GTH15BBR Not Listed

C-4 Not Listed Not Listed
Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed 

# #4.7

Not Listed Not Listed
Not Listed Not Listed

# #4.,7

*ufWliirr: Table C- Z. Top-Mount Refrigerator

-Freezer Matched Pairs (cont.)

Baseline GE GE GTS22KBPWW n x glass 4 wire 1 Energy Star GE GE GTH22KBRWW n x glass 4 wire 1
Baseline Frigidaire Frigidaire FRT21C5A n x wire 2 wire 2 Energy Star Frigidaire Frigidaire FRT21HC5D n x wire 2 wire 1
Baseline Whirlpool Whirlpool ET1MHKXM n x glass 3 glass 1 Energy Star Whirlpool Whirlpool ET1 MTEXM n x glass 3 glass 1 has dual cooling Baseline Kenmore 74192 n x glass 3 wire 1 Energy Star Kenmore 74172 n x glass 5 wire 1 humidity controlled crispers
Baseline Whirlpool Whirlpool ET8MHKXM n x glass 3 1 Energy Star Whirlpool Whirlpool ET8FTEXM n x glass 4 1 has dual cooling
Baseline GE GE GTS18KBPWW n x glass 4 wire 1 Energy Star GE GE GTH18BRWW n x glass 4 wire 1
Baseline GE GE GTR16BBSRWW n x wire 2 0 Energy Star GE GE GTHI6BBSLW W n x wire 2 0
Baseline GE GE GTR15BBR n x wire 2 0 Energy Star GE GE GTH15BBR n x wire 2 0 

# #4.7
Table C-l. Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezer Matched Pairs (cont.)

Baseline GE GE GTS22KBPWW n x glass 4 wire Energy Star GE GE GTH22KBRWW n x glass 4 wire
Baseline Frigidaire Frigidaire FRT21C5A n x wire 2 wire 2 Energy Star Frigidaire Frigidaire FRT21 HC5D n x wire 2 wire 1
Baseline Whirlpool Whirlpool ET1MHKXM n x glass 3 glass ET1MTEXM n x 3 glass has dual cooling
Baseline Kenmore 74192 n x glass 3 wire Energy Star Kenmore 74172 n x glass 5 wire humidity controlled crispers
Baseline Whirlpool Whirlpool ET8MHKXM n x glass 3 Energy Star Whirlpool Whirlpool ET8FTEXM n x glass 4 has dual
Baseline GE GE GTS18KBPWW n x glass 4 wire Star GE GE GTH18BRWW n x ass 4 wire
Baseline GE GE GTR16BBSRWW n x wire 2 0 Energy Star GE GE GTH16BBSLWW n x wire 2 0
Baseline GE GE GTR15BBR n x wire 2 0 Energy Star GE GE GTH15BBR n x wire 2 0

C-5Table C-2. Side-Mount Refrigerator

-Freezer Matched Pairs

Baseline GE GE Profile I PSI23NGPWW 22.6 14.4 8.2 27.8 583.9 686 102 Energy Star GE GE Profile I PSH23PGRWW 1 122.6 14.1 8.5 28.0 585.2 584
Baseline GE GE GSS25KGPWW 24.9 15.4 9.6 31.0 611.1 715 105 Energy Star GE GE GSH25KGRWW 25.0 15.4 9.6 31.0 611.1 610

Baseline Frigidaire Frigidaire GLRS267ZD 25.7 16.5 9.5 31.9 619.3 727 109 Energy Star Frigidaire Frigidaire GLHS268ZD 26.0 16.5 9.5 31.9 619.4 618
Baseline Maytag Amana ASD2622HRW 25.6 15.8 9.8 31.8 617.9 705 88 Energy Star Maytag Amana ASD2624HEW 25.6 15.8 9.8 31.8 617.9 617 

# #4.7
Table C-2. Side-Mount Refrigerator-Freezer Matched Pairs

GE GE Profile PSI23NGPWW 22.6 14.4 8.2 27.8 583.9 686 102 GE GE Profile PSH23PGRWW 22.6 14.1 8.5 28.0 585.2 584
GE GE GSS25KGPWW 24.9 15.4 9.6 31.0 611.1 715 105 GE GE GSH25KGRWW 25.0 15.4 9.6 31.0 611.1 610
Baseline Frigidaire Frigidaire GLRS267ZD 25.7 16.5 9.5 31.9 619.3 727 109 Energy Star Frigidaire Frigidaire GLHS268ZD 26.0 16.5 9.5 31.9 619.4 618 Maytag Amana ASD2622HRW 25.6 15.8 9.8 31.8 617.9 705 88 Amana ASD2624HEW 25.6 15.8 9.8 31.8 617.9 617

C-6

# #4®7
Table C-2. Side-Mount Refrigerator-Freezer Matched Pairs (cont.)

Retail Price Data:`

$1,139.00 j $1,239.00 $140.01 Not Listed Not Listed
Not Listed $999.00

Not Listed Not Listed 

# #4.7
Table C-2. Side-MountRefrigerator-FreezerMatched Pairs (cont.)

C-7

# #4,7
Table C-2. Side-Mount Refrigerator

-Freezer Matched Pairs (cont.) Dat
^,'^', I ^ alt •.lc

Baseline GE GE Profile PSI23NGPWW $2,499.00 Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Energy Star GE GE Profile PSH23PGRWW Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed
Baseline GE GE GSS25KGPWW Not Listed Not Listed $1,269.00 Not Listed Not Listed Energy Star GE GE GSH25KGRWW Not Listed Not Listed $1,266.25 $-2.75 Not Listed Not Listed

Baseline Frigidaire Frigidaire GLRS267ZD Not Listed Not Listed $955.29 $1,029.00 Not Listed Energy Star Frigidaire Frigidaire GLHS268ZD $1,099.00 $1,189.00 $1,058.82 $103.53 $1,189.00 '$160.00 Not Listed

Baseline Maytag Amana ASD2622HRW Not Listed $869.00 $900.00 $869.00 $849.00 Energy Star Maytag Amana ASD2624HEW Not Listed $919.00 $50.00 $954.87 $54.87 $919.00 $50.00 $905.00 $56.00 

# #4.7
Table C-2. Side-Mount Refrigerator-Freezer Matched Pairs (cont.)

Baseline GE GE Profile PSI23NGPWW $2,499.00 Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Energy Star GE GE Profile PSH23PGRWW Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed
Baseline GE GE GSS25KGPWW Not Listed Not Listed $1,269.00 Not Listed Not Listed Energy Star GE GE GSH25KGRWW Not Listed Not Listed $1,266.25 $-2.75 Not Listed Not Listed Frigidaire Frigidaire GLRS267ZD Not Listed Not Listed $955.29 $1,029.00 Not Listed GLHS268ZD $1,099.00 $1,189.00 $1,058.82 $103.53 $1,189.00 $160.00 Not Listed
Baseline Maytag Amana ASD2622HRW Not Listed $869.00 $900.00 $869.00 $849.00 Energy Star Maytag Amana ASD2624HEW Not Listed $919.00 $50.00 $954.87 $54.87 $919.00 $50.00 $905.00 $56.00

C-8Table C-2. Side-Mount Refrigerator-Freezer Matched Pairs (cont.

Category Manufacturer brand Model Number ice None ' Installed installable Filter' ional<o 

## n%e'rP' W7 ll " nbe

Baseline Energy Star GE

GE GE Profile I

GE Profile PSI23NGPWW I

PSH23PGRWW ly

y x

x glass glass 3

3 wire 2 2
Baseline GE GE GSS25KGPWW y x x glass 3 4 Energy Star GE GE GSH25KGRWW y x x glass 3 4

Baseline Frigidaire Frigidaire GLRS267ZD y x x glass 3 glass 2 Energy Star Frigidaire Frigidaire GLHS268ZD y x x glass 3 glass 2

Baseline Maytag Amana ASD2622HRW y x x glass 3 Energy Star Maytag Amana* ASD2624HEW y x x glass 3 

# #4.7
Table C-2. Side-Mount Refrigerator-Freezer Matched Pairs (cont.)

Baseline GE GE Profile PSI23NGPWW x 3 wire 2 Energy Star GE GE Profile PSH23PGRWW x 3 2
Baseline GE GE GSS25KGPWW y x x glass 3 4 Energy Star GE GE GSH25KGRWW y x x glass 3 4
Baseline Frigidaire Frigidaire GLRS267ZD y x x glass 3 glass 2 Star re GLHS268ZD x x 3 2
Baseline Maytag Amana ASD2622HRW x x 3 Energy Star Maytag Amana' ASD2624HEW x x 3

C-9APPENDIX D. MANUFACTURER INTERVIEW GUIDE

BACKGROUND: PRIORITY SETTING CRITERIA 1. Energy savings potential 2. Potential economic benefits / burdens 3. Potential environmental or energy security benefits 4. Applicable deadlines for rulemakings 5. Incremental DOE resources required to complete rulemaking process 6. Evidence of market-driven or voluntary efficiency improvements 7. Status of required changes to test-procedures 8. Impact of potential regulation on product innovation 9. Fuel neutrality 10. Impact on peak demand for electricity 11. Impact of potential regulation on small businesses 12. Cumulative regulative burden on products, related products manufactured by the same manufacturers

DESIGN FOR ENERGY IMPROVEMENT INFORMATION REQUEST We want to confirm information on the cost impact of increasing refrigerator efficiency by understanding the design options involved in the efficiency improvement. We expect a significant, but not large, level of design change associated with bringing current refrigerator model lines up to Energy Star level. It is our expectation that Energy Star level can be achieved with some insulation thickness increase and use of more efficient refrigeration system components. Questions are as follows.1. What design changes are generally required to convert a typical 2001-compliant TopMount refrigerator to Energy Star level? Are the set of required design changes different for Side-by-Side models? 2. What additional design changes would be required to achieve an additional. 10% energy reduction, possibly the level of a future Energy Star?

D-1 

# #4.7 APPENDIX D. MANUFACTURER INTERVIEW GUIDE

BACKGROUND: PRIORITY SETTING CRITERIA 1. Energy savings potential 2. Potential economic benefits / burdens 3. Potential environmental or energy security benefits 4. Applicable deadlines for rulemakings 5. Incremental DOEresources required to complete rulemaking process 6. Evidence ofmarket-driven or voluntary efficiency improvements 7. Status ofrequired changes to test·procedures 8. Impact ofpotential regulation onproduct innovation 9. Fuel neutrality 10. Impact onpeak demand for electricity 11. Impact ofpotentialregulation on small businesses 12. Cumulative regulative burden onproducts, related products manufactured by the same manufacturers



### DESIGN FORENERGY IMPROVEMENT INFORMATIONREQUEST We want to confirm information on the cost impact ofincreasing refi'igerator efficiency by understanding the design options involved in the efficiency improvement. We expect a significant, but not large, level ofdesign change associated with bringing CutTent refi'igerator model lines up to Energy Starlevel. It is our expectation that Energy Starlevel can be achieved with some insulation thickness increase and use ofmore efficient refrigeration system components. Questions are as follows. 1. What design changes are generally required to convert a typical2001-compliant TopMount refrigerator to Energy Starlevel? Are the set ofrequired design changes different for Side-by-Side models? 2. What additional design changes would be required to achieve an additional 10% energy reduction, possibly the level ofa future Energy Star?

D-l

# #4®7

3. Are "matched pair" models instructive for understanding these design differences? We are defining matched pairs as a pair of models that are effectively the same units except for energy: the models have nearly identical internal volume , identical external dimensions and features, but one model meets the 2001 Energy Standard and the other meets Energy Star. Design differences between such units may be instructive in illustrating the differences between 2001-compliant units and current Energy Star units. Are such data available for Top-Mount and Side-by-Side model pairs? 4. What are the fundamental differences between required design changes that make the cost increment much higher for some product class/sizes than others?

MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS TOPICS 1 Key Issues 1.1 What are the key issues for your company regarding a possible future residential refrigerator rulemaking? 2 Conversion Costs 2.1 What level of capital expenditure and product conversion costs would you anticipate to make at higher standard levels? Please describe what they are and provide your best estimate of their respective magnitudes. 2.2 2.2 How would the imposition of new energy efficiency standards affect capacity utilization and manufacturing assets at your domestic production facilities ? Would a new standard result in stranded capital assets ? Would any facilities be closed or downsized? Added or upgraded? 2.3 How might a new standard impact product innovation? 3 Product Mix and Profitability 3.1 How would your company's product mix and marketing strategy change with changes in the efficiency standard? 3.2 Would the current percentage of shipments at Energy Star be the same under a new "15% more-efficient" standard? 3.3 What distribution channels are used from the manufacturer to the retail outlet? What is the share of product going through each distribution channel? 3.4 Generally how would new refrigerator standards impact your customer mix, distribution channels and corresponding profit margins`? 3.5 How might a new standard impact the Energy Star program and consequently your firm?

D-2 

# #4.7 3. Are "matched pair" models instructive for understanding these design differences? ·We are defining matched pairs as a pair ofmodels that are effectively the same units except for energy: the models have nearly identical internal volume, identical external dimensions and features, but one model meets the 2001 Energy Standard and the other meets Energy Star. Design differences between such units may be instructive in illustrating the differences between 200l-compliant units and current Energy Starunits. Are such data available for Top-Mount and Side-by-Side model pairs? 4. What are the fundamental differences between required design changes that make the cost increment much higher for some product class/sizes than others?



### MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS TOPICS 1 Key Issues 1.1 What are the key issues for your company regarding apossible future residential refrigerator rulemaking? 

### 2 Conversion Costs 2.1 What level ofcapital expenditure and product conversion costs would you anticipate to make at higher standard levels? Please describe what they are and provide your best estimate oftheir respective magnitudes. 2.2 2.2 How would the imposition ofnew energy efficiency standards affect capacity utilization and manufacturing assets at your domestic production facilities? Would a new standard result in stranded capital assets? Would any facilities be closed ordownsized? Added or upgraded? 2.3 How might a new standard impact product innovation? 

### 3 ProductMix and Profitability 3.1 How would your company's product mix and marketing strategy change with changes in the efficiency standard? 3.2 Would the current percentage ofshipments at Energy Starbe the same under a new"15% more-efficient" standard? 3.3 What distribution channels are used from the manufacturer to the retail outlet? What is the share ofproduct going through each distribution channel? 3.4 Generally how would new refrigerator standards impact your customer mix, distribution channels and corresponding profit margins? 3.5 How might a new standard impact the Energy Starprogram and consequently your fIrm?

D-23.6 In reference to the "summary data tables" provided by AHAM, for each product class,

what is the approximate percentage of shipments (i.e., market share) for each refrigerator size? 4 Exports, Foreign Competition, and Outsourcing 4.1 Would new standards change your projected export sales? 4.2 Would new standards have an impact on the portion of the domestic market served by foreign competition? 4.3 Would standards impact your decisions regarding domestic production levels? How would domestic employment levels change under new energy efficiency standards? 5 Market Shares and Industry Consolidation 5.1 In the absence of new standards, do you expect any industry consolidation? 5.2 How would new standards affect your ability to compete? 5.3 Could new standards disproportionately advance or harm the competitive positions of some firms? 5.4 Are there concerns over intellectual property? 5.5 Could new standards result in disproportionate economic or performance penalties for particular consumer/user subgroups? 5.6 Beyond price and energy efficiency, could new standards result in products that will be more or less desirable to consumers due to changes in product functionality, utility or other features? 6 Cumulative Regulatory Burden 6.1 Are there recent or impending regulations on refrigerators or other products that impose a cumulative burden on the industry? What is the total expected impact of those other regulations? 

# #4.7 3.6 

### In reference to the "summary datatables" provided by AHAM, for each product class, what is the approximate percentage ofshipments (i.e., market share) for eachrefrigerator size? 

### 4 Exports, Foreign Competition, and Outsourcing 4.1 Would new standards change your projected export sales? 4.2 Would new standards have an impact onthe portion ofthe domestic market served by foreign competition? 4.3 Would standards impact your decisions regarding domestic production levels? How would domestic employment levels change under new energy efficiency standards? 

### 5 Market Shares and Industry Consolidation 5.1 

### In the absence ofnew standards, do you expect any industry consolidation? 5.2 How would new standards affect your ability to compete? 5.3 Could new standards disproportionately advance or harmthe competitive positions of some fIrms? 5.4 Are there concerns over intellectual property? 5.5 Could new standards result in disproportionate economic orperformance penalties for particular consumer/user subgroups? 5.6 Beyond price and energy efficiency, could new standards result in products that will be more or less desirable to consumers due to changes in product functionality, utility or other features? 

### 6 Cumulative Regulatory Burden 6.1 Are there recent orimpending regulations onrefrigerators or other products that impose a cumulative burden on the industry?

What is the total expected impact ofthose otherregulations?

D-3