30% -25% 20% C 0 2 15% C 10% 5% 0% - -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% Annual Percent Change 

### Figure F.3 Annual Percent Change in Water-Only Prices for 38 Cities (from 1986-1998,

in 1997$) F.2 METHOD TO DETERMINE HISTORICAL WATER AND WASTEWATER PRICE TREND To determine an escalation rate, the data was manipulated in four ways: (1) a marginal price was figured for each city; (2) the weighted average marginal rate for the all 38 cities was calculated for the years 1986 and 1998; (3) the average marginal rate was converted into 1997$; and (4) a compounded percentage change between the years 1986 and 1998 was computed. The average escalation of marginal prices is determined by assuming a compound (exponential) percentage escalation between the points for 1986 and 1998. Equation 2 was used for the calculation. marginalprice1998 (1998-1986) -1 (1) Marginal Rate Growth Percentage = 

## I

## I 

# I marginalprice19861 

# )

F-4

### F.3 IMPLEMENTATION INTO LCC SPREADSHEET

Price Distributions. In the LCC analysis, two different distributions and one calculation was used. Distributions are based on 1998 prices and are converted to 1997 dollars. 1. water-only 2. water and wastewater 3. calculation of well water pumping savings (used electricity price) Unlike the situation for fuel prices, the RECS household data set sampled in the LCC analysis does not provide information on water use. Water prices are therefore selected from a distribution of prices that are applicable to each individual RECS sample. The price distribution used for a particular household depends on if it is connected to utility water, wastewater, or has an individual well pump and septic tank. Table F. 1 shows that for purposes of calculating water and wastewater savings, households can be separated into four categories: 1) having well pumps and septic systems (urban or rural); 2) having water and wastewater utilities (urban); 3) having water and wastewater utilities (rural); and 4) having a water utility only ( rural). Additional detail on the RECS database and the market segments are discussed below.

F-5

### Table F.1 Summary of Market Segments -Weighted RECS Households having a Washer and a Dryer Percent of Market Segment Total Data Used Market Households having a well pump (10.7% rural 16.7% Household-specific marginal & 6.0% urban) electricity price Urban without a well pump (i.e., having _____________ 

### 74.3% Urban water & wastewater utility water & wastewater) prices Rural - having utility water and wastewater 4.8% Urban water & wastewater prices Rural - having utility water and septic tank 4.2% Urban water-only prices RECS. A database of households having both a washer and a dryer was obtained from ETA's RECS93 survey. From this database households were classified according to whether or not a household has a well pump and whether a household is located in an urban or rural area. The information on which RECS house had a well pump allowed us to use the electricity marginal rate for that specific house to calculate the energy saved due to lowered demand for pumped water. If a household does not have a well pump, RECS is used to determine if the household is classified as urban or rural. Urban houses not having a well pump (74.3% of total households) are assumed to have utility water and wastewater connections. Rural households not having a well pump (9% of total households) are classified as having either both utility water and wastewater or having utility water and a septic tank. The ratio of these two options was determined from the American Housing Survey data (division of the Census Bureau). The remaining possibility, households having a wastewater utility and a well pump account for only 2% of all households, according to the Census Bureau's American Housing Survey(AHS). The data used was normalized without this last scenario to simplify the analysis. Urban: water & wastewater. The distribution and escalation for urban water and waste water is used. The marginal cost of water and wastewater disposal was determined by removing fixed rates and using a typical consumption level. Urban water and wastewater marginal rates were added to get a combined urban water and wastewater per gallon price. Rural: water & wastewater. For rural households with both water and wastewater services, we assumed that their price was the same as the urban segment and had the same escalation rate. In general, rural water prices tend to be higher than city water prices. Rural: water & septic tank. For the case of rural households having utility-supplied water, but not having wastewater services (e.g., having a septic tank), it was assumed that the water supplied had the same price as "water only" (without wastewater removal costs) for the F-6

### urban areas. Because we had disaggregated prices for urban water and wastewater, we could just

use the value for water. Although there is some evidence to the contrary, we assumed that there would be no savings in septic tank maintenance costs due to reducing the amount of water saved with an efficient clothes washer. Individual well & septic tank. Since there is not much documentation on how much cost or energy is attributed to using individual well pumps, the value had to be calculated. We assumed the installation and maintenance of a well pump was a fixed cost that did not vary with the amount of water use. The same assumption was made for septic tanks. We only considered the actual cost of electricity to pump the gallons of water used. Therefore, the savings were for the electricity saved by having reduced operating hours for the well pump due to the total amount of water pumped being less. The marginal electricity price for the individual RECS household with a pump was used. Factors that determine the electricity needed to pump a stated amount of water include the efficiency of the pump and pump motor and the depth from which the water has to be pumped. Other factors are the friction in the pipes that the pump has to overcome and the pressure setting of the bladder tank (assumed to be 40 psi or 92 feet of head) and the type of pump used (which affects efficiency). The depth of wells vary across the U.S. and is often dependent on the area of the country. A well of 100 to 300 feet is typical and therefore a depth of 200 feet was chosen as a typical value. The total discharge head is the sum of the depth to pumping level, the elevation, the service pressure, and the friction loss. The pumping energy required is directly proportional to the head of the pump. A typical well water pump was selected out of an equipment catalog (Grainger's 1997), thereby including the actual performance and efficiencies in an actual pump. Specifications included a 3/4 horsepower pump with a pumping capacity of 5.1 gpm at 292 feet of head. The electric motor efficiency was assumed to be 70%. Pumping energy was determined to be 2.61 kWh per 1000 gallons. This value was multiplied by the dollars per kWh and the reduction in the number of gallons (in l000s) pumped over a year to determine the dollars per year saved to pump well water from an individual well pump. The flowchart in Figure F.4 shows the decision process used by the LCC spreadsheet.

F-7RECS Houses cost with RECS

with Washers and

____________ Has a Well Calculate pump

____________ ____ ____ HH Electric Marginal Price Ders 'Yes (16.7%oftotal) No nitY?S Use Urban Water

____ & Wastewater An Urban (74.3% of total) No 53% is Water & Wastewater (Use Urban Water & Wastewater Prices) Then Rura hou_ (4.8% of total) Pump ______________ 47% is Water Only (i.e., have aseptic tank) (4.2% of total) Figure F.4 Flow Chart for Water Choice in LCC Spreadsheet 

### Average, High and Low Escalation Rates. The LCC spreadsheet also allows for high and low water price escalation sensitivities. The scenarios for high and low escalation were chosen in the following manner: 1. In the LCC analysis a distribution of water/wastewater price was used, but the escalation rate was modeled as an average value. Because the escalation rate can vary, high and low escalation rates were also part of a sensitivity analysis. The LCC spreadsheet allows the user to select high and low escalation rates. 2. The years 1986 and 1998 were used to determine the escalation rate. 3. The escalation rates were ranked from highest to lowest by city and a cumulative weighting by population was determined. 4. The high and low boundaries were determined by the escalation rates that fell within the population weighting of25%and 75%, corresponding to just above the 25% lowest rates F-8

### and just below the 75% of the lowest rates.

5. The escalation rate for well pumps is same as for escalation of electricity prices for individual RECS households (i.e., if electricity rates decrease, this should lower utility pumping costs.) Figure F.5 plots the future trends for the high, low, and average prices. Water price and water escalation rates used in spreadsheet. Table F.2 summarizes the water price input parameters for the LCC spreadsheet. $16 $14 I 

# / $12 

# / High 

# / $8

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 

### Figure F.5 Water and Wastewater Price Trends

F-9

### Table F.2 Marginal Prices and Escalation Rates

Market Segment Weighted Percent Annual Percent of Average Price Escalation Rate Total

_________________________ (1997$)

_________ _______ _______ 

### Households per 1000 gallons Average High Low

_________________________ Households having a well $0.21 AEO ref. AEO AEO 16.7% pump high low (10.7% rural & 6.0% urban)

_______________ ________ ______ _______ ___________ 

### Urban without a well pump $3.02 3.01 5.41 0.53 74.3% (i.e., having utility water & wastewater) Rural having utility water $3.02 3.01 5.41 0.53 4.8% and wastewater Rural having utility water $1.32 0.64 2.93 -2.89 4.2% and septic tank For the "sample caic" single value calculation used for the rebuttable payback, the weighted average water price of $2.48 is used. For purposes of determining national dollar savings, a single combined water price was used in the NES/Shipment spreadsheet. A year by year projected future price can be found in spreadsheet: NES2KO5 1 5-2T.xls in sheet "Projections" in columns V through Y. These values average in the cost of individual well pumps and households without wastewater disposal.

F-i 0

### REFERENCES

Ernst & Young, 1986 National Water and Wastewater Rate Survey, 1986. Washington, DC. 

### 2. Raftelis Environmental Consulting Group, 1998 Water and Wastewater Rate Survey, 1998. Charlotte, NC.

F-il

### APPENDIX G. LIFE-CYCLE-COST RESULTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

### TABLE OF CONTENTS G.l LIFE-CYCLE-COST RESULTS G-1 

### LIST OF FIGURES Figure G.1 MEF of 0.860 (5%Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences G-2 Figure G.2 MEF of 0.860 (5% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences G-2 Figure G.3 MEF of 0.908 (10% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences G-3 Figure G.4 MEF of 0.908 (10% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences G-3 Figure G.5 MEF of 0.961 (15%Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences G-4 Figure G.6 MEF of 0.961 (15% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences G-4 Figure G.7 MEF of 1.021(20% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences 

### G-5 Figure G.8 MEF of 1.02 1 (20% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences 

### G-5 Figure G.9 MEF = 1.04 in 2004, Reference Case. Frequency Chart of

LCC Differences G-6 Figure G. 10 MEF = 1.04 in 2004, Reference Case. Cumulative Chart of

LCC Differences G-6 Figure G. 11 MEF of 1.089 (25% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences G-7 Figure G.12 MEF of 1.089 (25%Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences G-7 Figure G.13 MEF of 1.257 (35%Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences G-8 Figure G.l4 MEF of 1.257 (35%Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences G-8 Figure G. 15 MEF = 1.26 in 2007, Reference Case. Frequency Chart of

LCC Differences G-9 Figure G.16 MEF = 1.26 in 2007, Reference Case. Cumulative Chart of

LCC Differences G-9 Figure G. 17 MEF of 1.362 (40% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences G-10 G-i

### Figure G. 18 MEF of 1.362 (40% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case. Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences ............................ 

### G-1O Figure G.19 MEF of1.485 (45%Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences ............................. 

### G- 11 Figure G.20 MEF of1.485 (45% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences ............................ 

### G-11 Figure G.21 MEF of 1.634 (50% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences ............................. 

### G- 12 Figure G.22 MEF of 1.634 (50% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences ........................... 

### G-12 Figure G.23 MEF of 0.860 (5% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences ............................. 

### G-13 Figure G.24 MEF of 0.86 (5%Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences ............................ 

### G-13 Figure G.25 MEF of 0.908 (10% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences ............................. 

### G-14 Figure G.26 MEF of 0.908 (10% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences ............................ 

### G-14 Figure G.27 MEF of 0.961 (15% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences ............................. 

### G- 15 Figure G.28 MEF of 0.961 (15% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences ............................ 

### G-15 Figure G.29 MEF of 1.021 (20% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences ............................. 

### G-16 Figure G.30 MEF of 1.021 (20% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences ............................ 

### G-16 Figure G.3 1 MEF = 1.04 in 2004, Low Growth. Frequency Chart of

LCC Differences ............................................. 

### G-17 Figure G.32 MEF = 

### 1.04, Low Growth. Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences ..... 

### G-17 Figure G.33 MEF of 1.089 (25% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences ............................. 

### G-18 Figure G.34 MEF of 1.089 (25% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences ............................ 

### G-18 Figure G.35 MEF of 1.257 (35% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences ............................. 

### G-19 Figure G.36 MEF of 1.257 (35% Reduction of Energy Use), Low Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences ............................ 

### G-19 Figure G.37 MEF = 1.26 in 2007, Low Growth. Frequency Chart of LCC Differences G-20 Figure G.38 MEF = 1.26 in 2007, Low Growth. Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences G-20 Figure G.39 MEF of 1.362 (40% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences ............................. 

### G-2 1 Figure G.40 MEF of 1.362 (40% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences ............................ 

### G-2 1 Figure G.41 MEF of 1.485 (45% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth. G-ii

### Frequency Chart of LCC Differences ............................. 

### G-22

Figure G.42 MEF of 1.485 (45% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences ............................ 

### G-22 Figure G.43 MEF of 1.634 (50%Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences ............................. 

### G-23 Figure G.44 MEF of 1.634 (50% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences ............................ 

### G-23 Figure G.45 MEF of 0.860 (5%Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences ............................. 

### G-24 Figure G.46 MEF of 0.86 (5%Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences ............................ 

### G-24 Figure G.47 MEF of 0.908 (10% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences ............................. 

### G-25 Figure G.48 MEF of 0.908 (10% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences ............................ 

### G-25 Figure G.49 MEF of 0.961 (15%Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences ............................. 

### G-26 Figure G.50 MEF of 0.961 (15%Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences ............................ 

### G-26 Figure G.5 1 MEF of 1.021(20% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences ............................. 

### G-27 Figure G.52 MEF of 1.021 (20% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences ............................ 

### G-27 Figure G.53 MEF = 1.04 in 2004, High Growth. Frequency Chart of

LCC Differences ............................................. 

### G-28 Figure G.54 MEF = 1.04 in 2007, High Growth. Cumulative Chart of

LCC Differences ............................................. 

### G-28 Figure G.55 MEF of 1.089 (25% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences ............................. 

### G-29 Figure G.56 MEF of 1.089 (25% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences ............................ 

### G-29 Figure G.57 MEF of 1.257 (35%Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences ............................. 

### G-30 Figure G.58 MEF of 1.257 (35%Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences ............................ 

### G-30 Figure G.59 MEF = 1.26 in 2007, High Growth. Frequency Chart of

LCC Differences ............................................. 

### G-3 1 Figure G.60 MEF = 1.26 in 2007, High Growth. Cumulative Chart of

LCC Differences ............................................. 

### G-3 1 Figure G.61 MEF of 1.362 (40% Reduction in Energy Usage), High Growth.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences ............................. 

### G-32 Figure G.62 MEF of 1.362 (40% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences ............................ 

### G-32 Figure G.63 MEF of 1.485 (45%Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth. G-iii

### Frequency Chart of LCC Differences ............................. 

### G-33

Figure G.64 MEF of 1.485 (45%Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences ............................ 

### G-33 Figure G.65 MEF of 1.634 (50%Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences ............................. 

### G-34 Figure G.66 MEF of 1.634 (50%Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences ............................ 

### G-34

G-iv

### APPENDIX G. LIFE-CYCLE-COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

This appendix contains the complete set of life-cycle-cost (LCC) and payback period results for all the efficiency improvement levels analyzed for clothes washers. For details on the methodology used to calculate the LCC and payback period refer to Chapter 7. 

### G.1 LIFE-CYCLE-COST RESULTS The following section contains the preliminary LCC results for all the efficiency improvement levels. For each efficiency level, frequency and cumulative charts are provided showing the distribution of expected LCC differences from the baseline design. Three economic growth scenarios, as defined in ETA's Annual Energy Outlook 1999, were run for each efficiency level. These can be found in Figures as shown below: Reference Economic Growth Scenario - G. 1 to G.22 Low Economic Growth Scenario - G.23 to G.44 High Economic Growth Scenario - G.45 to G.66

G-1Forecast: LCC Difference

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 189 Outliers 

### .026 256 019 

# ' 192 .

. 1 

# I
-I 

# h 128 

# tI .006 _________

_____________________________ ______________________ 

# 1 IO 

# ________ 64 = 

# I llbIIIIlIII

# Iiii1ihuilIII1ItII III 000

- 

# IdIhII.t i t 

# luI 0 

# . I ($50) ($38) ($25) ($13) $0 

### $ Figure G.1 MEF of 0.860 (5% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences 10,000 Trials 1.000 .750 500 .

. 

### 250 . .000 ($50) Forecast: LCC Difference Cumulative Chart

0 11 -' .= = = 

### Figure G.2 MEF of 0.860 (5% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences 

### 189 Outliers

- 10000

G-2 ($38) ($25) ($13) $0

$Forecast: LCC Difference 10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 164 Outliers .034 335 .0251 

## 111111 

# Ilk

_________________________ 251.2 1 I- -' 

## IIIli1

__________________________________ 

# : .0171 167.5
. 

## !uh1

. 008 ••

# 11d11 1

# ilih11 83.75 000 Mean = 0

_____________________________________________ iinuuiñuiuui ($125) ($88) ($50) ($13) $25



# _______ Certainty is 99.13% from -Infinity to $0 $ 

### Figure G.3 MEF of 0.908 (10% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences

Forecast: LCC Difference 10,000 Trials Cumulative Chart 164 Outliers 

### 1.000 

# .ii

# iiIIIII II 10000 .750 -' 

## .soo 250 Mean ($42 I 

# .000 m.iitttMHuhIItHIIfhIOfhIhIlIH

# I1 0 

## 4 ($125) ($88) ($50) ($13) $25

Certainty is 99.13% from -Infinity to $0 $ 

### Figure G.4 MEF of 0.908 (10% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences G-3Forecast: LCC Difference 10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 157 Outliers .040 395 .030 296.2

_____________________________________________

### I

# Il!!jff!"

___________________________ . .020 

### IIIII ..; 197.5

-

- E ________________________________________ 

## .,iiII '0' 

## 1

_________________________________ 010
, , III 

# - 9875 .000 1.1 .,t!IittlIiIIlIIIIlIIII 

# I III

# hit

# .I. 0 

### ($225) ($150) ($75) $0 $75

Certainty is 95.95% from -Infinity to $0 $ 

### Figure G.5 MEF of 0.961 (15% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences

Forecast: LCC Difference 10,000 Trials Cumulative Chart 157 Outliers iUlUil 10000 1.000 .750 ____________________________________________________ 

# iiiiiiIIIIII'P1
rD .500 _________________________ ' . I- _______________________ .250


### _______ .



# (h

_______________ = •ItIIIIIIIIII•IkWWI 111111 I 

# .000 ..rnijifliiiiiiIIlillllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0 

### ($225) ($150) ($75) $0 $75

Certainty is 95.95% from -Infinity to $0 $ 

### Figure G.6 MEF of 0.961 (15% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences
G-4

### 10,000 Trials Forecast: LCC Difference Frequency Chart 200 Outliers .034 026 - 342 2565 1⁄4 ::•l



# II l!

. .017

________________________ ____________________________________ __________________________________________ 

### ... ________________________________ 171

.

HI 

### = .009 85.5 

# I IIIlIItlIlIIIlllI 

# i 000 uitiitttit I 0

- • I I I 

### ($250) ($150) ($50) $50 $150 Certainty is 83.62% from -Infinity to $0 $ 

### Figure G.7 MEF of 1.021 (20% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences



### Forecast: LCC Difference 10,000 Trials Cumulative Chart 200 Outliers 1.000 

# I

- 10000 750 ______________________________________________________

# I

_______________ -I rD 

## .500.1 .= 

### = rD 

### = .250 Mean ($61 ....n..n.nmm

____________ .000

# L_ 0 I I ($250) ($150) ($50) $50 $150 Certainty is 83.62% from -Infinity to $0

### $ Figure G.8 MEF of 1.021 (20% Reduction in Energy USe), Reference Case.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences
G-510,000 Trials Forecast: LCC Difference Frequency Chart 152 Outliers .031 .023 - - ___________ 308 _________ 231 liii liii I iiil

. ________________ .015

_______ _______________ __________________________________

________________ '1


### _______ _______________ 

### _______ 154

- .008 77



# r LLL t ttIIhII

# I tl 1I L .000 1tiiit 1 . ______________________ __ _______ 0 ($400) ($263) ($125) $13 $150

Certainty is 89.78% from -Infinity to $0 $

. Figure G.9 MEF = 1.04 in 2004, Reference Case. Frequency Chart of LCC

Differences Forecast: LCC Difference 10,000 Trials Cumulative Chart 152 Outliers 1.000.1_ 

# .d1LLttI 10000 .750 -I

- 

# ''''Iii ___________________________ .5001

_________________________ II I 

# _____ = rD =

___________________________________________________________________________ 

# '1T0•li]LIi

_____________ .250 IVlean (1D 

# ..h...lIIIIIIlHhlll,IlIIIIIIIIIIIIII II1HmII .0001 0 ($400) ($263) ($125) $13 $150

Certainty is 89.78% from -Infinity to $0 $ Figure G.10 MEF = 1.04 in 2004, Reference Case. Cumulative Chart of LCC

Differences G-610,000 Trials Forecast: LCC Difference Frequency Chart 203 Outliers 

### .026 020

# _______________________________JIIIII1H

# lillIb!_____ 261



# _______ 195.7 

# I :::

i i 1 ihffluiIl1II 

# I

# 1 I 

# 'fJ 1 1 i .000 1i
_________________________ 

# __ ________ 0 ($800) ($550) ($300) ($50) $200

Certainty is 87.35% from -Infinity to $0 $ 

### Figure G.11 MEF of 1.089 (25% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences

Forecast: LCC Difference 10,000 Trials Cumulative Chart 203 Outliers 1.000{

- 10000 750 ___________________________________

________..til 

# PP 1

______________________________________ 

# I
.000 

# .........,,,,,,,niuuuuuIIflhIIIIIIIIIIIII i 

# 1 ($800) ($550) ($300) ($50) $200

Certainty is 87.35% from -Infinity to $0 $ 

### Figure G.12 MEF of 1.089 (25% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences G-7

### 10,000 Trials Forecast: LCC Difference Frequency Chart 108 Outliers .033 

### - 

# III 

# III 334
025

• 

# . . 2505

. 'i

. _________________________

.017 __________ __________________________________________ IlIllI

__________________________________________________________ ________________Li 167



### "h = .008 83.5

1111111i ____________ h11uiiIthlH I

# 1[L L !L .000 ... 

# 1. :
_ ....

### _- 0

($1,250) ($750) ($250) $250 $750 Certainty is 79.12% from -Infinity to $0

### $

.... 

### Figure G.13 MEF of 1.257 (35% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences 

### 10,000 Trials

- 

### Forecast: LCC Difference

Cumulative Chart -- - 108 Outliers 1.000 II 11iI1I II 

# 1,11 .750

___________________________________________ _______

- I III I 

# i J

_____________________________ .500 ____________________________________________________________________ 

# ..

# _ . .

11111 iiF II '' . . .

M] 

### =

.. II D 1 II 111111 11111 

# II 111 liii

_________________________ .250 

# .ilIIII

. '''
. __________________________________________ .000 -__ ___ 

# ___
__________________ __

__________ 

### ($1,250) ($750) ($250) $250 $750

Certainty is 79.12% from -Infinity to $0

### $ Figure G.14 MEF of 1.257 (35% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences
G-810,000 Trials Forecast: LCC Difference Frequency Chart 147 Outliers .033

_________________ .025 - ____________________________________ .Iiii 11111
_______________________________________ 327 245.2

=

. _________________ .016 . •1
_____________________________ Iii I . _____________________________________ 163.5 .008 

### 81.75



# IIIII II . 

# I i 

# .000 hhi,l.IiIIi
.....



# ll
...... _________ - 

## i 0 

### ($1,250) ($750) ($250) $250 $750

Certainty is 80.28% from -Infinity to $0 $ Figure G.15 MEF = 1.26 in 2007, Reference Case. Frequency Chart of LCC

Differences
10,000 Trials Forecast: LCC Difference Cumulative Chart 147 Outliers 1.000 

# .7501

___________________________________________________ ________________ 10000

- I .500 I 11111 iI I
. .250

____________________________________

# .!IlIIIIIl.... =

. 

# ft.

_ .ooo 0 ($1,250) ($750) ($250) $250 $750

Certainty is 80.28% from -Infinity to $0 $ Figure G.16 MEF = 1.26 in 2007, Reference Case. Cumulative Chart of LCC

Differences 

### G-910,000 Trials Forecast: LCC Difference Frequency Chart 119 Outliers .037

- 365 .027 273.7

I 

## i

_________________ .018 ___________________________ ________________________________________ 182.5 -

. 

# 0 .009 _______________ ...

_______________ 

## !hIHd !

# llHI•••• 91.25 .000 0 ($1,250) ($750) ($250) $250 $750 Certainty is 79.73% from -Infinity to $0 $ Figure G.17 MEF of 1.362 (40% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences

Forecast: LCC Difference 10,000 Trials Cumulative Chart 119 Outliers

1.000 .7501 10000

________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________ In 

## __________________ -'



# .iiiII •11 rD 

## 5001 .= = .250 

# 11IIIIllhIllhIoII1Hii1llllL

- $243 mlii

- 0 .000
- ($1,250) ($750) ($250) $250 $750

Certainty is 79.73% from -Infinity to $0

## $ Figure G.18 MEF of 1.362 (40% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences G- 10

### 10,000 Trials

.032 .024 .016

. 

### Forecast: LCC Difference Frequency Chart

000 = ($18) ($1,250) ($750) ($250) $250 $750

Certainty is 68.74% from -Infinity to $0 $ 

### 83 Outliers - - 323 242.2 -'1

-' 161.5 

### = 80.75 Figure G.19 MEF of 1.485 (45% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences



### Forecast: LCC Difference 10,000 Trials Cumulative Chart 83 Outliers 1.000• - 10000 .750 ________________________________________________________ .1 .500 __________________________________________________________ 

# .11111

# M .JJ[J'1 rrirj_ ..l 

## FI1 I

. 

### IP 1 L 

# _____________________________________________________________ fi M]IIII I I II I 

### = .250 

# lII1i

- 

# 1i1:i. •• 

### ___L 

# ._rn..iippipiiiutIlllluhIIIiI flflfflj Mri 

### .I7)LL ($1,250) ($750) ($250) $250 $750

Certainty is 68.74% from -Infinity to $0 $ Figure G.20 MEF of 1.485 (45% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences G- 11

### 10,000 Trials Forecast: LCC Difference Frequency Chart 78 Outliers .033 .025 

# - 327 245.2 

# jJjJJJ .016 ___________________________. 163.5 175 

# ::: : .2 ($1,250) ($750) ($250) $250 $750

Certainty is 67.58% from -Infinity to $0 $

_ .

. 

### Figure G.21 MEF of 1.634 (50% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences



### Forecast: LCC Difference 10,000 Trials Cumulative Chart 78 Outliers 1.000 

# - 10000 .750 _________________________________________________________

# _________•HIHIUHHQDHHHHUU........ .500

. 

# .!1•11•I'1U1111

# mu¶M 

# .4'

.,1dIi

# I 11111 2 ____________________________________________________ 50 r:

- 

# ......iiimi!llIIIIIIIIIII 

# ___ 0 .000

- ($1,250) ($750) ($250) $250 $750

Certainty is 67.58% from -Infinity to $0 $ 

### Figure G.22 MEF of 1.634 (50% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences G-1 210,000 Trials Forecast: LCC Difference Frequency Chart 136 Outliers 262 196 5

- . -I 131

. 65.5 4-U 

## so .I

### Figure G.23 MEF of 0.860 (5% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth. Frequency

Chart of LCC Differences

Forecast: LCC Difference 10,000 Trials Cumulative Chart 136 Outliers 1.000

- 10000 .750 1I1gJJ!JJ(( •11

________________________ 

# 11111

____

_________________________________________________________ birm1f1ftI ______________ 

# I

______________________________________________________________-

# •iilII .ooo 0 ($45) ($34) ($23) ($11) 

### $ Figure G.24 MEF of 0.86 (5% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth. Cumulative

Chart of LCC Differences
G- 13 ($45) ($34) ($23) ($1 1) $

### 10,000 Trials Forecast: LCC Difference Frequency Chart 105 Outliers .036

______________________________________________________________ IIIIII1ILL._ - 358 

### I ftli

. .018 

### ____________________________ - 179 .009

_________________ ______________________________ _________________________ 89.5 

# i.ii..i,iiilIItithIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

_ 000 .

______________________ -- 0 ($125) ($88) ($50) ($13) $25

Certainty is 98.87% from -Infinity to $0 $ Figure G.25 MEF of 0.908 (10% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences
10,000 Trials Forecast: LCC Difference Cumulative Chart 105 Outliers 1.000

- 10000



### _______________ _________________________________________ _________ 

# UHIIII fl lILT

= 

# ii Hi •h

. ____ 500 _____________ I = 1 

# ttfl

____________________________ 250
________________________________________________________________ 

# L I 0 ($125) ($88) ($50) ($13) $25

Certainty is 98.87% from -Infinity to $0 $ Figure G.26 MEF of 0.908 (10% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences G-14Forecast: LCC Difference

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 177 Outliers

.039 390 .029 

# !ItIUL 292.5 = ii .020 liii.. 195
. 

### I = 010
_____________________________ 

# iiiII II! I



### __________________________ 975 Ul:. 0 

### ($200) ($131) ($63) $6 $75 Certainty is 95.53% from -Infinity to $0 

### $ Figure G.27 MEF of 0.961 (15% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth. Frequency

Chart of LCC Differences

Forecast: LCC Difference 10,000 Trials Cumulative Chart 177 Outliers 1 .000 j,.,.,.unuuiuuu
- 10000 

# .7501 PlifflitHik

.000

# __.1..11•11,,,..InhIllluhIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

___________________________ 0 

# ! ___________________________ llllllDllll ________ ($200) ($131) ($63) $6 $75



# __________ Certainty is 95.53% from -Infinity to $0 

### $ Figure G.28 MEF of 0.961 (15% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences G- 15

### 10,000 Trials Forecast: LCC Difference Frequency Chart 147 Outliers .039 .029 - 

# dl. 388 291 

# ' F 

# [

. __________________ .019
______________________________________________ _______________________________ . . . :- 

### 194

. I- 

### = .010 97 000 U I I I 0 

### ($250) ($150) ($50) $50 $150

Certainty is 82.44% from -Infinity to $0 $ 

### Figure G.29 MEF of 1.021 (20% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences



### Forecast: LCC Difference 10,000 Trials Cumulative Chart 147 Outliers .750 1 -I 1.000 

# dIOfluIiI1!i 10000

. .500

. 

### = . - = Mean= 

# .250 IllltIIIIllI.tIIIt1Ii1 I

..

# __________ 0 .000 1,11111 ___________ - ($250) ($150) ($50) $50 $150

Certainty is 82.44% from -Infinity to $0 $ 

### Figure G.30 MEF of 1.021 (20% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences G- 16

### Forecast: LCC Difference

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 173 Outliers .032 .024 

# I.I!iIJII,IJI1A - 317 237.7 

# 0 III" -I

. .016 

## '

___________________________________________________________________________ m ________________________________________________ 158.5

. i ir 

### = 

# f 008 lii

________________________________________________________ L _____________________________________hI Ii iii 1 I I i = 79.25 000 i

_

•

## ..iiIui,IluuIIllIIIIIIIIIIIIII M kim ___ eaii = ($4)

_______ uiimnii 0 . ($350) ($225) ($100) $25 $150

Certainty is 86.60% from -Infinity to $0 $ Figure 

### G.31 MEF = 

### 1.04 in

### 2004, Low Growth. Frequency

### Chart of

### LCC Differences



### Forecast: LCC Difference 10,000 Trials Cumulative Chart 173 Outliers .7501 1 -I .500 1.000



## _______________

# JigF10000



### = = .250 ____________________.1I] 1111 .niu.u.i.u....... 0 .000

# L'a'w"rn"I"uIIIIII

# H Mean = ($84) ($350) ($225) ($100) $25 $150

Certainty is 86.60% from -Infinity to $0 $ 

### Figure G.32 MEF = 

### 1.04, Low Growth. Cumulative Chart of

### LCC Differences
G- 1710,000 Trials Forecast: LCC Difference Frequency Chart 117 Outliers 

### .027

______________________________________________________________ ___________ - 

### 273

_______________

.... 

# I

# lIII bLUL IIJI1 .014 

# .

. . .. _____________________ 136.5

..... 007- 

### __J..!b11III .....i. i 6825 F 000 ____________

_____________ ________________ 

### ___ __________ 0 ($700) ($475) ($250) ($25) $200

Certainty is 82.63% from -Infinity to $0 $ 

### Figure G.33 MEF of 1.089 (25% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences

Forecast: LCC Difference 10,000 Trials Cumulative Chart 117 Outliers 1.000

__________________________________________________________ 

### _______________

# liUEELHllhILH11 10000 .750

______ 

# r -I

- .500 .-. .= o .250

-- mØll 

# ........,,.IIIIIIllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIOIII

________ 

# __________- 0 

### '4 ($700) ($475) ($250) ($25) $200

Certainty is 82.63% from -Infinity to $0 $ 

### Figure G.34 MEF of 1.089 (25% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences G- 18

### Forecast: LCC Difference



# 10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 107 Outliers .036 

# - 364 .027_____ ____273

.. .018 '.. 182
.

. 

# ______________________________________________iiiiIliM ftMft ft _______________________________________________ 

### = 

# ::: .I1,,h.hIhIIIIIIIllhIIIIOftUJft' = (b169)] :1 ($1,000) ($563) ($125) $313 $750

Certainty is 74.85% from -Infinity to $0 $ 

### Figure G.35 MEF of 1.257 (35% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences



### Forecast: LCC Difference 10,000 Trials Cumulative Chart 107 Outliers 1.000 750 __________________________________________________ ________ j 10000



# _________ on'

. .500

. .250 

# I liii Mean ($169 Ullill IIIHIIIIUi .000 

# ..w•uuo'fflIfflIlidffl1OIth 

# _______________________________________ LIA 0 'l• ($1,000) ($563) ($125) $313 $750

Certainty is 74.85% from -Infinity to $0 $ 

### Figure G.36 MEF of 1.2 57 (35% Reduction of Energy Use), Low Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences
G- 1910,000 Trials Forecast: LCC Difference Frequency Chart 98 Outliers .037 .028 

# - 374 280.5 

# . -'1



# I

- -' .019 

# __

_ 187

.

. rD 0 .009 

### 93.5



# 0111111N1Ih L IIH ($165) 

# - 

# hll1dl1IIIIJIII .IIIII .000

__________ 

# _ _______________________ 

# _________ 0 ($1,000) ($563) ($125) $313 $750

Certainty is 74.27% from -Infinity to $0 $

. 

### Figure G.37 MEF = 1.26 in 2007, Low Growth. Frequency Chart of LCC Differences
10,000 Trials Forecast: LCC Difference Cumulative Chart 98 Outliers 1.000 

# - 10000



# 111iiiiioiiiiiii1IHIllHIIHHHII111 0 _________________

__________________________________

# ________ 

# 1

______________ 

# 'flflflElTfflI

_____________________________

# .iiI 

# fli I 

# Jd fl 250 

# _!.IIi1I1Fi

I I 

# 111iiiiiiiiH .... 000 

# ,,,,.,11 0 ($1,000) ($563) ($125) $313 $750

Certainty is 74.27% from -Infinity to $0 $ 

### Figure G.38 MEF = 1.26 in 2007, Low Growth. Cumulative Chart of LCC

Differences
G-20Forecast: LCC Difference

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 105 Outliers .035 

# Illill1 354 

### 265.5

. 

# ii 

# 11111 = rD

. .018 

### jJ ft..
- 177 11111 I i II I-


### ________ .111.


# __________ O00 _________________________ . J ($1,000) ($563) ($125) $313 $750

Certainty is 73.01% from -Infinity to $0 $

. 

### Figure G.39 MEF of 1.362 (40% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth. Frequency

Chart of LCC Differences

Forecast: LCC Difference 10,000 Trials Cumulative Chart 105 Outliers 1 .000 10000 .750• ______________________________________________________ --' .= .500-

. .250- 

# IIiIII1lfli• 11.uitifflIlldIIII 000 - 0 ($1,000) ($563) ($125) $313 $750

Certainty is 73.01% from -Infinity to $0 $ 

### Figure G.40 MEF of 1.362 (40% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences
G-2 1

### 10,000 Trials Forecast: LCC Difference Frequency Chart 82 Outliers .029 .022 

# i1iHL - 

### 294 220.5 

### I IIIIIIIIIIII! •, 

### I.IllIllllllllll! I

. .015 

### .'UU1llhIllh1JJ.- IllIllIllIllIl • 147

... 

### IllIllIllIllil .007 II IlIlIllIllilIl



### i,.Ill

.. 73.5

- .000 .. . 0 ($1,000) ($563) ($125) $313 $750

Certainty is 62.16% from -Infinity to $0 $

. 

### Figure G.41 MEF of 1.485 (45% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences

Forecast: LCC Difference 10,000 Trials Cumulative Chart 82 Outliers 1 .000] _____________________________________________________



### _________

# dIftflflHIIliIHIHHflUUH1......i... 10000 .750 .500

- 

# .q±

. 

### .250

________ .=



### _________________ ]II 

### = Mean ($1O

. . ... 

### ___________________ I 

# .11...11.nuittufflllhlIlIIIIll Il1EI1lIl1I1ItRIuJJ1 . 

# .L 0

___________________________________________ I .000i__ 

# __ I±

($1,000) ($563) ($125) $313 $750

Certainty is 6216% from -Infinity to $0 $ 

### Figure G.42 MEF of 1.485 (45% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences
G-2210,000 Trials Forecast: LCC Difference Frequency Chart 88 Outliers .032 024 . !Lii._______________ 

# - 318

_________ .E .016

.

___________________________ 9 5 

# :::

_________________________________________ 

## ______________ ($1,000) ($563) ($125) $313 $750

Certainty is 61.36% from -Infinity to $0 $ Figure G.43 MEF of 1.634 (50% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences

Forecast: LCC Difference 10,000 Trials Cumulative Chart 88 Outliers

______________________________________________________ 

## _________ 

# 1HHUU. 10000



# il

. .500 I o



# _______ I- _______________________ 250 

# IIILIJIIllhttIIIItIIIIIIIIIIO[lltllHJ 1\!lean = 0 .000

---- 

## I ($1,000) ($563) ($125) $313 $750

Certainty is 61.36% from -Infinity to $0 $ Figure G.44 MEF of 1.634 (50% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth.

Cumulative Chart ofLCC Differences
G-23

## 10,000 Trials

.027 .020 .014- I- 

## .0001 IL

($60) 

## Forecast: LCC Difference

Frequency Chart 182 Outliers' 272

- f- 

### 204 1 I -I 

### -j 136

. _..__..1 68 $0 

### Figure G.45 MEF of 0.860 (5% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth. Frequency

Chart of LCC Differences



## Forecast: LCC Difference 10,000 Trials Cumulative Chart 182 Outliers 1.000

- 10000 .750k _________

_____________________________________________ 0 ($60) ($45) ($30) ($15) $0 

## $ Figure G.46 MEF of 0.86 (5% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth. Cumulative

Chart of LCC Differences G-24

($45) ($30) ($15)



## $

### 10,000 Trials

.029

... 

### .022
.015

.I000 ($125) 

### 218.2 -'1 -I 145 5 .= 

### = = 72.75
0 

### Figure G.47 MEF of 0.908 (10% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth. Frequency

Chart of LCC Differences



### Forecast: LCC Difference 10,000 Trials Cumulative Chart 241 Outliers

1.000 ----10000 .7501 _______________________________________

# _________II1JIIii1II

# IIJE .W J .500 ____________________________________________________________ 

# 4LIIII!I!LI

.

# 4 i.



# ! L

. ........_ .250 .000

________________________________________________________________________ 0 

### ($125) ($88) ($50) ($13) $25

Certainty is 99.31% from -Infinity to $0

### $ Figure G.48 MEF of 0.908 (10% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

'Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences



### Forecast: LCC Difference Frequency Chart 241 Outliers

, -291

G-25 

### ($88) ($50) ($13) $25 Certainty is 99.31% from -Infinity to $0

### $10,000 Trials Forecast: LCC Difference Frequency Chart 202 Outliers 037 .028 ___________________ 371

_______________ 278.2 -I, -' rD .019 185.5 

# & 009 

# 1111111111W

# i 

# L = 92.75 

# I dhI IIIIII1Ill" Mean = ($71) 

### Ihll 

# IIlhIIItlhI!l1llIll

___ .000 

# ..1IId1

___________________ 

## I ___ 

# __________ _______ 0 

### ($225) ($150) ($75) $0 $75

Certainty is 96.30% from -Infinity to $0 $ 

### Figure G.49 MEF of 0.961 (15% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences

Forecast: LCC Difference 10,000 Trials Cumulative Chart 202 Outliers 1 .000 ..flHUUHI - 10000 .750 _____________________________ 

# H
= __________________________________________________ 

# .1111 III 

# 2 .250 ________________________________ 

# Jf-H .000 

# 1.mtnuiiiutiiitIIILIllI11hII1iI1II

# jL'L c1 0 ($225) ($150) ($75) $0 $75

Certainty is 96.30% from -Infinity to $0 $ 

### Figure G.50 MEF of 0.961 (15% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences
G-26Forecast: LCC Difference



## 10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 125 Outliers

.038 

# i - 381 

# .029 _________ .1Jui!IL_______________ ______________________•
_________ 285.7



# I

. _______________

.019 ______________________________•L.

_______________________ I

____________ ______________ ________ 190.5 - 

### 1 = II 

# - o

# :::

_ III

' = 

# : 25

_ ($300) ($188) ($75) $38 $150 Certainty is 85.44% from -Infinity to $0

## $ Figure G.51 MEF of 1.021 (20% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences 10,000 Trials Forecast: LCC Difference Cumulative Chart 125 Outliers 1.000 d

# 1ioillIHHIHHIOII 10000 

## ,lII

__________________ .750 _________________________________________ 

## .

# ill .11 -' .500 

# t .0 = 0 o L I

_________

_______ .2501
____________________ I 

### I

_________________ 

# 1 = 

# I Mean ($681 

# uiIllh1llH1JllIIIO1 .000 r,..._uu.iu uii,minniid.LjiJLL1L 

# .rn.iui.iiu 0 ($300) ($188) ($75) $38 $150 Certainty is 85.44% from -Infinity to $0

## $ Figure G.52 MEF of 1.021 (20% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences G-27

### 10,000 Trials Forecast: LCC Difference Frequency Chart 171 Outliers .030 .023 300 225 -'1

-' .015 150 • 

# k .008 

# ll = 

## iI 

# I Mean B124) 

## IIQII! Ih .000- 

## bII, i I 

# - ($450) ($300) ($150) $0 $150

Certainty is 92.06% from -Infinity to $0 $ 

### Figure G.53 MEF = 1.04 in 2004, High Growth. Frequency Chart of LCC Differences 

### Forecast: LCC Difference 10,000 Trials Cumulative Chart 171 Outliers 1 .000 

## ,1ioHflhllllluIl 

# - 10000



# 1 IIIIflH. -- II 

# 1 E

_________________________________________________ 

# ill i 

# . .500 

# - 

# -. - -.H i . I i 

# Hi 

# -

______________________________________________________ 

# III "0' I '' 

### = 

# :::

- 

# ....,..,.,,iiiiiiillhIflhIIIIIII

# H1ftll

- 0 ($450) ($300) ($150) $0 $150

Certainty is 92.06% from -Infinity to $0 $ 

### Figure G.54 MEF = 1.04 in 2007, High Growth. Cumulative Chart of LCC

Differences G-28