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) Marginal Rate Growth Percentage = I I

-1 (1) I marginalprice19861 )

F-4

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
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

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
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

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
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-7

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
RECS 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

An Urban ____

& Wastewater

(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 of 25% and 75%, corresponding to just above the 25% lowest rates

F-8

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
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

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
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

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
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

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
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

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
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 of 1.485 (45% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences ............................. G- 11

Figure G.20 MEF of 1.485 (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

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
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

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
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

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
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-1

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Forecast: LCC Difference

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 189 Outliers

.026 256

019 '

. 192

.

1

I

-I h

128

.006 _________ ________________________________ ___________________ tI 1 IO ________ 64

=

000 - IdIhIII l. tlbIIiIItlIIIIiii1ihuilIII1I tII IIIluI . 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

$

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Forecast: LCC Difference

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 164 Outliers

.034 335

.0251 111111 Ilk _________________________ 251.2

1

IIIli1 I- -'

__________________________________ : .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-3

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Forecast: 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

1.000 iUlUil 10000

.750 ____________________________________________________ iiiiiiIIIIII'P1

rD

.500 _________________________

' .

I- _______________________ .250

_______ . _______________ (h

=

.000 ..rnijifliiiiiiIIlillllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII •ItIIIIIIIIII•IkWWI 111111 I 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

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

Forecast: LCC Difference

Frequency Chart 200 Outliers

.034

026

- 342

2565

1⁄4

::•l II . .017 l! __________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________ ...

________________________________ 171 .

HI =

.009 85.5

I I IIlIItlIlIIIlllI i 000 uit iittti t 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_ I I 0

($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-5

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

Forecast: LCC Difference

Frequency Chart 152 Outliers

.031

.023 - - ___________

308

_________ 231

liii liii

I iiil

.

________________ .015 _________________________________________ _______________

________________

'1 ______________________ _______ 154 -

.008 77 r

.000 1tiiitLLLLttl11I.ttIIhII I ______________________ _________ 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

-

.5001 _________________________ II''''Ii i ___________________________ 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-6

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

Forecast: LCC Difference

Frequency Chart 203 Outliers

.026

020 _______________________________JIIIII1H lillIb!_____

261

_______ 195.7

I :::

.000 1ii 1i11iihffluiIl1II I 1 __ I _________________________ 'fJ ________ 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

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
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

____________

.000 ... h11uiiIthlH I 11.[L : L _!L.... _- 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

_____________________________ I III J i .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-8

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

Forecast: LCC Difference

Frequency Chart 147 Outliers

.033

_________________ .025

-

____________________________________ .Iiii 11111 _______________________________________

327

245.2

=

.

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

.008 81.75

.000 hhi,l.IiIIi lIlIIIII II i...... ...... _________ -

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-9

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 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 .000 - 0

-

($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

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
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

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

Forecast: LCC Difference

Frequency Chart 78 Outliers

.033

.025

- 327

245.2

.016 ___________________________. jJjJJJ 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'

2 ____________________________________________________ 50 .,1dIi r: I 11111

-

.000 -

......iiimi!llIIIIIIIIIII ___ 0

($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 2

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

Forecast: LCC Difference

Frequency Chart 136 Outliers

262

-196 . 5

-I

131 .

65.5

4-U

so

.

IFigure 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)

$

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

Forecast: LCC Difference

Frequency Chart 105 Outliers

.036

______________________________________________________________ IIIIII1ILL._

- 358

I ftli

. .018 ____________________________- 179

.009 _______________________________________________ _________________________ 89.5

000 .i_ .ii..i,iiilIItithIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ______________________ -- 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

. 500 _________________ •h

I =

250 1 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ tL tfl 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-14

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Forecast: 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

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
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

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
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 . f ir i =

008

lii

________________________________________________________ L _____________________________________hI Ii iii 1

I I

i =

79.25

000

i _

• ..iiIui,IluuIIllIIIIIIIIIIIIII M

kim

___

ea ii = ($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 ofLCC

Differences

Forecast: LCC Difference

10,000 Trials Cumulative Chart 173 Outliers

.7501

1

-I

.500

1.000

_______________ JigF10000

=

=

.250 ____________________.1

I] 1111 .niu.u.i.u....... .000 0 L'a'w"rn"I"uIIIIIIH 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 ofLCC Differences

G- 17

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

Forecast: LCC Difference

Frequency Chart 117 Outliers

.027

______________________________________________________________ ___________

- 273

_______________

I lIIIIIJI1 bLUL.... .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 ________ __________-

'4 0

($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

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
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- 19

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

Forecast: LCC Difference

Frequency Chart 98 Outliers

.037

.028

- 374

280.5

.

-'1 I

- -'

.019 ___ 187 .

. rD

0

.009 93.5

L I IH 0111111N1Ih ($165) - .000 __________

.IIII I hll1dl1IIIIJIII _______________________ __________ 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

0 ___________________________________________________ ________ 111iiiiioiiiiiii1IHIllHII HHHII111

___________________________________________.iiI fli1 'flflflElTfflI

I

250 _!.IIi1I1Fi Jd fl

I I

000 .... ,,,,.,11 111iiiiiiiiH 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-20

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Forecast: LCC Difference

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 105 Outliers

.035

Ill ill1

354

265.5

= rD . ii 11111

. .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

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
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-22

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 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 =

.000 ---- 0

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 of LCC Differences

G-23

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
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)

$

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
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 $

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
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

dhI I 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 _____________________________ .1111 III

H 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-26

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Forecast: 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 1ioillIHHIH HIOII 10000

__________________ ,lII

.750 _________________________________________ .

ill

.11

-'

.500

t

.0

=

0

o

L

I

.2501 _________ ________________________ ____________________ I I

1

=

I Mean ($681 .000 r,..._uu.iu uiIllh1llH1JllIIIO1 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

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

Forecast: LCC Difference

Frequency Chart 171 Outliers

.030

.023

300

225

-'1

-'

.015 150 •

.008 ll k =

i I I Mean B124) I h IIQII!

.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 - -. - -.

. I i Hi H i -

______________________________________________________

III "0' I '' =

::: - ....,..,.,,iiiiiiillhIflhIIIIIIIH1ftll - 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

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88