### ADDENDUM TO MAY 4, 2010 RESULTS FOR REFRIGERATORS

May 5, 2010

REFRIGE RATORS

A stakeholder request was made to analyze the impact on consumer electri city prices due to potential U.S. legislation to create a cap-and-trade program to limit CO 2 

### emissions. If such legislation were passed, electricity prices would most likely increase as electricity generators and providers would need to pass on the costs to consumers of complying with cap-and-trade requirements.

The DOE-Energy Information Administration (EIA) has analyzed in the past the impacts of climate change legislation (the Lieb erman-Warner Senate bill) to cap CO 2 

### emissions on the energy-economy using the National Energy Modeling Systems (NEMS). As part of this analysis, the impact of the proposed legislation on for ecasted electricity prices was determined. As expected, forecasted electricity prices increased relative to the Reference Case (i.e., the case without cap-and-trade legislation).

The forecasted increases in electricity prices due to ‘Lieberman-Warner’ was analyzed as a sensitivity as part of determining the life-cycl e cost (LCC) savings and payback periods (PBP) due to potential amended efficiency standards for residential refrig erators. This sensitivity was performed only for product class 3 (top-mount refrigerators) and produc t class 5 (side-mount refrigerators) to provide an indication of the impact to the LCC savings and PBPs.

For comparison purposes, the two scenarios consid ered previously (HFC scenario B1 and nonHFC scenario B2) are provided alon g with the results for the ‘CO 2 

### cap-and-trade’ scenario. The
three scenarios are:

HFC Scenario B1: UAF: Normalized to a weighted-average value of 1.0. Efficiency: Based on the use of HFC-blown insulation (HFC-245fa). Forecasted electricity prices: AEO2009 Reference Case.

Non-HFC Scenario B2: UAF: Normalized to a weighted-average value of 1.0. Efficiency: Based on the use of non-HF C-blown insulation (cyclopentane). Forecasted electricity prices: AEO2009 Reference Case.

HFC with ‘CO2 Cap-and-Trade’ Scenario B3: UAF: Normalized to a weighted-average value of 1.0. Efficiency: Based on the use of HFC-blown insulation (HFC-245fa). Forecasted electricity prices: AEO2009 Reference Case adjusted to account for CO 2 

### cap-andtrade program.

1

### Table 10B1. PC 3, Top-Mount Refrigerators : LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B1 Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Consumers with Efficiency
Level ( % less than

baseline

energy use ) Average Savings Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Median Average

Baseline

1 (10) $47 1.2% 18.9% 79.9% 2.6 3.0 2 (15) $71 2.0% 13.0% 85.1% 3.0 3.4 3 (20) $46 31.0% 13.0% 56.1% 8.4 9.6 4 (25) $42 45.1% 0.0% 54.9% 10.0 11.4 5 (30) -$9 66.1% 0. 0% 33.9% 14.1 16.2 6 (32) -$32 71.3% 0. 0% 28.7% 15.5 17.7



### Table 10B2. PC 3, Top-Mount Refrigerators : LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B2 Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Consumers with Efficiency
Level ( % less than

baseline

energy use ) Average Savings Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Median Average

Baseline

1 (6) $26 1.0% 19.4% 79.6% 2.5 2.9 2 (11) $51 2.0% 13.0% 85.0% 3.0 3.4 3 (16) $27 37.6% 13.0% 49.4% 9.6 11.1 4 (21) $25 50.1% 0.0% 49.9% 10.8 12.4 5 (27) -$24 69.9% 0. 0% 30.1% 15.1 17.3 6 (28) -$47 74.3% 0. 0% 25.7% 16.5 19.0



### Table 10B3. PC 3, Top-Mount Refrigerators : LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B3 Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Consumers with Efficiency
Level ( % less than

baseline

energy use ) Average Savings Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Median Average

Baseline

1 (10) $52 1.2% 19.0% 79.8% 2.4 2.8 2 (15) $78 1.9% 13.2% 84.9% 2.8 3.2 3 (20) $55 28.0% 13.2% 58.8% 7.8 9.0 4 (25) $55 41.6% 0.0% 58.4% 9.2 10.6 5 (30) $6 62.2% 0.0% 37.8% 13.1 15.0 6 (32) -$16 67.6% 0. 0% 32.4% 14.4 16.5



### 2

### 3 Table 12B1. PC 7, Side-Mount Refrigerators : LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B1 Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Consumers with Efficiency
Level ( % less than

baseline

energy use ) Average Savings Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Median Average

Baseline

1 (10) $19 0.3% 75.2% 24.5% 2.8 3.1 2 (15) $45 0.9% 31.6% 67.6% 2.9 3.2 3 (20) $55 8.3% 31.6% 60.2% 5.3 5.9 4 (25) $48 41.7% 0.0% 58.4% 9.3 10.7 5 (30) -$40 74.1% 0. 0% 25.9% 16.2 18.5 6 (31) -$62 77.7% 0. 0% 22.3% 17.4 19.8



### Table 12B2. PC 7, Side-Mount Refrigerators : LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B2 Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Consumers with Efficiency
Level ( % less than

baseline

energy use ) Average Savings Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Median Average

Baseline

1 (6) $22 0.1% 75.0% 24.9% 1.5 1.7 2 (11) $47 0.6% 31.8% 67.7% 2.5 2.8 3 (16) $56 7.6% 31.8% 60.6% 5.1 5.7 4 (21) $49 40.9% 0.0% 59.1% 9.3 10.6 5 (27) -$40 74.4% 0. 0% 25.6% 16.2 18.4 6 (28) -$62 77.9% 0. 0% 22.1% 17.4 19.7



### Table 12B3. PC 7, Side-Mount Refrigerators : LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B3 Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Consumers with Efficiency
Level ( % less than

baseline

energy use ) Average Savings Net Cost No Impact Net Benefit Median Average

Baseline

1 (10) $21 0.3% 75.1% 24.7% 2.6 2.9 2 (15) $50 0.7% 31.6% 67.7% 2.6 2.9 3 (20) $63 6.8% 31.6% 61.6% 4.9 5.4 4 (25) $60 37.2% 0.0% 62.8% 8.5 9.7 5 (30) -$23 70.4% 0. 0% 29.6% 14.8 16.9 6 (31) -$44 73.9% 0. 0% 26.1% 15.9 18.1