ADDENDUM TO MAY 4, 2010 RESULTS FOR REFRIGERATORS 

May 5, 2010 

REFRIGERATORS

A stakeholder request was made to analyze the impact on consumer electricity prices due to 

potential U.S. legislation to create a cap-and-trade program to limit CO2 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 Lieberman-Warner Senate bill) to cap CO2 emissions on the 

energy-economy using the National Energy Modeling Systems (NEMS). As part of this analysis, 

the impact of the proposed legislation on forecasted 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-cycle cost (LCC) savings and payback periods (PBP) 

due to potential amended efficiency standards for residential refrigerators. This sensitivity was 

performed only for product class 3 (top-mount refrigerators) and product class 5 (side-mount 

refrigerators) to provide an indication of the impact to the LCC savings and PBPs. 

For comparison purposes, the two scenarios considered previously (HFC scenario B1 and nonHFC scenario B2) are provided along with the results for the ‘CO2 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-HFC-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 CO2 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