# 10,000 Trials Forecast: Payback (yrs) Frequency Chart 269 Outliers .047 035 - 

### 467 350.2

. -I

. .023 233.5

.

## rD 

# I = L .012 

### 116.7



# I Mean = 

### 6.8

## litt 

# M i .000

-- iti.iiiiiiiiiiiniiiii



## _______ -


## _ 0 0.0 6.3 12.5 18.8 25.0 Figure L.7 MEF of 1.257 (35% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Income 

## 10,000 Trials Forecast: Payback (yrs) Frequency Chart 235 Outliers .049 .037 - 

### 489 366.7


### =

. 

### .024 244.5

. 

### .012 . 122.2 I • I I 

### 000

___ _______________________ 

## I 0.0 6.3 12.5 18.8 25.0 Figure

### L.8 MEF = 

### 1.26 in

### 2007, Low Income



### L-5

## 10,000 Trials Forecast: Payback (yrs) Frequency Chart 260 Outliers .045 .034 

# illIll 448 336 

### ii

. 

### .022 224

.

### =

. 

## H

-

I 

### = _______________ I I 

# L. 12

. 0.0 6.3 12.5 18.8 25.0 

### Figure L.9. MEF of 1.362 (40% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Income 

## 10,000 Trials Forecast: Payback (yrs) Frequency Chart 236 Outliers .033- .025- 334 250.5

. -'1 .017-



## _______ __________________________________________ 167

.

. rD 

## = .008- 83.5 

### an = .000 uIlHuuuuIuIIJlIlJJll 0 0.0 6.9 13.8 20.6 27.5 

### Figure L.10 MEF of 1.485 (45% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Income

L-6

## Forecast: Payback (yrs)



# 10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 187 Outliers .035

- 346 026 259 5 . . 

## = I 017 ' 173

. . ___________________________________ 

## = 6.5 : 0.0 6.9 13.8 20.6 27.5 

### Figure L.11 MEF of 1.634 (50% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Income

L-7

## Forecast: Payback (yrs)



# 10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 345 Outliers .334

- 3344

.251 - _____ _______________________________________________ 

## =

- .167-

- .084- 836

Mean=0.1

- .000

- 

## hhi.. 0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.9 

### Figure L.12 MEF of 0.86 (5% Reduction in Energy Use), Senior 

## Forecast: Payback (yrs) 10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 362 Outliers .450 - - 4504 

### .338-

- 

## = C,

- .225-

- 

## = C, 

## = 000 

# Lt, 3 4.5 6.0 

### Figure L.13 MEF of 0.908 (10% Reduction in Energy Use), Senior

L-8Forecast: Payback (yrs)



# 10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 355 Outliers 

### .217

- 

### 2172 163

= 

### 109

. 

### .

- -=

- 

### rD = 

### .054 543 000 0 . 0.0 3.1 6.3 9.4 12.5 Figure L.14 MEF of 0.961 (15% Reduction in Energy Use), Senior Forecast: Payback (yrs) 10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 268 Outliers .240 2401 .180 - ________ __________________________________________ 

### = rD

. 

### .120-

.= = 

### .060

- 

### 600.2

Mean=5.4 000 o 0.0 6.9 13.8 20.6 27.5 Figure L.15 MEF of 1.021 (20% Reduction in Energy Use), Senior 

# Iku,

L-9

## Forecast: Payback (yrs)

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 175 Outliers

- .026 255 019 191 2 . . 

## =

. 013 127.5

.

## =

.

### o 006 = 63.75
. 0 .000 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 

### Figure L.16 MEF = 1.04 in 2004, Senior 

## 10,000 Trials Forecast: Payback (yrs) Frequency Chart 177 Outliers .026 .020



### ____ 

### b.hl 

# L IIII PIi 

## ii. 262 196.5 

# fl - I .013 

# j 131 .0 0 .007 65.5 Mean = 000 

# _________ 0 0.0 5.6 11.3 16.9 22.5 

### Figure L.17 MEF of 1.089 (25% Reduction in Energy Use), Senior 

# I
1liiiiiil IiIiIIiiii,i.

__________________________________________________________________________ 

## Ililfihli I [ h



### ________________



## -II

L-1 0

## 10,000 Trials Forecast: Payback (yrs) Frequency Chart 266 Outliers .036 .0271 356 267 -'1

-' .018 178

- 

# il .009 

# 1

IIJuhIII 

# ll 89 

# lI
. 

# I Mean .000 flfl1UIIflDU - 

## 1 0 0.0 6.9 13.8 20.6 27.5

__ 

### Figure L.18 MEF of 1.257 (35% Reduction in Energy Use), Senior 

## 10,000 Trials Forecast: Payback (yrs) Frequency Chart 235 Outliers



# _______ _ IIIIIIIIIIIL 

# flhIIhJ '1 

# '1' J 1iflH -' 

### - .018

# ______________. 181

.

.

- 

## = 90.5 

# IMe& = 

### 8.4 

# Hhi 000- 

## •, . ULLIUWIHIUU wIili&n 

### 0 

## 1 0.0 6.9 13.8 20.6 27.5 Figure L.19 MEF = 1.26 in 2007. Senior

L-1 110,000 Trials .043

_ .032 .021I000 0.0 

### Forecast: Payback (yrs) Frequency Chart 235 Outliers

- 

### 426 319.5 11

-I 

### rD 213 •C, = 106.5 

### 30.0 Figure L.20 MEF of 1.362 (40% Reduction in Energy Use), Senior
10,000 Trials Forecast: Payback (yrs) Frequency Chart 169 Outliers .032 .024 - 

### 318 238.5 -'1
I -I .016

_____________ ____ 159

-

. 

### = .008 

# h 79.5 

# 11

_______ 

# 1
.000
_____________ I uwum. ____

__ 

### 0 0.0 8.8 17.5 26.3 35.0 Figure L.21 MEF of 1.485 (45% Reduction in Energy Use), Senior

L-1 2 7.5 15.0 22.5

## Forecast: Payback (yrs)

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 136 Outliers .034 mIllIlIlIllil 252.7 025 _____________ __________________________________________________________________ -'1



## _________ L. 168.5 

## E .0171 84.25 .008 Mean 1 H!IUhlEIUHI9D

# I ii 0 .000 0.0 8.8 17.5 26.3 35.0 

### Figure L.22 MEF of 1.634 (50% Reduction in Energy Use), Senior

L- 13

### APPENDIX M. SUPPLEMENTAL SHIPMENTS FORECAST CHARTS

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

..........

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

### TABLE OF CONTENTS M.l INTRODUCTION M-l LIST OF FIGURES Figure M. 1 Shipments Forecasts for Medium Elasticity Price/income Shipments Model . M- 1 Figure M.2 Shipments Forecasts for Medium Elasticity Price-driven Model M-2 Figure M.3 Shipments Forecasts for High Elasticity Price-driven Model M-3

M-i

### APPENDIX M. SUPPLEMENTAL SHIPMENTS FORECAST CHARTS

M.1 INTRODUCTION This appendix provides additional charts regarding the several shipments scenario sensitivities. Specifically, we provide results for three cases. The first case is a low impact case where the medium value of the price/income sensitivity is used for a model that has price/income as the primary driving variable for trends in consumer purchase decision probabilities. The second case is a medium impact case where the medium value of the sensitivity is used for a shipments model where price is the primary explanatory economic variable for consumer decisions. And the third case is a high price elasticity case where a high value of price sensitivity is used for the shipments model with price as the primary explanatory variable. The high price sensitivity value represents the high end of the 99% confidence interval for the fit to historical shipments trends for the price-driven model. New Clothes Washer Shipments Medium Price/Income Model 10.00 9.50 9.00 8.50 0 8.00 E 

# j 7.50 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 Historical Base Case Trail Level #1 Trial Level #2 Trial Level #3 Trai1 Level #4 *Trial Level #5 Tria1 Level #6

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Year 

### Figure M.1 Shipments Forecasts for Medium Elasticity Price/income Shipments Model

M-1

### New Clothes Washer Shipments MediumPrice Model 10.00 9.50 9.00 8.50 8.00

, 7.50 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 +- 1990 > Historical Base Case HTrail Level #1 *Trial Level #2 Trial Level#3 Trail Level #4 Frial Level #5 Trial Level #6

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Year 

### Figure M.2 Shipments Forecasts for Medium Elasticity Price-driven Model

M-2

## New Clothes WasherShipments High Elasticity Price Model 10.00 9.50 9.00 8.50 8.00 ,3 7.50
6.50 6.00 5.50 500 Historical Base Case Trail Level #1 hTriaJ Level #2 Trial Level#3 frail Level #4 Trial Level #5 'Tiial Level #6

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Year 

### Figure M.3 Shipments Forecasts for High Elasticity Price-driven Model

M-3

### APPENDIX N. NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS (NES)

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

......

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

......

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

......

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

......

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

......

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

........

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

........

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

........

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

........

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

........ 

### TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX N: INTRODUCTION N-i LIST OF TABLES Table N.1 Trial Standard Level i, MEF=l.021 (20% Reduction in Energy Use) N-2 Table N.2 Trial Standard Level i, MEF=l.02i N-2 Table N.3 Trial Standard Level 2, MEF=1 .089 (25% Reduction in Energy Use) N-3 Table N.4 Trial Standard Level 2, MEF= 1.089 N-3 TableN.5 Trial Standard Level 4, MEF=l.257 (35%Reduction in Energy Use) N-4 Table N.6 Trial Standard Level 4, MEF=1.257 N-4 Table N.7 Trial Standard Level5, MEF=i .362 (40% Reduction in Energy Use) N-5 Table N.8 Trial Standard Level5, MEF=1 .362 N-5 Table N.9 Trial Standard Level 6, MEF=l .634 (50%Reduction in Energy Use) N-6 Table N.10 Trial Standard Level 6, MEF=i.634 N-6 Table N. 11 Trial Standard Level 3, MEF=1 .04/i .26 in 2004/2007 N-7 Table N.12 Trial Standard Level 3, MEF=l.04/i.26 in 2004/2007 N-7 Table N.i3 Trial Standard Level 1, MEF=i.02i (20%, Medium Price/Income Elasticity) N-9 Table N.i4 Trial Standard Level 1, MEF= 1.02i N-9 Table N.i5 Trial Standard Level 2, MEF=i.089 (25%, Medium Price/Income Elasticity) N-l0 Table N.16 Trial Standard Level 2, MEF=1.089 N-iO Table N. 17 Trial Standard Level 4, MEF=l.257(35%, Medium Price/Income Elasticity) N-i i Table N.18 Trial Standard Level 4, MEF=l.257 N-ll Table N.l9 Trial Standard Level5, MEF=l.362 (40%, Medium Price/Income Elasticity) N-i2 Table N.20 Trial Standard Level5, MEF=i.362 N-12 Table N.2i Trial Standard Level 6, MEF= 1.634 (50%, Medium Price/Income Elasticity) N-13 Table N.22 Trial Standard Level 6, MEF=i.634 N-i3 Table N.23 Trial Standard Level 3, MEF=i.04/l.26 in 2004/2007 N-i4 Table N.24 Trial Standard Level 3, MEF=1.04/l.26 in 2004/2007 N-i4 Table N.25 Trial Standard Level 1, MEF=1.021(20%, High Price Elasticity) N- 15 Table N.26 Trial Standard Level 1, MEF=l.02l N-15 Table N.27 Trial Standard Level 2, MEF= l.089 (25%, High Price Elasticity) N-16 Table N.28 Trial Standard Level 2, MEF=1.089 N-l6 Table N.29 Trial Standard Level 4, MEF=l.257 (35%, High Price Elasticity) N-l7 Table N.30 Trial Standard Level 4, MEF=1.257 N-l7 Table N.31 Trial Standard Level 5, MEF=i.362 (40%, High Price Elasticity) N-l8 Table N.32 Trial Standard Level 5, MEF=1.362 N-i8 Table N.33 Trial Standard Level 6, MEF=i.634 (50%, High Price Elasticity) N-i9 N-i

### Table N.34 Trial Standard Level 6, MEF=1.634 ............................... 

### N-19

Table N.35 Trial Standard Level 3, MEF=1 .04/1.26 in 2004/2007 ................. 

### N-20 Table N.36 Trial Standard Level 3, MEF=1 .04/1.26 in 2004/2007 ................. 

### N-20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

### LIST OF FIGURES Figure N.1 Trial Standard Level 1, MEF= 1.021 N-2 Figure N.2 Trial Standard Level 2, MEF=1.089 N-3 Figure N.3 Trial StandardLevel 4, MEF=1.257 N-4 Figure N.4 Trial StandardLevel 5, MEF = 

### 1.362 N-5 FigureN.5 Trial StandardLevel6, MEF = 

### 1.634 N-6 Figure N.6 Trial StandardLevel 3, MEF = 

### 1.04/1.26 N-7 Figure N.7 Trial Standard Level 1, MEF= 1.021 N-8 Figure N.8 Trial StandardLevel 2, MEF= 1.089 N-9 Figure N.9 Trial Standard Level 4, MEF= 1.257 N-b Figure N.l0 Trial StandardLevel5, MEF= 1.362 N-li Figure N.h Trial StandardLevel 6, MEF= 1.634 N-12 Figure N.12 Trial Standard Level 3, MEF= 1.04/1.26 in 2004/2007 N-13 Figure N.13 Trial StandardLevel 1, MEF= 1.021 N-14 Figure N.14 Trial Standard Level 1, MEF= 1.021 N-l5 Figure N.i5 Trial Standard Level 4, MEF= 1.257 N-16 Figure N.16 Trial StandardLevel5, MEF= 1.362 N-17 Figure N.17 Trial StandardLevel 6, MEF= 1.634 N-18 Figure N.18 Trial Standard Level 3, MEF= 1.04/1.26 in 2004/2007 N-19

N-u

### APPENDIX N. NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS (NES) SPREADSHEET OUTPUT

N.1 INTRODUCTION The NES spreadsheet (NES2kO5 1 5-2T.xls) calculates the energy and water savings by comparing the energy and water consumption associated with clothes washers in a base case with that in a specified standards case. This spreadsheet uses data from RECS93 and AE099. The following pages contain tables and figures showing the results for each of the trial standards cases assessed in this analysis. For each standards case two tables are presented. The first shows cumulative energy savings by fuel type (electricity, gas, oil and LPG) and water savings for years 2010, 2020 and 2030. The second shows net present values (including energy and water savings and equipment cost) from 2003 to 2030 discounted at 7% real to 1999. Benefit and cost ratios are also presented. The corresponding figure for each standard case shows the annual benefit/cost pattern of national savings and costs resulting from standards over time. The heavy line running just below the energy and water savings bars indicates the undiscounted net national consumer impact of standards over time. It is important to note that the net saving shown in each plot only captures a snapshot of each year. For example, the benefit of the energy and water savings from the equipment expenditure in year 2005 actually continues through the lifetime of the clothes washers bought in 2005. The results can be separated into three categories. 1. Reference Case Tables N. 1

-

### N. 12 2. Medium Price/Income Elasticity Case Tables N. 13 - N.24 3. High Price Elasticity Case Tables N.25 - N.36 These parameters are discussed in Chapter 10. Detailed results for all three cases are presented here in Appendix N. The Medium Price/ Income Elasticity represents the scenario for which the drop in shipments after standards is the smallest. The high price elasticity represents a scenario for which there is the greatest drop in shipments. The Reference Case represents a medium price elasticity and gives a drop in shipments after standards greater than the Medium Price/ Income case and less than the High Price Elasticity case.

N-i

### Table N.1 Trial Standard Level 1. MEF=1.021 (20% Reduction in Enerv Use)

_____________ Energy_and_Water_Savings

_____________ Ener2v Savings in Ouads __________________ Water Savings

______________ Total Electric Gas Oil LPG (tn!. gals.) from 2004 to 2010 6.22 6.12 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.05 to 2020 1.07 0.57 0.45 0.03 0.02 0.26 To 2030 2.12 1.10 0.91 0.06 0.05 0.53 

### Table N.2 Trial Standard Level 1. MEF=1.021 Cost and Net Present Value (in billion 1997$) Cumulative for Clothes Washers Purchased from 2004 to 2030 Discounted at 7% to year 1999 Total Energy and Water Savings 5.48 Net Equipment Cost 1.82 Net Present Benefit 3.66 Benefit/Cost Ratio 3.0 

## 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 8.00 EJ Price Change

• Energy & Water Saving 

## 6.00 Net Saving 

# !t

# :::: 0.00 

# __ __ _______



# Bfl1i1tt1 fl1 -2.00 -4.00 Figure N.1 Trial Standard Level 1, MEF= 1.021 N-2

### Table N.3 Trial Standard Level 2.. MEF=1.089 ((25% Reduction in Enerv Use) Energy and Water Savings

_____________ Energy Savings in Quads Water Savings

Total Electric Gas Oil LPG (triL gals.) from 2004 to 2010 0.41 0.23 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.84 to 2020 2.03 1.08 0.86 0.06 0.04 4.48 To 2030 4.04 2.10 1.74 0.11 0.08 9.09 

### Table N.4 Trial Standard Level2. MEF=1.089 Cost and Net Present Value (in billion 1997$) Cumulative for Clothes Washers Purchased from 2004 to 2030 Discounted at 7% to year 1999 Total Energy and Water Savings 21.24 Net Equipment Cost 6.95 Net Present Benefit 14.29 Benefit/Cost Ratio 3.1 

### [IrlrIrnjiii iw mrrTh!Fn rcrrTrTI 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 8.00 LJPrice Change

ftEnergy &WaterSaving 6.00 Net Saving

- 

# r"i11JI1 

# :::: 

# t1I1J U -2.00

# - -4.00

- 

### FigureN.2 Trial Standard Level 2, MEF=1.089 N-3

### Table N.5 Trial Standard Level 4. MEF=1.257 (35% Reduction in Enerv Use Energy and Water Savings

_____________ Energy Savings in Quads Water Savings

Total Electric Gas Oil LPG (triL gals.) from 2004 to 2010 0.60 0.38 0.20 0.01 0.01 1.16 to 2020 2.98 1.79 1.06 0.07 0.05 6.30 To2030 5.99 3.55 2.19 0.14 0.11 12.94 

### Table N.6 Trial Standard Level 4. MEF=1.257 Cost and Net Present Value (in billion 1997$) Cumulative for Clothes Washers Purchased from 2004 to 2030 Discounted at 7% to year 1999 Total Energy and Water Savings 30.90 Net Equipment Cost 14.03 Net Present Benefit 16.88 Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.2

[wi 

# flfl19 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 8.00 EJPrice Change

Energy & Water Saving 6.00 -NetSaving 

### • 4.00

-- 

### 2.00 

# FFId' 0.00 

# u_IJu -2.00

- 

### -4.00

- 

### Figure N.3 Trial Standard Level 4, MEF1.257 N-4

### TableN.7 Trial Standard Level 5. MEF=1.362 (40% Reduction in Enerv Use) Energy and Water Savings

____________ Energy Savings in Quads Water Savings

Total Electric Gas Oil LPG (triL gals.) from 2004 to 2010 0.60 0.39 0.20 0.01 0.01 1.16 to 2020 3.00 1.81 1.07 0.07 0.05 6.29 To2030 6.03 3.58 2.19 0.14 0.11 12.94 

### TableN.8 Trial Standard Level 5. MEF=1.362 Cost and Net Present Value (in billion 1997$) Cumulative for Clothes Washers Purchased from 2004 to 2030 Discounted at 7% to year 1999 Total Energy and Water Savings 30.98 Net Equipment Cost 14.25 Net Present Benefit 16.73 Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.2

[ITIwUrl ITIi ii itilFTI 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 

### 8.00 EJPrice Change

Lull] E ne rgy & W ate r S av ing 6.00 -Net Saving 

### 4.00

- N 2.00

- 

# iflflhifl n 0.00 

# \fii

# 1

LIJ UU U UULJ UULJIJ IJU Li ULJ U IJLJ LI 

### UULI LI LI LI -2.00 

### -4.00 Figure N.4 Trial Standard Level 5, MEF 1.362

N-S

### Table N.9 Trial Standard Level 6. MEF1.634 (50% Reduction in Enerv Use Energy and Water Savings

_____________ Energy Savings in Quads Water Savings

Total Electric Gas Oil LPG (triL gals.) from 2004 to 2010 0.73 0.50 0.21 0.01 0.01 0.95 to 2020 3.69 2.41 1.16 0.07 0.05 5.24 To2030 7.53 4.85 2.42 0.15 0.11 10.85 

### Table N.10 Trial Standard Level 6. MEF=1.634 Cost and Net Present Value (in billion 1997$) Cumulative for Clothes Washers Purchased from 2004 to 2030 Discounted at 7% to year 1999 Total Energy and Water Savings 31.69 Net Equipment Cost 20.90 Net Present Benefit 10.79 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.5
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 

### 8.00 EJPrice Change

EiEnergy & Water Saving 

### 6.00 -NetSaving 

### 4.00 2.00 ..



# [I ULUHU -4.00 

### FigureN.5 Trial Standard Level 6, MEF = 1.634
N-6

### Table N.h Trial Standard Level 3. MEF=1.04/1.26 in 2004/2007

_____________ Energy and Water Savings

_____________ Energy Savings in Quads __________________ Water Savings Total Electric Gas Oil LPG (In!, gals.) from 2004 to 2010 0.39 0.23 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.60 to 2020 2.51 1.47 0.93 0.06 0.05 4.97 To2030 5.52 3.23 2.05 0.14 0.10 11,59 

### Table N.12 Trial Standard Level 3. MEF=1.04/1.26 in 2004/2007 Cost and Net Present Value (in billion 1997$) Cumulative for Clothes Washers Purchased from 2004 to 2030 Discounted at 7% to year 1999 Total Energy and Water Savings 27.16 Net Equipment Cost 11.86 Net Present Benefit 15.30 Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.3


### 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 8.00 EJPrice Change

LEnergy & Water Saving 

### 6.00 -NetSaving 

### 4.00 2.00 

# 111* 0.00 

# 1111 -2.00 

### -4.00 Figure N.6 Trial Standard Level 3, MEF = 1.04/1.26 N-7

### Table N.13 Trial Standard Level 1. MEF=1.021 (20%. Medium Price/Income E1astieitv

____________ Energy and Water Savings

____________ Energy Savings in Quads Water Savings

Total Electric Gas Oil LPG (tn!. gals.) from 2004 to 2010 0.22 0.13 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.05 to 2020 1.08 0.57 0.45 0.03 0.02 0.27 To 2030 2.13 1.11 0.92 0.06 0.05 0.54 

### Table N.14 Trial Standard Level 1. MEF=1.021 Cost and Net Present Value (in billion 1997$) Cumulative for Clothes Washers Purchased from 2004 to 2030 Discounted at 7% to year 1999 Total Energy and Water Savings 5.53 Net Equipment Cost 1.85 Net Present Benefit 3.68 Benefit/Cost Ratio 3.0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 8.00 EJPrice Change

LiIIEnergy & Water Saving 6.00 -Net Saving



# ___ . '- 0.00 _____ _____
--- -2.00

- -4.00

- 

### FigureN.7 Trial Standard Level 1, MEF 1.021 N-i

### TableN.15 Trial Standard Level 2. MEF=l.089 (25%. Medium Price/Income ElasticitvI

_____________ Energy and Water Savings

_____________ Energy Savings in Quads Water Savings

Total Electric Gas Oil LPG (In!, gals.) from 2004 to 2010 0.42 0.24 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.86 to 2020 2.06 1.09 0.87 0.06 0.04 4.54 To2030 4.08 2.12 1.76 0.11 0.08 9.17 

### Table N.1 6 Trial Standard Level 2. MEF1 i)R9 Cost and Net Present Value (in billion 1997$) Cumulative for Clothes Washers Purchased from 2004 to 2030 Discounted at 7% to year 1999 Total Energy and Water Savings 21.56 Net Equipment Cost 7.16 Net Present Benefit 14.40 Benefit/Cost Ratio 3.0
tvinii 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 

### 8.00 EJ Price Change

Energy &WaterSaving 6.00 -NetSaving

-2.00

- -4.00

- 

### FigureN.8 Trial Standard Level 2, MEF= 1.089
N-2

### Table N.17 Trial Standard Level 4. MEF=1.257 (35%. Medium Price/Income Elasticitv



# _____________ Energy and Water Savings

_____________ Energy Savings in Quads 

# __________________ Water Savings Total Electric Gas Oil LPG (triL gals.) from 2004 to 2010 0.63 0.40 0.20 0.01 0.01 1.21 to 2020 3.06 1.84 1.09 0.07 0.05 6.47 To2030 6.09 3.61 2.23 0.15 0.11 13.15 

### Table N.18 Trial Standard Level 4. MEF=1.257 Cost and Net Present Value (in billion 1997$) Cumulative for Clothes Washers Purchased from 2004 to 2030 Discounted at 7% to year 1999 Total Energy and Water Savings 31.78 Net Equipment Cost 14.80 Net Present Benefit 16.98 Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.1 

### 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 8.00 EJ Price Change

Energy &WaterSaving 

### 6.00 -NetSaving 

# j II

- 

### 4.00 N 

### 2.00 0.00 

# d1IiUiit
UU L] U Ii U -2.00

- 

### -4.00

- 

### Figure N.9 Trial Standard Level 4, MEF= 1.257
N-3

### Table N.19 Trial Standard Level5. MEF=1.362 (40%. Medium Price/Income Elasticitv Energy and Water Savings



# _____________ Energy Savings in Quads Water Savings

Total Electric Gas Oil LPG (triL gals.) from 2004 to 2010 0.63 0.40 0.20 0.01 0.01 1.20 to 2020 3.08 1.86 1.10 0.07 0.05 6.47 To2030 6.13 3.65 2.23 0.15 0.11 13,15 

### Table N.20 Trial Standard Level 5. MEF=1.362 Cost and Net Present Value (in billion 1997$) Cumulative for Clothes Washers Purchased from 2004 to 2030 Discounted at 7% to year 1999 Total Energy and Water Savings 31.87 Net Equipment Cost 15.05 Net Present Benefit 16.83 Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.1 

### [nTrrn IT lLL14UJJLMI1ThflJ1TTRiU 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 

### 8.00 EJPrice Change

LEnergy & Water Saving 

### 6.00 Net Saving 

### 4.00 N 2.00 

# ' I i



# r 

# !j 0,00 

# J *41t
= 

# Er LULJI IUU -2.00 

### -4.00 

### Figure N.10 Trial Standard Level 5, MEF= 1.362
N-4

### Table N.21 Trial Standard Level 6. MEF=1.634 (50%. Medium Price/Income Elasticitv Energy and Water Savings

____________ Energy Savings in Quads Water Savings

Total Electric Gas Oil LPG (triL gals.) from 2004 to 2010 0.78 0.53 0.22 0.01 0.01 1.01 to 2020 3.84 2.50 1.20 0.07 0.06 5.45 To 2030 7.70 4.96 2.47 0.15 0.11 11.09 

### Table N.22 Trial Standard Level 6. MEF1.634 Cost and Net Present Value (in billion 1997$) Cumulative for Clothes Washers Purchased from 2004 to 2030 Discounted at 7% to year 1999 Total Energy and Water Savings 33.00 Net Equipment Cost 22.54 Net Present Benefit 10.46 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.5 

### L1TmI.'r1DILwMl rlrncrrTr1Tn 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 8.00 EJ Price Change

Energy &WaterSaving 6.00 -Net Saving
N 

### 2.00 4.00 

## _______ .Wjjj 0.00 = -2.00 UUUUUU[Jjj[] 

### -4.00 Figure N.!! Trial Standard Level 6, MEF 1.634
N-S

### Table N.23 Trial Standard Level 3. MEF=1.04/1 .26 in 2004/2097 Energy and Water Savings

____________ 

### Energy Savings in Quads Water Savings

Total Electric Gas Oil LPG (triL gals.) from 2004 to 2010 0.40 0.24 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.62 to 2020 2.58 1.52 0.95 0.067 0.05 5.12 To 2030 5.61 3.28 2.08 0.14 0.10 11.80 

### Table N.24 Trial Standard Level 3. MEF=1 .04/1.26 in 2004/2007 Cost and Net Present Value (in billion 1997$) Cumulative for Clothes Washers Purchased from 2004 to 2030 Discounted at 7% to year 1999 Total Energy and Water Savings 27.94 Net Equipment Cost 12.52 Net Present Benefit 15.42 Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.2
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 8.00 EJ Price Change

IEnergy &WaterSaving 6.00 - Net Saving 

### 4.00 N 

### 2.00

.. 

### 0.00 = 

# U -2.00 -4.00

- 

### Figure N.12 Trial Standard Level 3, MEF= 1.04/1.26 in 2004/2007
N-6

### TableN.25 Trial Standard Level 1. MEF=1.021 (20%. Hugh Price Elasticity)

____________ Energy and Water Savings

____________ Energy Savings in Quads __________________ Water Savings Total Electric Gas Oil LPG (tn!. gals.) from 2004 to 2010 0.22 0.12 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.05 to 2020 1.08 0.57 0.45 0.03 0.02 0.26 To 2030 2.15 1.11 0.92 0.06 0.05 0.54 

### TableN.26 Trial Standard Level 1. MEF=1.021 Cost and Net Present Value (in billion 1997$) Cumulative for Clothes Washers Purchased from 2004 to 2030 Discounted at 7% to year 1999 Total Energy and Water Savings 5.52 Net Equipment Cost 1.82 Net Present Benefit 3.70 Benefit/Cost Ratio 3.0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 

### 8.00 LJ Price Change

iiEnergy & Water Saving 

### 6.00 -NetSaving 

# :::: iminnii1imirn 0.00 -2.00

- 

### -4.00 

### Figure N.13 Trial Standard Level 1, MEF= 1.021

N-7

### Table N.27 Trial Standard Level 2. MEF=1 .089 (25%.. Hk!rh Price Elasticitv Energy and Water Savings

____________ 

### Energy Savings in Quads Water Savings

Total Electric Gas Oil LPG (triL gals.) from 2004 to 2010 0.40 0.23 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.82 to 2020 2.01 1.06 0.85 0.06 0.04 4.45 To2030 4.06 2.11 1.75 0.11 0.08 9.14 

### Table N.28 Trial Standard Level 2. MEF=1 .089 Cost and Net Present Value (in billion 1997$) Cumulative for Clothes Washers Purchased from 2004 to 2030 Discounted at 7% to year 1999 Total Energy and Water Savings 21.08 Net Equipment Cost 6.76 Net Present Benefit 14.32 Benefit/Cost Ratio 3.1 [H1T1 TVJIII1i'wI Id F7T1

## rrmTn 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 

### 8.00 EJPrice Change

Energy &WaterSaving 

### 6.00 Net Saving 

### 4.00 N 

### 2.00 

# jJ1iij 11ifl1ffl 0.00 

# ui
-2.00 

### -4.00 Figure N.14 Trial Standard Level 1, MEF= 1.021
N-8

### Table N.29 Trial Standard Level 4, MEF=1.257 (35%, High Price Elasticity)

____________ Energy and Water Savings

____________ Energy Savings in Quads __________________ Water Savings Total Electric Gas Oil LPG (triL gals.) from 2004 to 2010 0.56 0.36 0.18 0.01 0.01 1.08 to 2020 2.87 1.73 1.03 0.07 0.05 6.09 To2030 5.94 3.52 2.17 0.14 0.11 12.86 

### Table N.30 Trial Standard Level 4, MEF1.257 Cost and Net Present Value (in billion 1997$) Cumulative for Clothes Washers Purchased from 2004 to 2030 Discounted at 7% to year 1999 Total Energy and Water Savings 29.86 Net Equipment Cost 13.06 Net Present Benefit 16.80 Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.3 

### 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 8.00 EJPrice Change

1 Energy & Water Saving 

### 6.00 -Net Saving 

### 4.00 N 

### 2.00 lulli 

### 0.00 

# -\r- U 

### -2.00

- 

### -4.00 Figure N.15 Trial Standard Level 4, MEF= 1.257

N-9

### Table N.31 Trial Standard Level 5. MEF=1.362 (40%. High Price Elasticity) Energy and Water Savings

__________ 

### Total Electric Gas Oil LPG _______________ 

### Water Savings from 2004 (tril. gals.) 

### to 2010 to 2020
To 2030

______________ 

### Table N.32 Trial Standard Level 5, MEF1.362

Cost and Net Present Value (in billion 1997$) Cumulative for Clothes Washers Purchased from 2004 to 2030 Discounted at 7% to year 1999 Total Energy and Water Savings 29.91 Net Equipment Cost 13.25 Net Present Benefit 16.66 Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.3 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 8.00 EPrice Change

Energy & Water Saving 6.00 -Net Saving 4.00 

# ::::gnrn4i

UUUUUUUUUUL]UUUUUUUUUUUUUHUU -2.00

# - -4.00

- 

### Figure N.16 Trial Standard Level 5, MEF= 1.362

N- 10

### TableN.33 Trial Standard Level 6. MEF=1.634 150%. High Price Elasticitv

____________ Energy and Water Savings

____________ Energy Savings in Quads Water Savings

Total Electric Gas Oil LPG (till, gals.) from 2004 to 2010 0.65 0.45 0.18 0.01 0.01 0.85 to 2020 3.46 2.25 1.09 0.07 0.05 4.92 To2030 7.36 4.74 2.37 0.15 0.11 10.63 

### Table N.34 Trial Standard Level 6. MEF=1.634 Cost and Net Present Value (in billion 1997$) Cumulative for Clothes Washers Purchased from 2004 to 2030 Discounted at 7% to year 1999 Total Energy and Water Savings 29.71 Net Equipment Cost 18.53 Net Present Benefit 11.18 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.6 !7TVTVFfl iTII fTSFT I 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 

### 8.00 EJPrice Change

i Energy & Water Saving 

### 6.00 Net Saving 

### 4.00 N 

### 2.00 0.00 

### -2.00 -4.00 Figure N.17 Trial Standard Level 6, MEF 1.634 N-il

### Table N.35 Trial Standard Level 3, MEF=1.04/1.26 in 2004/2007

____________ Energy and Water Savings

____________ Energy Savings in Quads Water Savings

Total Electric Gas Oil LPG (triL gals.) from 2004 to 2010 0.37 0.23 0.13 0.01 0.01 0.57 to 2020 2.43 1.43 0.90 0.06 0.04 4.79 To 2030 5.48 3.21 2,04 0.13 0.10 11.50 

### Table N.36 Trial Standard Level 3, MEF=1.04/1.26 in 2004/2007 Cost and Net Present Value (in billion 1997$) Cumulative for Clothes Washers Purchased from 2004 to 2030 Discounted at 7% to year 1999 Total Energy and Water Savings 26.35 Net Equipment Cost 11.11 Net Present Benefit 15.25 Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.4 LTh3TU1ifl IflTTiJ.ffflTI 

### 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 8.00 EJ Price Change

EEnergy & Water Saving 

### 6.00 Net Saving 

### 4.00 -' 

# hi1 U uWrfl I 

## UHLiIIUU 

# HUHUUHHUUUUUHU -2.00 -4.00 Figure N.18 Trial Standard Level 3, MEF= 1.04/1.26 in 2004/2007 N-i 2

### APPENDIX 0. MANUFACTURER INTERVIEW GUIDE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

### TABLE OF CONTENTS 0.1 INTRODUCTION 0-1 0.2 CURRENT ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS 0-1 0.3 INDUSTRY INFRASTRUCTURE 0-2 0.4 MANUFACTURER CASH FLOW ANALYSIS 0-2 0.5 COMPETITIVE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT 0-4 0.6 EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS ASSESSMENT 0-4 0.7 MANUFACTURING CAPACITY IMPACTS ASSESSMENT 0-4 0.8 CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF REGULATION 0-5

0-i

### APPENDIX 0. MANUFACTURER INTERVIEW GUIDE

0.1 INTRODUCTION The Department proposes to conduct interviews with manufacturer representatives to gather key information on the effects that potential new energy efficiency standards for clothes washers might have on their company's revenues and finances, and on their workforce. This interview guide provides a starting point to identify relevant issues and qualitatively and quantitatively describe the impacts of possible candidate standards levels. 0.2 CURRENT ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS The Department's interest concerning manufacturer impact is focused at the plant or profit center level which is directly pertinent to clothes washer production. The context within which the plant operates and the details of plant production and costs are not readily available from the published literature; therefore the Department invites the manufacturers to provide these details confidentially in their own words to the extent feasible. The organizational setting around the clothes washer profit center is of interest to round out the Department's understanding of the potential future of the clothes washer manufacturing activity without and with energy efficiency standards. 0.2.1 Identify Names of Parent Companies and Any Subsidiaries Relevant to the Clothes Washer Industry. 0.2.2 Please Provide the Locations of Your Clothes Washer Production Facilities and the Product Mix Manufactured There 0.2.2.1 How would energy efficiency standards affect each production facility mix? 0.2.3 How has your company incorporated energy efficiency improvements in clothes washer technology into its product line and marketing strategy? 0.2.3.1 Are horizontal-axis clothes washers currently being produced by your

company? 0.2.4 How would a new energy efficiency standard on clothes washers affect your product mix and marketing strategy?

0-1

### 0.3 INDUSTRY INFRASTRUCTURE

As part of an attempt to better understand the industry infrastructure and the impact energy efficiency standards might have on it, the Department would like manufacturer representatives to discuss their major distribution channels and major sources of supply. Major Customer Types The following questions are intended to gain an understanding of how potential energy standards levels might affect customer mix and distribution channels. 0.3.1 Generally how would a new clothes washer standard impact your customer mix, distribution channels and corresponding profit margins? 0.3.2 Do you see any changes in emphasis on export sales, and would the presence of new energy efficiency standards have an impact on production of clothes washers for export sale? Maj or Suppliers The Department recognizes that manufacturers do not operate in isolation and that changes in the production levels or economic health of a manufacturer can have significant impacts on its suppliers and other trade allies. The Department plans to be available to meet with representatives of these trade allies and to consider their impacts. 0.3.3 Who are the suppliers that may be affected by changes in your product mix as a result of standards? How might they be affected? 

### 0.4 MANUFACTURER CASH FLOW ANALYSIS Each manufacturer has been given the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM) to develop its own cash flow model to compare with that of the "industry" cash flow. This will allow each manufacturer to use its own financial information to arrive at the expected differences in cash flow due to new energy efficiency standards. These results, together with an adequate understanding of how they were developed, will help the Department to estimate industry impacts for different types of manufacturers.

0-2

### 0.4.1 Costs

How do you explain differences, if any, between your manufacturing costs with and without new energy efficiency standards and those presented in the sample results for the industry as a whole? 0.4.1 .1 Is the "Industry" cost structure (materials, labor, overhead, tooling, etc representative of your firm's costs? What are the differences and their causes? 0.4.1 .2How might new standards alter this cost structure? 0.4.2 Prices How do you explain differences, if any, between your expected product prices with and without new energy efficiency standards and those presented in the sample results for the industry as a whole? 0.4.2.1 Are your gross margins (% revenue) different post-standards? If so, what are the causes? 0.4.3 Shipments How do you explain differences, if any, between your expected product shipments with and without new energy efficiency standards? 0.4.3.1 What assumption(s) did you make about your firm's market share post-standards? What was your reasoning? O.4.3.21s your product mix significantly different from the overall industry proportions? 0.4.4 Financial How do you explain differences, if any, between your financial data and those presented for the industry as a whole? 0.4.5 Impacts on the Business Please discuss your interpretations of the cash flow analyses results for the standards cases. What do the results imply about the future of the business? Availability of capital? Are there additional financial impacts on new standards that are not being captured in the cash flow analysis? Please explain? (0.e., Tax Rate, Discount Rate, Working Capital, SG&A, R&D, Depreciation) 0.4.6 Additional Economic Measures Please discuss any additional measures, if any, that you might have developed that provide insight into the economic effects of changes in energy-efficiency standards.

0-3

### 0.5 COMPETITIVE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

Competitive impacts are assessed mainly in terms of market power, which is defined as the ability to set a given product price within a limited range. The Department is interested in manufacturer viewpoints on the degree to which new energy efficiency standards would increase market power and thereby lessen competition within the clothes washer industry. 0.5.1 How would new energy efficiency standards affect your ability to compete in the marketplace? 0.5.2 Do you believe that new energy efficiency standards would unfairly assist or harm the ability to compete of some firms in the industry? 0.5.3 Please discuss examples, if any, wherein substantial consumer subgroups would experience economic or performance penalties as a result of new standards. 0.5.4 Can your firm meet potential efficiency levels without changing your products in ways that consumers might care about? 0.5.5 Does your company have specific information for the Department on consumer preferences for product attributes potentially affected by new standards? 

### 0.6 EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS ASSESSMENT The impact of new energy efficiency standards on employment is an important consideration in the rulemaking process. This section of the interview guide seeks to explore current trends in clothes washer production employment and solicit manufacturer views on how domestic employment patterns might be affected by new energy efficiency standards. 0.6.1 How would your employment levels change under new energy efficiency standards? 0.6.2 Would the workforce skills required under new energy efficiency standards be different enough to require extensive retraining or replacement of employees? 

### 0.7 MANUFACTURING CAPACITY IMPACTS ASSESSMENT The information discussed here is important for developing an understanding of the investment cost inputs to GRIM. 0.7.1 How would the imposition of new energy efficiency standards affect your capacity utilization and manufacturing assets levels at your domestic production facilities? 0-4

### 0.7.1.1 Would any facilities be closed or downsized?

0.7.1 .2 Would any facilities be added or upgraded? 0.7.2 If current capacity were to be made obsolete, would it be remodeled to accommodate a new product mix? 0.7.3 Please estimate the value of stranded assets resulting from a new standard, and/or the costs of refitting the facility and carrying out the research, engineering, and other supporting activities required to accommodate the new product mix. 0.8 CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF REGULATION Clothes washer manufacturers typically produce other appliances, some of which face regulations of their own. While any one regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the combined effects of several impending regulations may have serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. 0.8.1 Please discuss the cumulative impact, if any, of other current or future product regulations on your business, particularly those which could mitigate or exacerbate the impact of new energy-efficiency standards. 0.8.1.1 Are you facing additional regulations for clothes washers? 0.8.1 .2Are you facing regulations on other products that you manufacture? 0.8.1 .3 What is the level of effort required to meet these regulations? (Cost, personnel etc.) 0.8.1 .4Are you facing any shortages in available design and manufacturing expertise (design engineers etc.)?

0-5