APPENDIX 17A. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS: SUPPORTING 

MATERIALS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

17A.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 17A-2

17A.2 MARKET SHARE ANNUAL INCREASES BY POLICY................................. 17A-3

17A.3 NIA-RIA INTEGRATED MODEL...................................................................... 17A-4

17A.4 CONSUMER REBATE POLICY MARKET PENETRATION CURVES ......... 17A-4

17A.4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 17A-4

17A.4.2 Adjustment of XENERGY Penetration Curves ................................... 17A-6

17A.4.3 Interpolation of Penetration Curves ..................................................... 17A-7

17A.5 CONSUMER REBATE PROGRAMS................................................................. 17A-8

17A.6 FEDERAL AND STATE TAX CREDITS........................................................... 17A-9

17A.6.1 Federal Tax Credits for Consumers...................................................... 17A-9

17A.6.2 Federal Tax Credits for Manufacturers.............................................. 17A-10

17A.6.3 State Tax Credits................................................................................ 17A-11

LIST OF TABLES

Table 17A.2.1 Annual Increases in Market Shares (%) Attributable to Alternative 

Policy Measures for SPVAC <65 ............................................................. 17A-3

Table 17A.5.1 Rebates for CUAC < 65 KBtu .................................................................. 17A-8

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 17A.4.1 S-Curves Showing Effects of External and Internal Sources on 

Adoption of New Technologies................................................................ 17A-6

17A-i
APPENDIX 17A. REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS: SUPPORTING MATERIALS 

17A.1 INTRODUCTION

This appendix contains sections discussing the following topics: 

• Projections of annual market share increases for the alternative policies;

• NIA-RIA Integrated Model;

• XENERGY penetration curves used to analyze consumer rebates, including:

o Background material,

o DOE’s adjustment of these curves for this analysis, and

o The method DOE used for interpolating the curves;

• Detailed tables of rebates offered for the considered products; and

• Background material on Federal and state tax credits for appliances.

17A-2
17A.2 MARKET SHARE ANNUAL INCREASES BY POLICY

Table 17A.2.1 shows the annual increases in market shares of SPVUs meeting the target 

efficiency level for the proposed TSL (TSL 2). DOE used these market share increases as inputs 

to the NIA-RIA spreadsheet model.

Table 17A.2.1 Annual Increases in Market Shares (%) Attributable to Alternative 

Policy Measures for SPVAC <65

Year Consumer

Rebates

Consumer

Tax Credits

Manufacturer

Tax Credits

Voluntary 

Energy 

Efficiency 

Targets

Early 

Replacement

2019 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.022

2020 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.021

2021 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.021

2022 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.020

2023 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.019

2024 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.018

2025 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.017

2026 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.016

2027 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.013

2028 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.011

2029 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.008

2030 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.005

2031 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.003

2032 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.002

2033 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.000

2034 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.000

2035 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.000

2036 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.000

2037 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.000

2038 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.000

2039 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.000

2040 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.000

2041 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.000

2042 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.000

2043 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.000

2044 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.000

2045 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.000

2046 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.000

2047 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.000

2048 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.000

17A-3
17A.3 NIA-RIA INTEGRATED MODEL

For this analysis, DOE used its integrated NIA-RIAa model approach that built on the 

NIA model discussed in Chapter 10 and documented in Appendix 10A.The resulting integrated 

NIA-RIA model featured both the NIA analysis inputs and results and the RIA inputs and had 

the capability to generate results for each of the RIA policies. A separate module produced 

results summaries for the tables and figures in the RIA document. For the RIA methodology

documentation in Chapter 17, the module created summaries of parameters calculated by the 

model for the consumer rebates policy, generated its penetration curves (discussed in 

Section17A.4.3 below), and reported market share impacts for the rebate and tax credit policies 

by product class. For the RIA results reported in Chapter 17, the module produced graphs of the 

market share increases resulting from each of the policies analyzed and created summary tables 

for the national energy savings (NES) and net present value (NPV) results. This module also 

generated tables of market share increases for each policy reported in Section 17A.2 of this 

Appendix.

17A.4 CONSUMER REBATE POLICY MARKET PENETRATION CURVES

This section first discusses the theoretical basis for the market penetration curves that 

DOE used to analyze the Consumer Rebates policy. Next it discusses the adjustments it made to 

the maximum penetration rates. It then refers to the method it used to develop interpolated 

penetration curves for each specific product class and efficiency level in the analysis. The 

resulting curves for SPVAC <65 product class is in Chapter 17.

17A.4.1 Introduction

XENERGY, Inc.b

, developed a re-parameterized, mixed-source information diffusion 

model to estimate market impacts induced by financial incentives for purchasing energy efficient 

appliances.

1 The basic premise of the mixed-source model is that information diffusion drives 

the adoption of technology. 

Extensive economic literature describes the diffusion of new products as technologies 

evolve. Some research focuses primarily on developing analytical models of diffusion patterns 

applicable to individual consumers or to technologies from competing firms.

2, 3, 4 One study 

records researchers’ attempts to investigate the factors that drive diffusion processes.

5 Because a 

new product generally has its own distinct characteristics, few studies have been able to 

conclusively develop a universally applicable model. Some key findings, however, generally are 

accepted in academia and industry. 

One accepted finding is that, regardless of their economic benefits and technological 

merits, new technologies are unlikely to be adopted by all potential users. For many products, a 

a NIA = national impact analysis; RIA = regulatory impact analysis

b XENERGY is now owned by DNV GL. (www.dnvgl.com/energy/)

17A-4

 
ceiling must be placed on the adoption rate. A second conclusion is that not all adopters purchase 

new products at the same time: some act quickly after a new product is introduced; others wait 

for the product to mature. Third, diffusion processes can be characterized approximately by 

asymmetric S-curves that depict three stages of diffusion: starting, accelerating, and decreasing 

(as the adoption ceiling is approached).

A so-called epidemic model of diffusion is used widely in marketing and social studies. 

The epidemic model assumes that (1) all consumers place identical value on the benefits of a 

new product, and (2) the cost of a new product is constant or declines monotonically over time. 

What induces a consumer to purchase a new product is information about the availability and 

benefits of the product. In other words, information diffusion drives consumers’ adoption of a 

new product.

3

The model incorporates information diffusion from both internal sources (spread 

by word of mouth from early adopters to prospective adopters) and external sources (the 

“announcement effect” produced by government agencies, institutions, or commercial 

advertising). The model incorporates both internal and external sources by combining a logistic 

function with an exponential function.4,5

The relative degree of influence from the internal and external sources determines the 

general shape of the diffusion curve for a specific product.4,5 If adoption of a product is 

influenced primarily by external sources of information (the announcement effect), for instance, 

a high rate of diffusion occurs at the beginning of the process. In this scenario, external sources 

provide immediate information exposure to a significant number of prospective adopters. In 

contrast, internal sources (such as a network of prospective adopters) are relatively small in size 

and reach, producing a more gradual exposure to prospective adopters. Graphically speaking, 

information diffusion dominated by external sources is represented by a concave curve (the 

exponential curve in Figure 17A.4.1). If adoption of a new product is influenced most strongly 

by internal sources of information, the number of adopters increases gradually, forming a convex 

curve (the logistic curve in Figure 17A.4.1).

17A-5
Figure 17A.4.1 S-Curves Showing Effects of External and Internal 

Sources on Adoption of New Technologies

17A.4.2 Adjustment of XENERGY Penetration Curves

In consultation with the primary authors of the 2002 XENERGY study who later 

conducted similar California studies, DOE made some adjustments to XENERGY’s original 

implementation (penetration) curves.6 The experiences with utility programs since the 

XENERGY study indicate that incentive programs have difficulty achieving penetration rates as 

high as 80 percent. Consumer response is limited by barriers created by consumer utility issues 

and other non-economic factors. DOE therefore adjusted the maximum penetration parameters 

for some of the curves from 80 percent to the following levels:

Moderate Barriers: 70%

High Barriers: 60%

Extremely High Barriers: 50%

The low barriers and no barriers curves (the latter used only when a product has a very 

high base-case-market share) remained, respectively, with 80 percent and 100 percent as their 

maximum penetration rates. For the interpolated penetration curves (discussed below), DOE set 

the no barriers and extremely high barriers curves as the upper and lower bounds, respectively, 

for any benefit/cost ratio points higher or lower than the curves. It set another constraint such 

17A-6
that the policy case market share cannot be great than 100 percent, as might occur for products 

with high base case market shares of the target-level technology.

17A.4.3 Interpolation of Penetration Curves

As discussed above, the XENERGY penetration (implementation) curves followed a 

functional form to estimate the market implementation rate caused by energy efficiency 

measures such as consumer rebates.c The XENERGY report presents five reference market 

implementation curves that vary according to the level of market barriers to technology 

penetration.1 Such curves have been used by DOE in the Regulatory Impact Analyses for 

rulemakings for appliance energy efficiency standards to estimate market share increases in 

response to rebate programs.d They provide a framework for evaluating technology penetration, 

yet require matching the studied market to the curve that best represents it. This approximate 

matching can introduce some inaccuracy to the analysis. 

Blum et al (2011, Appendix A)7

presents an alternative approach to such evaluation: a 

method to estimate market implementation rates more accurately by performing interpolations of 

the reference curves. The referred report describes the market implementation rate function and 

the reference curves, the method to calibrate the function to a given market, and the limitations 

of the method. 

c The RIA chapter refers to these curves as penetration curves. This section, in references to the original source, uses 

the term implementation curve. d DOE has also used this method to estimate market share increases resulting from consumer tax credit and 

manufacturer tax credit programs, since the effects of tax credits on markets can be considered proportional to the 

rebate impacts. 

17A-7

 
17A.5 CONSUMER REBATE PROGRAMS 

Since DOE did not find any rebate programs for SPVUs, it searched for rebates for single 

package commercial unitary air conditioners (CUACs) as a related product. Some organizations

nationwide, comprising electric utilities and municipal and regional agencies, have rebate

programs for CUACs. DOE found 4 rebate programs from 4 organizations that offered rebates 

for single package units with capacities less than 65,000 Btus that met various efficiency criteria. 

DOE selected rebate programs that had EER ratings only. It did not include programs that had 

SEER ratings, reasoning that those units would be less similar to SPVUs. Table 17A.5.1 provides 

the organizations’ names, states, rebate amounts, EER levels, and program websites. If there is 

more than one entry for an organization, that organization offers different rebate amounts 

depending on efficiency level. Rebates are per ton of capacity, so DOE calculated the rebate per 

unit using a 3-ton unit as the representative unit. DOE then calculated the average rebate across 

all programs. The rebate amount DOE calculated for SPVUs is $205.71 (in 2013$).

Table 17A.5.1 Rebates for CUAC < 65 KBtu 

Utility State Rebate $ EER Website

SRP AZ $60/ton 11.6 http://www.srpnet.com/energy/powerwise/business/pdfx/standardcont

ractor/FY13HVACEquipmentCatalog.pdf

SRP AZ $85/ton 12.0 http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/NC_HVAC.pdf

Duke Energy KY $25/ton 14.0 http://www.austinenergy.com/EnergyEfficiency/Programs/Rebates/Co

mmercial/CommercialEnergy/DXGuidelinesSchedule.pdf

Duke Energy NC $25/ton 12.0 http://www.srpnet.com/energy/powerwise/business/pdfx/standardcont

ractor/FY13HVACEquipmentCatalog.pdf

Duke Energy NC $45/ton 12.5 http://www.austinenergy.com/EnergyEfficiency/Programs/Rebates/Co

mmercial/CommercialEnergy/DXGuidelinesSchedule.pdf

Efficiency Maine ME $150/ton 12.0 http://www.srpnet.com/energy/powerwise/business/pdfx/standardcont

ractor/FY13HVACEquipmentCatalog.pdf

Efficiency Vermont VT $90/ton 12.0 http://www.efficiencymaine.com/docs/at_work/EMBPPrescCashIncen

tives.pdf

17A-8
17A.6 FEDERAL AND STATE TAX CREDITS

This section summarizes the Federal and State tax credits available to consumers who 

purchase energy efficient appliances. This section also describes tax credits available to 

manufacturers who produce certain energy efficient appliances.

17A.6.1 Federal Tax Credits for Consumers

EPACT 2005 included Federal tax credits for consumers who installed efficient air 

conditioners or heat pumps; gas, oil and propane furnaces and boilers; furnace fans; and/or gas, 

oil, or electric heat pump water heaters in new or existing homes.8, 9 These tax credits were in 

effect in 2006 and 2007, expired in 2008, and were reinstated for 2009–2010 by the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).10 There was a $1,500 cap on the credit per home, 

including the amount received for insulation, windows, and air and duct sealing. Congress 

extended this provision for 2011, with some modifications to eligibility requirements, and 

reductions in the cap to $500 per home. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 extended, 

with some modifications, residential tax credits for air conditioners, heat pumps, furnaces, and 

water heaters placed in service between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2013.8, 11

The tax credit for furnace fans was $50 in 2011, after which it expired.

The importance of the Federal tax credits has been emphasized in research in the 

residential heating industry on the impacts of the relatively large credits that were available for 

HVAC (heating, ventilating, and air conditioning) equipment. In a survey of HVAC distributors 

conducted by Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, respondents indicated that the ample 

credit had had a notable impact on sales of higher-efficiency heating and cooling equipment. 

Some distributors combined the Federal tax credits with manufacturer rebates and utility 

program rebates for a greater consumer incentive. However, when the amount of the Federal tax 

credit was reduced, smaller utility rebate incentives had not induced the same levels of 

equipment sales increases. The decrease in incentive size from a $1,500 cap in 2009-2010 to a 

$500 cap in 2011, during a period when the economy continued to be sluggish, resulted in a 

decline in total sales of residential HVAC products. Distributors stated that an incentive needed 

to cover 25 to 75 percent of the incremental cost of the efficient equipment to influence 

consumer choice. The industry publication “2011 HVAC Review and Outlook” noted a decline 

in sales of air conditioning units with >14 SEER in 2011 and a return in sales of units with >16 

SEER to 2009 levels (after an increase in 2010). The large majority of distributor observed no 

impacts from the utility programs with their lower rebate amounts available in 2011. Distributors 

also commented on the advantages of the Federal tax credit being nationwide in contrast to 

utility rebate programs that target regional markets.12, 13

In an effort to evaluate the potential impact of a Federal appliance tax credit program, 

DOE reviewed Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data on the numbers of taxpayers who claimed 

the tax credits during tax years 2006 and 2007. It estimated the percentage of taxpayers who filed 

Form 5695, Residential Energy Credits.

14 It also estimated the percentage of taxpayers with 

entries under Form 5695’s section 3, Residential energy property costs, line 3b, qualified natural 

gas, propane, or oil furnace or hot water boiler. DOE reasoned that the percentage of taxpayers 

17A-9
with an entry on Line 3b could serve as a rough indication of the potential of taxpayer 

participation in a Federal tax credit program for furnaces during the initial program years. DOE 

found that of all residential taxpayers filing tax returns, 0.8 percent in 2006 and 0.6 percent in 

2007, claimed a credit for a furnace or boiler. DOE further found that the percentages of those 

filing Form 5695 for any qualifying energy property expenditure (which also included 

installation of efficient windows, doors and roofs) were 3.1 and 3.2 percent in 2006 and 2007 

respectively. 

DOE also reviewed data from an earlier Federal energy conservation tax credit program 

in place in the 1980s. While this tax credit was available from 1979 through 1985, DOE located 

data for only the first three years of the program.

15, 16, 17 For those three years - 1979, 1980, and 

1981 - the percentages of taxpayers filing Form 5695 were 6.4 percent, 5.2 percent, and 4.9 

percent. Given that the data from this earlier tax credit program were not disaggregated by type 

of energy property, this data series served only to indicate a possible trend of greater 

participation in the initial program year, followed by slightly smaller participation in subsequent 

years. However, DOE did not find detailed analysis of this program to indicate the possible 

reasons for such a trend. Also, this trend varies from the more stable trend shown in the EPAct 

2005 energy tax credit program data for its first two program years.

As discussed in Chapter 17, DOE analyzed the percentage of participation in consumer 

tax credit programs using its estimates of consumer participation in rebate programs that was 

based on benefit/cost data specific to each product class. Hence it was difficult to compare these 

detailed estimates to the more general data analysis described above from the existing Federal 

tax credit program, or to use the IRS data analysis in its consumer tax credit analysis.

17A.6.2 Federal Tax Credits for Manufacturers

EPACT 2005 provided Federal Energy Efficient Appliance Credits to manufacturers that 

produced high-efficiency refrigerators, clothes washers, and dishwashers in 2006 and 2007.18

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 200819 amended the credits and extended them 

through 2010. The credits were extended again to 2011 with modifications in the eligibility 

requirements. Manufacturer tax credits were extended again, by the American Taxpayer Relief 

Act of 2012, for clothes washers, refrigerators, and dishwashers manufactured between January 

1, 2012 and December 31, 2013.20

Manufacturers who produce these appliances receive the credits for increasing their 

production of qualifying appliances. These credits had several efficiency tiers in 2011. For 2012-

2013, credits for the higher tiers remain but were eliminated for the lowest (least efficient) tiers 

for clothes washers and dishwashers.

11 The credit amounts applied to each unit manufactured. 

The credit to manufacturers of qualifying clothes washers, refrigerators and dishwashers was 

capped at $75 million for the period of 2008-2010. However, the most efficient refrigerator 

(30%) and clothes washer (2.2 MEF/4.5 wcf) models was not subject to the cap. The credit to 

manufacturers was capped at $25 million for 2011, with the most efficient refrigerators (35%) 

and clothes washers (2.8 MEF/3.5 WCF) exempted from this cap.21

17A-10
17A.6.3 State Tax Credits

The States of Oregon and Montana have offered consumer tax credits for efficient 

appliances for several years, and the States of Kentucky, Michigan and Indiana began offering 

such credits in 2009. The Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE) has disaggregated data on 

taxpayer participation in credits for eligible products. (See the discussion in Chapter 17, Section 

17.3.3, on tax credit data for clothes washers.) Montana’s Department of Revenue does not 

disaggregate participation data by appliance, although DOE reviewed Montana's overall 

participation trends and found them congruent with its analysis of Oregon's clothes washer tax 

credits. 

Oregon’s Residential Energy Tax Credit (RETC) was created in 1977. The Oregon 

legislature expanded the RETC program in 1997 to include residential refrigerators, clothes 

washers, and dishwashers, which significantly increased participation in the program. The 

program subsequently added credits for high-efficiency heat pump systems, air conditioners, and 

water heaters (2001); furnaces and boilers (2002); and duct/air sealing, fuel cells, heat recovery, 

and renewable energy equipment. Beginning in 2012 a Tax Credit Extension Bill (HB3672) 

eliminated refrigerators, clothes washers, dishwashers, air conditioners, and boilers from the 

RETC program, leaving credits for water heaters, furnaces, heat pumps, tankless water heaters, 

and heat pump water heaters.22, 23 Those technologies recognized by the Oregon Department of 

Energy as “premium efficiency” are eligible for tax credit of $0.60 per kWh saved in the first 

year (up to $1,500).22, 24

Montana has had an Energy Conservation Tax Credit for residential measures since 

1998.25 The tax credit covers various residential energy and water efficient products, including 

split system central air conditioning; package system central air conditioning; split system air 

source heat pumps; package system heat pumps; natural gas, propane, or oil furnaces; hot water 

boilers; advanced main air circulating fans; heat recovery ventilators; gas, oil, or propane water 

heaters; electric heat pump water heaters; low-flow showerheads and faucets; light fixtures; and 

controls. In 2002 the amount of the credit was increased from 5 percent of product costs (up to 

$150) to 25 percent (up to $500) per taxpayer. The credit can be used for products installed in 

new construction or remodeling projects. The tax credit covers only that part of the cost and 

materials that exceed established standards of construction.

17A-11
REFERENCES

1. Rufo, M. and F. Coito, California's Secret Energy Surplus: The Potential for Energy 

Efficiency, 2002. XENERGY Inc. (Last accessed March, 2013.) <

www.issuelab.org/resource/californias_secret_energy_surplus_the_potential_for_energy_

efficiency>

2. Hall, B. H. and B. Khan, Adoption of New Technology. Working Paper No. E03-330, 

2003

3. Lekvall. P and C. Wahlbin, "A Study of Some Assumptions Underlying Innovation 

Diffusion Functions". Swedish Journal of Economics, 1973

4. Geroski, P. A., Models of Technology Diffusion. Research Policy, 2000. 29: pp. 603-625 

5. Van den Bulte, C., "Want to Know How Diffusion Speed Varies Across Countries and 

Products? Try a Bass Model". Product Development & Management Association, 2002. 

XXVI(4)

6. Rufo, M., Telephone Conversation with Barbara Atkinson of LBNL, personal 

communication. Itron, Inc. January 2008 and March 2009.

7. Blum, H., Atkinson B., and Lekov, A., A Framework for Comparative Assessments of 

Energy Efficiency Policy Measures, May, 2011. 

8. Tax Incentives Assistance Project, Consumer Tax Incentives: Home Heating & Cooling 

Equipment., 2011. (Last accessed March, 2013.) 

<www.energytaxincentives.org/consumers/heating-cooling.php>

9. Energy Policy Act of 2005, in 119 STAT. 594 Public Law 109-58. Section 1333, 26 USC 

25C note,. 2005. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109hr6pcs/pdf/BILLS109hr6pcs.pdf

10. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 2009. Government Printing Office. 

(Last accessed March, 2013.) <http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1enr.pdf>

11. Tax Incentives Assistance Project, The Tax Incentives Assistance Project (TIAP), 2013.

(Last accessed March, 2013.) <http://energytaxincentives.org/>

12. Foster, R., J. Grevatt, N. Lange, and T. Gee, Efficiency Programs and Distributors: 

Opportunities to Fully Leverage the Supply Chain for Greater Impact, August 12-17, 

2012. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Asilomar, CA. 

<http://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2012/data/papers/0193-000198.pdf>

17A-12
13. Tusa, C. S., D. Pierson, P. Mammola, and J. P. Vora, JPM/HARDI 2011 HVAC Survey, 

2011. <http://www.hardinet.org/mid-season-hvac-distributor-survey>

14. Internal Revenue Service, SOI Tax Stats - Individual Income Tax Returns, Estimated 

Data Line Counts, (Last accessed March, 2013.) <www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-StatsIndividual-Income-Tax-Returns,-Line-Item-Estimates>

15. Internal Revenue Service, 1979 Annual Report, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, (Last 

accessed March, 2013.) <http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/79dbfullar.pdf>

16. Internal Revenue Service, 1980 Annual Report, Commissioner of Internal Revenue., (Last 

accessed March, 2013.) <http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/80dbfullar.pdf>

17. Internal Revenue Service, 1981 Annual Report: Commissioner of Internal Revenue and 

the Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service, (Last accessed March, 2013.) 

<http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/81dbfullar.pdf>

18. U.S. Department of the Treasury–Internal Revenue Service, Form 8909: Energy Efficient 

Appliance Credit, (Last accessed March, 2013.) <www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8909.pdf>

19. Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, (Last accessed September, 2011.) 

<http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ343/pdf/PLAW-110publ343.pdf>

20. American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, 2012. Government Printing Office. (Last 

accessed March, 2013.) <www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr8eas/pdf/BILLS112hr8eas.pdf>

21. Tax Incentives Assistance Project, Manufacturers Incentives, (Last accessed March, 

2013.) <http://energytaxincentives.org/builders/appliances.php>

22. Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE), Oregon 

Incentives/Policies for Renewable Energy, Residential Energy Tax Credit, 2013. (Last 

accessed March, 2013.) 

<http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=OR17F&re=1&ee=1

>

23. Oregon Department of Energy, HB 3672 (2011)Tax Credit Extension Bill, 2013.

<http://www.oregon.gov/energy/CONS/docs/HB3672summary.pdf>

24. Oregon Department of Energy, ODOE: Energy Conservation, Heat Pumps and Air 

Conditioning Systems, 2013. <www.oregon.gov/energy/cons/pages/res/tax/hvac-hpac.aspx>

17A-13
25. Montana Department of Revenue, Energy Related Tax Relief: Energy Conservation 

Installation Credit, (Last accessed March, 2013.) 

<http://revenue.mt.gov/home/individuals/taxrelief_energy>

17A-14