to model the standards levels in the Reference Case.a

12.4 METHODS

NEMS is a large, multi-sectoral, partial equilibrium model of the US energy sector that has

been developed over several years by the DOE/ETA, primarily for the purpose of preparing the

Annual Energy Outlook. NEMS produces a widely recognized baseline forecast for the US. through

2020 and is available in the public domain. The NEMS-BRS model used for appliance standards

analysis is based on the AE099 version of NEMS with minor modifications.

The current time horizon of NEMS-BRS is 2020, yet other parts of the appliance energy

efficiency work reach 2030. It is not feasible to extend the forecast period of NEMS-BRS for the

purposes of this analysis nor does ETA have an approved method for extrapolation of many outputs

beyond 2020. While it might seem reasonable in general to make simple linear extrapolations of

results, in practice this is not advisable because outputs could be contradictory. For example, changes

in the fuel mix implied by extrapolations of those outputs could be inconsistent with the

extrapolation of marginal emissions factors. An analysis of various trends sufficiently detailed to

guarantee consistency is beyond the scope of this work, and, in any case, would involve a great deal

of uncertainty. Therefore, all extrapolations beyond 2020 presented here are simple replications of

year 2020 results. While these may seem unreasonable in some instances, in this way results are

guaranteed to be consistent. As with the AE099 Reference Case in general, the implicit assumption

is that the regulatory environment does not deviate from the current known situation during the

extrapolation period. Only changes that have been announced with date-certain introduction are

included in NEMS-BRS. To emphasize the extrapolated results wherever they appear, they are

shaded in grey to distinguish them from actual NEMS-BRS results.

For fuel prices, we extrapolate to 2030 using the DOE/ETA approach for forecasting fuel

prices for the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). To determine the regional price

forecasts for petroleum products for the years 2020-2030, we use the projected average annual

growth rate for the world oil price in combination with the refinery and distribution markups from

the year 2020 onward. Similarly, natural gas prices are derived from the average annual growth rate

over the years 1997 to 2020 in combination with regional price margins from the year 2020.

Electricity prices are kept constant at 2020 levels because it is assumed that the transition to a

restructured utility industry will be completed.

Policy runs are executed by reducing electricity, gas, oil, and LPG consumption into the

NEMS-BRS Residential Demand Module. These energy reductions are applied to the clothes

washer, clothes dryer and water heater end-uses, according to the share of the energy savings each

of these appliances represent. Energy savings for each appliance are also divided among census

regions based on the prevalence of each fuel in each end use, as determined by the Residential

Energy Consumption Survey (RECS).3 All residential fuels are considered simultaneously, and the

a Please see pages 39 and 45 of the AE099 for more details on growth assumptions.

12-3

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
load shape effects of improved clothes washer efficiency are thereby replicated as well as possible.

As mentioned above, the magnitude of energy decrement that would be required for NEMSBRS to produce stable results safely out of the range of numerical noise is larger than even the most

rigorous efficiency standard under consideration. Therefore, we estimated results in the range of the

of the standard levels using interpolation. Reductions to the Residential Demand Module clothes

washer, clothes dryer and water heater loads are implemented at sets of multipliers of each trial

standard level. Actual standard level changes in generation and capacity due to the standard are then

derived from these outputs. A detailed description of the interpolation methodology is given in

Appendix EA-3.

12.5 RESULTS

The Table 12-1 shows the results from a NEMS-BRS run comparable to the published

AE099 Reference Case, with results for the various trial standards cases presented in the parallel

Tables 12-2 through 12-7. Each table shows forecasts using interpolated results as described in

Section 12.4 above for residential energy sales and total US electric generation and installed capacity.

As expected, gas-fired generation is somewhat more affected by the standard levels than coal-fired

generation. This effect reflects the more load following role of gas generation overall.

Residential energy sales fall for each proposed standard level compared to the AE099

Reference Case. The decrease in sales is proportional to the amount of energy that the National

Energy Savings (NES) model predicts will be saved by each standard, ranging from just over 0.07%

to over 2% of total residential electricity sales and up to nearly 1.9% of total residential gas sales in

the peak savings year reported. Total US generation decreases relative to the AE099 baseline in each

standard case, from nearly 0.8% of total US electric generation in the peak year of the maximum

savings case (MEF of 1.634, a 50% reduction in energy usage) to just under 0.03% in the peak year

of the smallest savings case (MEF of 0.860, a 5% reduction in energy usage). The gas contribution

to electric generation falls by about 1% in the peak year of the maximum savings case. Total

installed capacity is also slightly reduced in each standard level scenario, by just over 1% in the final

year of the maximum savings case.

The reduction in gas consumption at the power plant will, by and large, exceed the reduction

in gas consumption at households, as a fraction of total projected gas savings. As an example, in the

case of a 1.257 MEF (an energy usage reduction of 35%) , the reduction in gas consumed by the

power sector in 2010 represents about 64% of total gas savings (with households contributing the

remaining 36%). Tn 2020, the power sector savings represent about 48% of the total decrease in gas

consumption. It is important to note that these savings, even at their highest level, are small

compared to total power sector gas consumption, never exceeding 2% in any of the trial standard

cases (or 0.6% of total US gas consumption). Furthermore, gas consumption in power generation

is predicted by NEMS-BRS to approximately triple during the forecast period, reaching over 9.9 EJ

(9.4 Quads) by 2020. Residential gas consumption is also forecast by NEMS-BRS to increase over

time, though not nearly as dramatically, as does gas demand in other sectors.

12-4

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
In addition to the analysis based on standards with respect to the AE099 Reference Case, two

sets of sensitivities were run for the negotiated proposed two-tier standard of a 1.04 MEF (Modified

Energy Factor) becoming effective in 2004 and a 1.26 MEF effective in 2007. The sensitivities run

were for the AE099 High and Low Economic Growth scenario and for high and low clothes washer

shipment forecasts due to high and low elasticity assumptions (see NES and Shipments chapters for

more detailed discussion). The results for the high and low elasticity sensitivities are provided in

Tables 12-8 and 12-9 and are run with respect to AE099 Reference Case. For the Low (High)

Economic Growth Case, the savings have a slightly lower (higher) impact for each of the reported

industry parameters relative to the AE099 Reference Case. Results for these AE099 Economic

Growth cases are shown in Tables 12-10 and 12-11.

12-5

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Table 12.1 AE099 Reference Case Forecast

NEMS-BRS Results: AE099 Reference

I 2000 I 2005 I 2010 I 2015 I 2020

Residential Sector Energy Consumption1 ________

Electricity Sales (TWh)2 1,175

_______

1,262

_______

1,341

_______

1,445

_______

1,557

Natural Gas (EJ) 5.5 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.3

Other(EJ) 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9

Natural Gas (Quads) 5.2 5.3 5.5 5.8 5.9

Other (Quads)3 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8

Total US Electric Generation4 ________ ________ ________ ________

Coal (TWh) 1,990 2,037 2,092 2,204

________

2,348

Gas(TWh) 547 858 1,149 1,441 1,588

Petroleum (TWh) 109 44 35 33 31

Nuclear (TWh) 660 631 554 419 359

Renewables (TWh) 423 433 446 461 483

Total (TWhV 3,729 4.003 4,276 4,558 4,809

Insta11td Gnrating Cflpaeity6

Coal(GW) 315.2 315.0 318.9 326.2 343.5

OtherFossil(GW)7 301.5 369.7 397.3 470.1 513.5

Nuclear (GW) 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9

Renewables (GW) 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4

Total(GW)8 808.7 871.0 890.7 955.0 1,011.3

Comparable to Table A2 of AE099: Energy Consumption, Residentiai

2 Comparable to Table A8 of AE099: Electricity Sales by Sector

Includes distillate fuel, residential fuel, kerosene, LPG, motor gasoline, coal, and renewable energy

Comparable to Table A8 of AE099: Electric Generators and Cogenerators

Excludes "Other Gaseous Fuels" cogenerators and "Other" cogenerators

6 Comparable to Table A9 ofAE099: Electric Generators and Cogenerators Capability

Includes "Other Gaseous Fuels" cogenerators

8 Excludes Pumped Storage and Fuel Cells

12-6

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Table 12.2 MEF = 1.634 (50% Reduction in Energy Usage Forecast)

NEMS-BRS Results Difference from AE099 Reference (Annual)

Extrapolarioii

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Residential Sector Energy Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) 1,175 1,258 1,327 1,420 1,525 0.0 -4.0 -13.9 -25.4 -31.9 -33. -35.2

NaturalGas(EJ) 5.50 5.59 5.77 6.00 6.15 0.00 -0.01 -0.05 -0.09 -0.11 -0.12 -0.13

Other(EJ) 2.15 2.06 2.01 1.95 1.92 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01

NaturalGas(Quads) 5.21 5.30 5.47 5.68 5.83 0.00 -0.01 -0-.05 -0.09 -0.11 [jj] -0.12

Other (Quads) 2.04 1.95 1.90 1.85 1.82 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01

Total US Electric Generation

Coal(TWh) 1,990 2,035 2,090 2,197 2,329 0.0 -2.0 -1.9 -7.3 -18.9 -18.0 -18.9

Gas (TWh) 547 856 1,136 1,421 1,573 -0.2 -2.2 -12.9 -19.5 -15.2 -15.2 -I.2

Petroleum (TWh) 109 44 35 32 31 0.0 -0.5 -0.4 -0.5 -0.3 -0.3 -03

Nuclear (TWh) 660 631 554 419 359 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.']

Renewables (TWh) 423 433 446 460 481 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -1.7 -1.7 -1.7

Total (TWh) 3,729 3,998 4,261 4,530 4,773 -0.2 -4.7 -15.2 -27.9 -36.2 6.2 -36.2

Installed Generating Capacity

______ ______ ______ ______ _______ _____ _____

Coal(GW) 315.2 315.0 318.8 325.7 341.3 0.0 0.0

______

-0.1

______

-0.5

______

-2.2 22 -2.2

Other Fossil (GW) 301.5 369.6 394.1 463.9 505.6 0.0 -0.1 -3.2 -6.2 -7.9

Nuclear (GW) 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 a a o.o

Renewables (GW) 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.2 105.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -'.2

Total(GW) 808.7 870.9 887.4 948.2 1,001.0 0.0 -0.1 -3.3 -6.8 -10.3 l03 -111.3

12-7

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Table 12.3 MEF = 1.362 (40% Reduction in Energy Usage Forecast)

NEMS-BRS Results Difference from AE099 Reference

Extiapiation

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2O2 21130

Residential Sector Energy Consumption

______ ______ ______ ______ _______

Electricity Sales (TWh) 1,175 1,259 1,330 1,426 1,534 0.0 -3.1 -10.7 -19.1 -23.4 -245 -25.4

Natural Gas (EJ) 5.50 5.59 5.78 6.00 6.16 0.00 -0.01 -0.05 -0.08 -0.10 -(LI 1 -01

Other(EJ) 2.15 2.06 2.01 1.95 1.92 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -iJM] 00F

Natural Gas (Quads) 5.21 5.30 5.48 5.69 5.84 0.00 -0.01 -0.04 -0.08 -0.10 -010 -0.1 F

Other (Quads) 2.04 1.95 1.90 1.85 1.82 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -1j

Total US Electric Generation

Coal(TWh) 1,990 2,036 2,090 2,198 2,334 0.0 -1.5 -2.2 -5.8 -14.5 -].5 -4•5

Gas (TWh) 547 856 1,140 1,426 1,577 -0.1 -1.7 -9.2 -14.7 -10.6 -0.6 -10.6

Petroleum (TWh) 109 44 35 33 31 0.0 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 -0.2 0.2 -0.2

Nuclear (TWh) 660 631 554 419 359 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 [0

Renewables (TWh) 423 433 446 461 482 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.4 -1.3 -1.3

Total (TWh) 3,729 3,999 4,264 4,537 4,782 -0.1 -3.5 -11.7 -21.3 -26.6 -266 -266

Installed Generating Capacity ______ ______ ______ ______ _______ ______ ______ ______ ______

Coal(GW) 315.2 315.0 318.8 325.7 341.8 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.5

______

-1.7 7 -1.7

OtherFossil(GW) 301.5 369.6 395.0 466.1 508.7 0.0 -0.1 -2.3 -4.0 -4.8 48 -.4.8

Nuclear (GW) 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (LI)

Renewables (GW) 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 02 -0.2

Total (GW) 808.7 870.9 888.3 950.5 1,004.6 0.0 -0.1 -2.4 -4.5 -6.7

12-8

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Table 12.4 MEF = 1.257 (35% Reduction in Energy Usage Forecast)

NEMS-BRS Results Difference from AE099 Reference

Etr a p o lati on

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Residential Sector Energy Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) 1,175 1,259 1,330 1,426 1,534 0.0 -3.1 -10.6 -18.9 -23.2 -24.3 -25.

NaturalGas(EJ) 5.50 5.59 5.78 6.00 6.16 0.00 -0.01 -0.05 -0.08 -0.10 -Qil -011

Other(EJ) 2.15 2.06 2.01 1.95 1.92 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01

NaturalGas(Quads) 5.21 5.30 5.48 5.69 5.84 0.00 -0.01 -0.04 -0.08 -0.10 -0.10 -0.11

Other (Quads) 2.04 1.95 1.90 1.85 1.82 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -001 -0.01

Total US Electric Generation

Coal(TWh) 1,990 2,036 2,090 2,198 2,334 0.0 -1.2 -2.1 -5.8 -14.1 -14.1 -1l

Gas (TWh) 547 856 1,140 1,426 1,577 -0.1 -1.8 -9.2 -14.6 -10.7 -107 -10.7

Petroleum (TWh) 109 44 35 33 31 0.0 -0.3 -0.2 -0.4 -0.2 M2 -0.2

Nuclear (TWh) 660 631 554 419 359 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Renewables(TWh) 423 433 446 461 482 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.4 -1.3 -13 -1.3.

Total(TWh) 3,729 4,000 4,264 4,537 4,783 -0.1 -3.3 -11.6 -21.2 -26.4 -26.4 -26,4

Installed Generating Capacity

Coal(GW) 315.2 315.0 318.8 325.8 341.8 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.4 -1.7 ..7 -1.7

Other Fossil (GW) 301.5 369.6 395.1 466.1 508.8 0.0 -0.1 -2.2 -4.0 -4.7 -4.7

Nuclear (GW) 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Renewables (GW) 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.2 105.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -02 -0.2

Total (GW) 808.7 870.9 888.4 950.5 1,004.7 0.0 -0.1 -2.3 -4.5 -6.6

12-9

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Table 12.5 MEF = 1.089 (25% Reduction in Energy Usage Forecast)

NEMS-BRS Results Difference from AE099 Reference

____________________________________________ __________________________________________

ExIripoIation

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Residential Sector Energy Consumption

ElectricitySales(TWh) 1,175 1,260 1,335 1,434 1,543 0.0 -1.8 -6.5 -11.3 -13.6 -14.2 -14.7

Natural Gas (EJ) 5.50 5.59 5.79 6.02 6.19 0.00 -0.01 -0.04 -0.07 -0.08 -0.08 -'309

Other(EJ) 2.15 2.06 2.01 1.95 1.92 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01

Natural Gas (Quads) 5.21 5.30 5.48 5.71 5.86 0.00 -0.01 -0.04 -0.06 -0.08 -008 -0.08

Other (Quads) 2.04 1.95 1.90 1.85 1.82 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01

Total US Electric Generation

Coal (TWh) 1,990 2,036 2,091 2,200 2,339 0.0 -0.9 -1.1 -3.6 -9.1 9i -9j

Gas (TV/h) 547 857 1,143 1,432 1,582 -0.1 -0.8 -5.8 -8.6 -5.6 6 -5.6

Petroleum (TWh) 109 44 35 33 31 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 -0.3 -0.2 .2 -0.2

Nuclear (TWh) 660 631 554 419 359 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ('ii

Renewables (TWh) 423 433 446 461 482 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.3 -0.9 -0 9 -0.9

Total (TWh) 3,729 4,001 4,269 4,545 4,793 -0.1 -2.0 -7.0 -12.7 -15.7 - 7 47

Installed Generating Capacity

Coal(GW) 315.2 315.0 318.9 326.0 342.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -1.1 .. .1l

Other Fossil (GW) 301.5 369.6 395.9 467.7 510.9 0.0 -0.1 -1.4 -2.4 -2.6

Nuclear(GW) 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ui'

Renewables(GW) 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -Ui

Total (GW) 808.7 870.9 889.2 952.3 1,007.5 0.0 -0.1 -1.5 -2.7 -3.8 .

12-10

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Table 12.6 MEF = 1.021 (20% Reduction in Energy Usage Forecast)

NEMS-BRS Results Difference from AE099 Reference

_____________________________________

Exlrapolalioii

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Residential Sector Energy Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) 1,175 1,261 1,338 1,439 1,550 0.0 -1.0 -3.4 -5.9 -7.1 -7.4 -76

Natural Gas (EJ) 5.50 5.60 5.80 6.05 6.22 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0.04 -0.04 -004 -005

Other(EJ) 2.15 2.06 2.01 1.95 1.92 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -001 -001

Natural Gas (Quads) 5.21 5.30 5.50 5.74 5.90 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0.04 (1Ø4

Other (Quads) 2.04 1.95 1.90 1.85 1.82 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -(101 -0.01!

Total US Electric Generation

Coal (TWh) 1,990 2,037 2,091 2,202 2,343 0.0 -0.5 -0.6 -2.1 -4.8 -4.8 -4.8

Gas (TWh) 547 858 1,146 1,437 1,585 0.0 -0.5 -3.1 -4.4 -2.9 -2.9 -29

Petroleum (TWh) 109 44 35 33 31 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0,1

Nuclear (TWh) 660 631 554 419 359 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 oo

Renewables (TWh) 423 433 446 461 483 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.4 . -v.4

Total (TWh) 3,729 4,002 4,272 4,551 4,801 0.0 -1.1 -3.8 -6.7 -8.3

Installed Generating Capacity

Coal(GW) 315.2 315.0 318.9 326.1 342.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.6 -0.6

Other Fossil (GW) 301.5 369.7 396.6 469.0 512.4 0.0 0.0 -0.7 -1.1 -1.1 i -1.1

Nuclear(GW) 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 oo o.o

Renewables(GW) 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -o -0.]

Total(GW) 808.7 871.0 890.0 953.8 1,009. 0.0 0.0 -0.7 -1.2 -1.7 -I7 -1.7

6

12-11

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Table 12.7 MEF 1.04 in 2004 and 1.26 in 2007; 2-Tier Forecast; Trial Standard Level 3

NEMS-BRS Results Difference from AE099 Reference

_________________________________________ ________________________________________

ExtrpoItion

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Residential Sector Energy Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) 1,175 1,261 1,333 1,429 1,534 0.0 -1.2 -8.0 -16.1 -22.6 -24.2 -25.1

Natural Gas (EJ) 5.50 5.60 5.79 6.01 6.17 0.00 -0.01 -0.04 -0.07 -0.10 -Q. 1 -0. 1

Other(EJ) 2.15 2.06 2.01 1.95 1.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.0.] -0.01

Natural Gas (Quads) 5.21 5.30 5.48 5.70 5.84 0.00 -0.01 -0.04 -0.07 -0.10 -11.10 -0.1 I

Other(Quads) 2.04 1.95 1.91 1.85 1.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -()(fl -0.01

Total US Electric Generation

Coal (TWh) 1,990 2,037 2,091 2,199 2,335 0.0 -0.5 -1.1 -5.2 -12.6 -126 -12.6

Gas (TWh) 547 857 1,142 1,429 1,576 -0.1 -0.7 -7.5 -12.2 -11.9 -11.9 -119

Petroleum (TWh) 109 44 35 33 31 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -u.i -0.1

Nuclear (TWh) 660 631 554 419 359 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 tL 00

Renewables (TWh) 423 433 446 461 482 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.4 -1.1 -1 ] -11

Total (TWh) 3,729 4,002 4,267 4,540 4,783 -0.1 -1.3 -8.7 -17.9 -25.7 -257

Installed Generating Capacity

______ ______ ______

Coal(GW) 315.2 315.0 318.9 325.8 342.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.4 -1.4 14 -1.4

Other Fossil (GW) 301.5 369.6 396.0 466.6 509.0 0.0 -0.1 -1.3 -3.5 -4.5 -

Nuclear (GW) 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 00

Renewables (GW) 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -02 -0.2

Total (GW) 808.7 870.9 889.4 951.1 1,005.2 0.0 -0.1 -1.3 -3.9 -6.1 61

12-12

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Table 12.8 MEF 1.04 in 2004 and 1.26 in 2007; 2-Tier High Elasticity Sensitivity Forecast

NEMS-BRS Results Difference from AE099 Reference

EJrapabtioii

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 202 2030

Residential Sector Energy Consumption

______ ______ ______ ______

Electricity Sales (TWh) 1,175 1,261 1,333 1,430 1,535 0.0 -1.2 -7.5 -15.4 -22.4 -24.6 -25.7

Natural Gas (EJ) 5.50 5.60 5.79 6.02 6.17 0.00 -0.01 -0.04 -0.07 -0.10 -0.11 -0.11

Other(EJ) 2.15 2.06 2.01 1.95 1.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -001 -0.01

Natural Gas (Quads) 5.21 5.30 5.49 5.70 5.84 0.00 -0.01 -0.03 -0.07 -0.10 -010 -0.1 I

Other(Quads) 2.04 1.95 1.91 1.85 1.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0,01 -0.01

Total US Electric Generation

Coal (TWh) 1,990 2,036 2,091 2,199 2,335 0.0 -0.6 -1.2 -5.0 -12.7 -12.7 -12.7

Gas(TWh) 547 858 1,142 1,429 1,576 -0.1 -0.5 -6.7 -11.6 -11.7 -11.7 -11.7

Petroleum (TWh) 109 44 35 33 31 0.0 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1

Nuclear (TWh) 660 631 554 419 359 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 QJ3 ut)

Renewables (TWh) 423 433 446 461 482 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.4 -1.1 -11 -LI

Total (TWh) 3,729 4,002 4,268 4,541 4,783 -0.1 -1.3 -8.1 -17.2 -25.6 -.6 -25.6

Installed Generating Capacity

Coal(GW) 315.2 315.0 318.9 325.9 342.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.3 -1.4 -1.4 -1.1

Other Fossil (GW) 301.5 369.6 396.1 466.8 509.1 0.0 -0.1 -1.2 -3.3 -4.4 4

Nuclear(GW) 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Renewables (GW) 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 02 -02

Total(GW) 808.7 870.9 889.5 951.4 1,005.4 0.0 -0.1 -1.2 -3.6 -5.9 .

12-13

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Table 12.9 MEF 1.04 in 2004 and 1.26 in 2007; 2-Tier Medium Price/Income Sensitivity Forecast

NEMS-BRS Results Difference from AE099 Reference

_________________________________________

ExlrapolaUon

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

_______

2000

________

2005

________

2010

_________

2015

________

2020 2025 2030

Residential Sector Energy Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) 1,175 1,261 1,333 1,428 1,534 0.0 -1.2 -8.3 -16.7 -23.0 -24.4 -253

Natural Gas (EJ) 5.50 5.60 5.78 6.01 6.16 0.00 -0.01 -0.04 -0.08 -0.10 -0.1! -' 1

Other(EJ) 2.15 2.06 2.01 1.95 1.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0)j

Natural Gas (Quads) 5.21 5.30 5.48 5.70 5.84 0.00 -0.01 -0.04 -0.07 -0.10 -0.0 -0.!

Other (Quads) 2.04 1.95 1.91 1.85 1.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -Ø.O -0.(jI

Total US Electric Generation

Coal(TWh) 1,990 2,036 2,091 2,199 2,335 0.0 -0.6 -1.1 -5.1 -12.8 -!2.8 -12.8

Gas(TWh) 547 857 1,141 1,428 1,576 -0.1 -0.6 -7.7 -12.9 -12.1 -12J -12.1

Petroleum(TWh) 109 44 35 33 31 0.0 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 -)j -0.1

Nuclear (TWh) 660 631 554 419 359 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.':

Renewables (TWh) 423 433 446 461 482 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.4 -1.1 -1.1

Total (TWh) 3,729 4,002 4,267 4,539 4,783 -0.1 -1.4 -9.0 -18.5 -26.0 26.O -260

Installed Generating Capacity

Coal(GW) 315.2 315.0 318.9 325.9 342.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.3 -1.5

Other Fossil (GW) 301.5 369.6 396.0 466.4 509.0 0.0 -0.1 -1.3 -3.7 -4.5 4 c

Nuclear (GW) 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Renewables (GW) 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.2 o2 -02

Total (GW) 808.7 870.9 889.4 951.0 1,005.1 0.0 -0.1 -1.3 -4.0 -6.2 6 -6.2

12-14

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Table 12.10 MEF 1.04 in 2004 and 1.26 in 2007; 2-Tier High Economic Growth Forecast

NEMS-BRS Results Difference from AE099 Reference

______________________________________________ ________________________________________

Extrapolation

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Residential Sector Energy Consumption

______ _______ ______ ________ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

Electricity Sales (TWh) 1,179 1,284 1,375 1,489 1,615 0.0 -1.2 -8.0 -16.1 -22.6

______

-24.2

______

-25.1

Natural Gas (EJ) 5.52 5.70 6.01 6.33 6.56 0.00 -0.01 -0.04 -0.07 -0.10 -011 -0.! 1

Other(EJ) 2.17 2.09 2.04 2.01 1.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 001 -001

Natural Gas (Quads) 5.23 5.40 5.69 6.00 6.21 0.00 -0.01 -0.04 -0.07 -0.10 -010 -O 11

Other(Quads) 2.06 1.98 1.94 1.90 1.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -o.o

Total US Electric Generation

Coal(TWh) 1,993 2,065 2,148 2,300 2,539 0.0 -0.4 -1.5 -6.3 -16.8 -j6 -I6is

Gas (TWh) 557 929 1,253 1,577 1,701 0.0 -0.8 -7.1 -11.1 -6.8 -(,. _

Petroleum (TWh) 108 44 35 34 32 0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -0.3 -0.1 j

-0.1

Nuclear (TWh) 660 631 554 419 373 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Renewables(TWh) 424 437 454 479 516 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.5 -1.3 i -13

Total (TWh) 3,742 4,106 4,443 4,809 5,161 0.0 -1.3 -9.0 -18.2 -25.0 2o -250

Installed Generating Capacity

______ ________ ________

Coal(GW) 315.2 315.3 322.0 335.0 365.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -2.0 . -2.0

Other Fossil (GW) 303.4 385.4 426.7 506.1 552.3 0.0 0.0 -1.2 -3.3 -3.7 37 3,7

Nuclear (GW) 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 50.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00

Renewables (GW) 97.3 99.2 101.4 104.7 109.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 )2 -0.2

Total(GW) 810.7 887.3 924.2 1,002.2 1,078.0 0.0 0.0 -1.3 -3.9 -5.9

12-15

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Table 12.11 MEF 1.04 in 2004 and 1.26 in 2007; 2-Tier Low Economic Growth Forecast

NEMS-ERS Results Difference from AE099 Reference

_____________________________________

Extrapolation

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

______

2000

_______

2005

________

2010

_______

2015

_______

2020 2025 2030

Residential Sector Energy Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) 1,172 1,240 1,296 1,373 1,456 0.0 -1.2 -8.0 -16.1 -22.6 -24.2 -25. I

Natural Gas (EJ) 5.48 5.48 5.56 5.70 5.77 0.00 -0.01 -0.04 -0.07 -0.10 -0.11 1 -0.11

Other(EJ) 2.14 2.04 1.96 1.90 1.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 ti.0I -001

Natural Gas (Quads) 5.19 5.19 5.27 5.40 5.46 0.00 -0.01 -0.04 -0.07 -0.10 -0.10 -011

Other (Quads) 2.03 1.93 1.86 1.80 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -001 -0.01

Total US Electric Generation

Coal (TWh) 1,982 2,000 2,057 2,125 2,185 0.0 -0.1 -2.5 -.4.5 -9.6 -0.6 -9.o

Gas (TWh) 541 798 1,017 1,264 1,402 0.0 -1.0 -6.3 -12.9 -12.5 -12.5 -12.5

Petroleum(TWh) 110 43 33 30 28 0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2

Nuclear (TWh) 660 627 551 411 343 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00

Renewables (TWh) 423 432 440 449 459 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.3 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7

Total (TWh) 3,716 3,900 4,098 4,279 4,418 0.0 -1.2 -9.1 -17.9 -23.0 -'O -23.0

Installed Generating Capacity

Coal(GW) 315.1 314.6 315.6 319.6 326.6 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -0.9 09 -0.9

OtherFossil(GW) 300.8 355.4 368.5 429.6 462.2 0.0 0.0 -1.2 -3.6 -4.5 . -.s

Nuclear(GW) 94.8 86.6 73.4 55.3 47.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 'Jo

Renewables (GW) 97.1 98.7 99.7 100.9 102.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0 1 -o.i

Total(GW) 807.8 855.3 857.2 905.3 938.3 0.0 0.0 -1.3 -4.0 -5.5

12-16

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
REFERENCES

1. US Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook

1999: With Projections Through 2020, December, 1998. Washington, DC. Report No.

DOEIEIA-03 83(99). <http://www. eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo99/homepage.html>

2. US Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration, Documentation of the DRI

Model of the US Economy, December, 1993. Washington, DC. Report No. DOE/EIAM061.

US Department of Energy, Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Household Energy

Consumption and Expenditures 1993, October, 1995, Energy Information Administration.

Report No. DOE/EIA-0321(93).

12-17

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
CHAPTER 13. NET NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT

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

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

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

...........

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.....

TABLE OF CONTENTS

13.1 NET NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT 13-1

13.2 INPUTS TO NET NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT SPREADSHEET 13-5

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 13.1 Net National Employment Impacts 13-1

Figure 13.2 Employment Impacts of Consumer Energy and Water Savings 13-3

Figure 13.3 Employment Impact of Incremental Clothes Washer Price 13-4

Figure 13.4 Employment Impacts in Energy Supply Sector 13-5

Figure 13.5 Projected Increase in U.S. Consumer Expenditures to Purchase Clothes Washers

After Standards 13-6

Figure 13.6 Projected U.S. Consumer Savings in Electricity Bills: Energy Efficiency

Standards on Clothes Washers 13-7

Figure 13.7 Projected U.S. Consumer Savings in Natural Gas Bills: Energy Efficiency

Standards on Clothes Washers 13-8

Figure 13.8 Projected U.S. Consumer Savings in Oil Bills: Energy Efficiency Standards on

Clothes Washers 13-9

Figure 13.9 Projected Savings due to Clothes Washer Standards: Residential Electricity

13-10

Figure 13.10 Projected Savings due to Clothes Washer Standards: Residential Natural Gas

(including LPG) 13-11

Figure 13.11 Projected Savings due to Clothes Washer Standards: Residential Oil 13-12

13-i

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
CHAPTER 13. NET NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT

13.1 NET NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT

Net national employment impacts from clothes washer standards are defmed as net jobs

created or eliminated in the general economy as a consequence of: (1) reduced spending by end

users on energy (electricity, gas including LPG, and oil) and water; (2) reduced spending on new

energy supply by the utility industry; (3) increased spending on the purchase price of new clothes

washers; and (4) the associated indirect effects of those three factors throughout the national

economy.

Figure 13.1 shows the estimated net national employment impacts of six different trial

clothes washer standard levels, including five with efficiency improvements ranging from a Modified

Energy Factor (MEF) of 1.021 to a MEF of 1.634, plus a two-tier negotiated standard level

implementing a 1.04 MEF in the year 2004 and a 1.26 MEF level in 2007. These standard levels are

defined in greater detail in the Engineering chapter. Figure 13.1 shows, for any given year, the

change in the number ofjobs in the economy relative to the case of no new standard. The different

scenarios are identified by both MEF and the proposed standard levels as numbered in the NOPR.

140

120

100

80

C

a

2 60

I0

40

20

0

-20

MEF StndLvi3

.---- -U-I 634 Lvi 6

-

-. 1.362 Lvi 5 - _________- - Lvi 2

EE

.

-

() (0 N- (0 0) 0) N () U) (0 N- (0 0) 0) N C') U) (0 N- (0 0) 0) C, 0) 0) 0) 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N C') 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 0) 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C') ('4 ('4 N ('1 N ('4 C') N ('1 N N ('4 N C') C') N N N N C') N N N C') N N

Year

Figure 13.1 Net National Employment Impacts

13-1

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
These results are based on an input/output model of the U.S. economy that estimates the

effects of standards on major sectors of the economy related to buildings and the net impact of

standards onjobs. The model, ImBuild, was developed bythe Office of Building Technology, State

and Community Programs.' ImBuild is a PC-based economic analysis model that characterizes the

interconnections among 35 sectors as national input/output structural matrices. It can be applied to

future time periods. ImBuild calculates the total effect on employment, including job creation or

deletion in the manufacturing sector. Direct employment impacts, those that would occur at clothes

washer manufacturing plants, are discussed in the Manufacturer Impact Analysis chapter.a

Figure 13.1 shows the cumulative increase/decrease in jobs for each year to the year 2030.

The greatest number of jobs is created for standard level 4 or 1.257 MEF in clothes washer

efficiency; in this case there would be 142,800 more jobs in 2030 than if there were no efficiency

standard implemented.

Jobs are created when a clothes washer standard results in operating cost savings that more

than offset the greater capital required to buy a more efficient clothes washer. Energy and water

savings (lower operating costs) are based on the difference in energy and water consumption between

scenarios of a standards case and a base case.

Figure 13.1 can be divided into three general sections:

1) In the first few years of a new standard, the increased costs of buying more efficient clothes

washer are greater than the initial dollar savings in energy and water. In Figure 13.1, this is

reflected as a net decrease in jobs for some of the standard levels.

2) Once the initial costs are recovered by energy and water savings, the dollars saved in

expenditures on energy and water are available to buy other goods in the economy, thereby

increasing jobs. The net national employment curve is steepest for the first 17 years (the

maximum life of a washer) as the existing clothes washers are replaced by clothes washers that

have a higher efficiency.

3) After 17 years, even though the total stock in clothes washers continues to increase with the

population, the growth in net employment tapers off because at that point all of the washers

being replaced in the standards case are replacing washers that are already high efficiency

(instead of replacing a baseline washer with a high efficiency washer).

The total impact on jobs is composed of several components:

- consumer savings in energy and water (Figure 13.2)

- increased costs for clothes washers (Figure 13.3)

aThe direct employment impacts will be based on direct interviews and output from a spreadsheet model

called GRIM.

13-2

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
- effects on the energy supply sector (Figure 13.4)

Figure 13.2 shows the impact of reduced consumer spending for energy and water savings

on jobs. When more consumers save money by using efficient washers, they have more money to

spend on other sectors of the economy and this results in an increase in jobs. The magnitude of the

impact increases over time as more old washers are replaced with the new, more efficient washers.

The effect on employment for water and wastewater utilities is estimated to have twice the

impact per million dollars saved as is estimated for electric utilities. Because water & wastewater

utilities are not included in the ImBuild code, the water & wastewater utility effect is accounted for

by doubling the dollar amount saved for water and adding this amount to the utility sector dollar

savings. Notice that in Figure 13.2 the 2 Tier MEF (level 3), 1.257 MEF (level 4) and 1.362 MEF

(level 5) standards result in more jobs that the higher standard of 1.634 MEF (level 6). This is

because the engineering data used showed that the 1.634 MEF level had lower water savings than

the 1.257 and 1.362 levels. This combined with the estimate of each million dollars of water savings

affecting twice the jobs as for a million dollar savings of electricity, resulted in an overall increase

in jobs for a lower standard level.

160

MEF

140 - --1.04in2004&

1.26 in 2007

Lvi 3

120 -

-a- 1.634 Lvi 6

1.362 Lvi 5

100 -

1.257Lvi4 S

0

i.089Lvi2

80 -

U,

-*1.O2iLvil

60

40

20

Stnd Lvii

0

U) (0 N- CD 0) 0) - ('C (') CO N- CD 0) 0) ('C U) CO N- CD 0)

0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) ('C CU CU CU CU CU CU CU ('C ('C (') 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC ('C CU CU ('C ('C ('C ('C ('C ('C ('C ('C ('C ('C CU ('C CU ('C ('C ('C ('C ('C ('C CU ('C CU CU ('C

Year

Figure 13.2 Employment Impacts of Consumer Energy and Water Savings

Stnd Lvi 3

Stnd Lvi 4 & 5

Stnd Lvi 6

Stnd Lvi 2

13-3

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Figure 13.3 shows the employment impacts due to the increased price of more efficient

clothes washers. The standards typically cause manufacturers of the regulated products to incur

additional costs. That additional investment in turn transfers spending from other sectors of the

economy into the appliance manufacturing sector. Depending upon the relative mix of labor and

capitol in the affected industry compared to the rest of the economy, jobs can be created or

eliminated. In the case of clothes washers, increased investment in the appliance industry is typically

expected to eliminate jobs, because appliance manufacturing is more capital intensive than average.

In addition, appliance manufacturers and related businesses (e.g., suppliers) may eliminate somejobs

to reduce their costs. Finally, the transfer in consumer spending from other items to pay for the

increased price of clothes washers is also expected to eliminate jobs. All these effects are included

in the employment impacts of incremental clothes washer price.

-2

-4

-6

0

0

0

0

-,

-10

-12

-14

-16

o---_ --s- -- -.-- ----- ---- ----- s----_.---- .---- ----4 -p

_______ Stnd Lvii

-I ------ "H-.

StndLvI2

dLvI

o o 0 0 0 C') C') N

Lb CO N 0) 0 N CO U CO N 0) 0 C') CO Lb CO N 0) 0)

N N C') C') N C') N CO

o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

N N N N C') N C') N N N N N N C') N C') C') C') N N N C') C') C') N C') N

Year

Figure 13.3 Employment Impact of Incremental Clothes Washer Price

MEF

_L,.._104 in 2004&

1.26 in 2007

Lvi 3

1.021 Lvii

-1.089 Lvi 2

---i.257 Lvi 4

-1.362 Lv15

1.634 Lv16

13-4

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Figure 13.4 shows the decrease in employment in the energy supply sector due to reductions

in revenues as consumers achieve energy savings. Revenue loss by utilities is expected to result in

lower employment by utilities. Limitations to the model prevent consideration ofpossiblejob losses

by water utilities. We assume that there is neither an increase or decrease in water utility related

employment.

0

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15

0

0

0

. -0.2

0

-0.25

-0.3

-0.35

-0.4

a

- , a •_ - - _

Stnd Lvi I

\

. N

MEF

.- ..,-. --1.04in20O4& _________________ - 1.26 in 2007

:\_ - . -

Stnd Lv13 45 •1.O2ILvM

1.089 Lvi 2

C- -1.257 Lvi 4 Stnd Lvi 6

-1.362 Lvi 5

F 1.634Lvi6

C) C) C) C) C) N N (N (N (N N N (N N (N CC

(0 N. (0 0) C) (N C) (0 (0 N. (0 0) C) (N CC (0 (0 N- (0 0) C)

C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) (N N (N N N (N (N (N N N N (N (N (N N N (N (N (N (N (N N (N (N (N (N N

Year

Figure 13.4 Employment Impacts in Energy Supply Sector

In summary, the consumer savings from reduced energy and water bills create jobs and

represent the largest impact of standards on employment. The increased price of clothes washers and

reduced revenues to utilities eliminate jobs. The net effect is job creation.

13.2 INPUTS TO NET NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT SPREADSHEET

The impacts of new clothes washer standards are estimated in the National Energy Savings

ES) spreadsheet as operating cost savings (energy and water cost savings) and increased clothes

washer purchase price. These two impacts (see Figures 13.5 & 13.6 below) are output from NES

and input to the calculation of Net National Employment (ImBuild model).

13-5

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Figure 13.5 shows the annual increase in national consumer expenditures to pay for more

efficient clothes washers, for each of the possible standard levels (1.02 1 MEF - 1.634 MEF).

........

Figure 13.6, 13.7 and 13.8 show the national savings in consumer energy bills for each

possible standard level (1.021 MEF - 1.634 MEF). Comparing the savings in Figure 13.6 to the

increased costs in Figure 13.5, the savings exceed the costs after a few years.

3000

Stnd Lvi 6

- ---a

--- Stnd Lvi 5, 4 & 3

.._t-- .!- r •

- -. - .- -.

Stnd Lvii

-'--.-

MEF

2500

2000

(0

(0

0

I-o 1500

(I)

0

1000

500

0

U) (0 (.- (00)0 0) C') U) (0 C (00)0 0) C') U) CO C'- (00)0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0) 0) ('1 ('C ('C ('1 ('1 0) 0) C') 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) ('C ('4 0) ('C ('C 0) 0) ('C ('1 0) ('C ('C 0) ('4 ('4 ('C ('C ('4 ('4 ('C ('C ('C ('1 ('C ('1 ('C

Year

-b--i .04 in 2004&

1.26 in 2007

Lvi 3

---1.634 Lvi 6

-9<--1.362 Lvi 5

-'-1.257 Lvi 4

i .089 Lvi 2

-1.021 Lvii

Figure 13.5 Projected Increase in U.S. Consumer Expenditures to Purchase Clothes

Washers After Standards

13-6

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
7000

MEF

6000 -4- 104 in 2004

1.26 in 2007

Lvi 3

5000 - 1.634LvI6

(0 -)<--1.362LvI5

3 4000 - -*-1257LvI4

1.089 Lv12

3000 - - 1.021 Lvii

2000

1000 ---________ __ F

Stnd Lvi 6, 5, 4 & 3

Stnd Lvi 2

__.-.---*-

0

C C C C C C N (N N (N (N N (N (N (N (N C')

U CD N- Co O C (N C) CD CD N- CD C C N C') CD (0 N- CD 0) C

C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

(N (N N (N N (N N (N N (N N N N N N (N N N N (N (N N (N N N N (N

Year

Figure 13.6 Projected U.S. Consumer Savings in Electricity Bills: Energy Efficiency

Standards on Clothes Washers

13-7

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
800

700

600

500

a

0

o 400

f)

0

300

200

100

0

C) 0 0 0 0 N C') C') N

U) CD F- CO 0) 0 N C) U) CD F- CO C) C) C') C) U) CD N- ) 0) 0

C') N C') C') C') C') F-)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C') N N C') C') N N N C') N CJ N N C') C') C') N C') N N N N N N N N N

MEF Stnd Lvi 6

•- 1.04 in 2004&

-

1.26 in 2007

Lv13

StndLvI5,4&3

1.634Lvl6

---1.362LvI5

-- 1.257 Lvi 4 /..(

-'

StndLvI2

1.089 Lv12 - --

1.021 Lvii -

_____

//

,

-

/_'

p

/ / Stnd Lvii,

/ x_

Year

Figure 13.7 Projected U.S. Consumer Savings in Natural Gas Bills: Energy

Efficiency Standards on Clothes Washers

13-8

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
70

60

50

U,

40

0

U,

30

20

10

0

MEF

-+- 1.04 in 20048

Stnd Lvi 6 1.26 in 2007

Lvi 3

- 1.634 Lvi 6

- - ------

1.362 Lv15 Stnd Lvi 5,4&3

- 1.257 Lvi 4

1.089 Lv12

4. - -

-.

1.021 Lvii / --

_____ -

/ 4-

______________ _______________

//__ •7

/

CD N- CD O 0 (N (D (0 (0 N- (0 0) CD (N () (0 (0 N- CD 0) 0

0 0 0 0 0 (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N 0)

CD CD 0 CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0

(N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N (N

Year

Figure 13.8 Projected U.S. Consumer Savings in Oil Bills: Energy Efficiency

Standards on Clothes Washers

Figures 13.9, 13.10, 13.11 show the energy savings in trillions of Btu for each of the three

fuel sources; electricity, natural gas, and oil. The data provided is expressed as site source energy

(that is, energy provided to the customer). This data is output from the NES analysis and input into

the ImBuild model which then estimates the effect on jobs in the energy supply sector.

13-9

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3

w

0.25

.2 0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

MEF Stnd Lvi 6

1.04 in 2004&

1.26 in 2007

Lv13

-1.634Lvi6 --

1.362Lvi5 Stnd Lvi 5, 4 & 3

--- 1.257 Lvi

' 1.089 Lvi 2 /

• 1.021 Lvii

Stnd Lvi I

-

C C C C C C 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0)

CD CD N- CD 0) C C'J C') CD CD N- CD 0) C C'1 C') U) CD N- CD 0) 0

C')

C C 0 C C C C C C C C 0 C C 0 0 0 C C C 0 C C C C C C

0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ

Year

Figure 13.9 Projected Savings due to Clothes Washer Standards: Residential

Electricity

13-10

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
140

120

100

.. 80

0

60

I40

20

0

MEF

-' 1.04 in 2004& Stnd Lvi 6

1.26 in 2007 -

Lvi3

_---II n

-l.634 Lvi 6 -

-4E-1.362LvI5 .-

StndLvi5,4&3

/

1.257LvI4 , Stnd Lvi 2_ -

i.089Lvi2 /_f ---- ---- --+-

z_/ /

1.021 Lvii / / /_ -.- //

/

_4 Stnd Lvii

__ ________ - ---

U) CO N- U) 0) C N C) U) CO N- U) 0) C N ) U) CO N- CO 0) C

C C C C C C (N N N N (N (N N N N N C

C 0 C 0 0 c' C C C C C C C C 0 0 0 C C 0 0 C C C C C C

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Year

Figure 13.10 Projected Savings due to Clothes Washer Standards: Residential Natural

Gas (including LPG)

13-11

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
&

7

6

0

F-3

2

0

MEF Stnd Lvi 6

-i-- 1.04 in 2004& - - -- ------

-

1.26 in 2007

Lv13 Stnd Lvi 5, 4 & 3

- 1.634 Lvi 6

y__ •-' 1.362LvI5 /

--1257LvI4 ____ ______

/2 Stnd Lvii

__ 4

/

,/ - -- -V- -

U (0 N- (0 0) 0) C'J C') (0 (0 N- (0 0) 0) C'J C') U) (0 N- CO 0) 0)

0) 0) 0) 0) 0) CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CJ CU C')

0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) C) C) C) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) C) 0) 0) C) 0) 0)

CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU

Year

Figure 13.11 Projected Savings due to Clothes Washer Standards: Residential Oil

13-12

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
REFERENCE

Scott, M. J., D. J. Hostick, and D. B. Beizer, ImBuild. Impact ofBuilding Energy Efficiency

Programs, April, 1998, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Richland, WA. Prepared for

the U.S. Department of Energyunder Contract DE-ACO6-76RL0 1830. Report No. PNNL11884.

13-13

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
APPENDIX A. CLOTHES WASHER MANUFACTURERS

A-i

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
APPENDIX A: CLOTHES WASHER MANUFACTURERS

Corporation Addresses Brands

Whirlpool Estate

North American Appliance GE

Group Kenmore

2000 M63N Kitchen Aid

Benton Harbor, MI Roper

49022-2692 Whirlpool

Phone: (616) 926-5000

Fax: (616) 926-3622

General Electric Appliances GE

GE Appliance Park Hotpoint

Louisville, KY 40225 RCA

Phone: (502) 452-4311

Phone: (800) 626-2000

Fax: (502) 452-0471

Maytag Corporation Admiral

403 W. 4th St., N. Maytag

Newton, IA 50208 Admiral Design

Phone: (515)792-8376 Crosley

____________________________________ Magic Chef

A-i

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
AB Electrolux Frigidaire

Luxbacken 1, Gibson

Lilla Essingen GE

S- 105 -45-Stockholm Kelvinator International

Sweden Kenmore

White-Westinghouse

Frigidaire

Frigidaire HQ

600 Perimeter Dr.

Dublin, OH 4317

Phone: (614) 792-4100

Fax: (614) 792-4079

Enterprise

Frigidaire Home Products

400 Des Moines St.

Webster City, IA. 50595

Alliance Laundry Systems LLC In U.S. - commercial market only.

Shepard Street, P.O. Box 990 Internationally - Speed Queen

Ripon, WI 5497 1-0990

Amana Appliances AMANA

200 Queensway

Searcy, AR 72143

(A Goodman Manufacturing Company)

Staber Industries, Inc.

____________________________________

Staber

4411 Marketing Place

Groveport, Ohio 43125

Phone: (800) 848-6200

Andi-Co (Importer) AEG (imports)

Appliances, Inc.

65 Campus Plaza

Raritan Center

Edison, NJ 08837

Phone: (908)225-8837

Fax: (908) 225-8839

A-2

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Miele Appliance Inc. Miele

22D Worlds Fair Dr.

Sommerset, NJ 0899

Phone: (908) 560-0899

Fax: (908) 560-9649

Miele & CielGmbh

Postfact 2400

4830 Guetersloh

Germany

BSH Home Appliances Bosch

120 Bosch Boulevard

New Bern, NC 28562

Phone: (919) 636-4303

General Domestic Appliances Limited Creda

Morley Way, Peterborough

PE2 9JB

England

Phone: 44(0) 1733 568989

Fax: 44(0) 1733 341783

ASKO USA, Inc. ASKO

P.O. Box 851805

Richardson, Texas 75081-1805

/www.ASKOUSA.com/

Fisher & Paykel Appliance Inc. Fisher Paykel

22982 Alcalde Drive, Suite 201

Laguna Hills, CA 92653

Phone: (949) 829-8865

Fax: (949) 829-8699

/www.fisherpaykel.coml

Equator Corp. Equator

President

Arena Tower II

7324 Southwest Freeway

Suite 855

Houston, TX 77074-2037

A-3

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Daewoo Electronics Co., Ltd

4122 Chang chon 2-Dong Pupyong_Ku

Inchon, Korea

Danby Products

P.O. Box 1778, R.R. #6

Guelph, Ontario

Canada N1H6Z9

Samsung electronics

American QA Lab of Samsung

85 West Tasman Drive

San Jose, CA 95134

A-4

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
APPENDIX B. DETERMINING MEF USING A TEST PROCEDURE SPREADSHEET

PROGRAM

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

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

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

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

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

......

TABLE OF CONTENTS

B.1 INTRODUCTION B-i

B.2 BACKGROUND B-i

B.3 INSTRUCTIONS FOR TEST PROCEDURE SPREADSHEET

[CompactMEFvalue.xlsj B-2

B.4 DEFINITIONS B-3

B.5 SAMPLE RESULTS FOR DETERMINING MEF VALUES B-4

LIST OF TABLES

Table B.1 Input Parameter Assumptions for Estimating MEFs from Energy Factors . . . . B-4

Table B.2 Estimated MEF Values for 1.56 and 1.96 Cubic Foot Clothes Washers B-5

B-i

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
APPENDIX B: DETERMINING MEF USING A TEST PROCEDURE SPREADSHEET

PROGRAM

B.! INTRODUCTION

The current metric to measure clothes washer efficiency, EF cannot be directly converted

to the future metric, MEF. This is due to differences in the current and future DOE test

procedures for clothes washers, Appendix J(current) and Appendix Ji (future). However, when

both test procedures are modeled in a spreadsheet, we can calculate what the EF and MEF would

be for the same set of input parameters. The primary difference between EF and MEF is that the

IvIEF includes a dryer energy use. The dryer energy is based on the remaining moisture content

(RMC) of the test cloth in the dryer after the final spin cycle.

B.2 BACKGROUND

The Department of Energy (DOE) clothes washer test procedure (Appendix J) was

updated in order to more accurately reflect actual energy usage and adapt to the continuing

changes in clothes washer design. This updated test procedure was published in the Federal

Register on August 27, 1997 and became effective on February 23, 1998. In addition, a new

updated test procedure (often referred to as Appendix J 1) will take effect only when the proposed

clothes washer standard is enacted.

Old Appendix J test procedure.

This test procedure specifies 1400 F inlet water, and 416 cycles per year. This test

procedure did not specify an actual cloth test load for vertical axis clothes washers. For this and

other reasons this test procedure would not reflect realistic energy savings due to adaptive control

or auto-fill features.

New Appendix J test procedure.

The interim (new Appendix J) test procedure will not alter the energy factor of any

existing clothes washer that minimally comply with the existing efficiency standard. Test

procedure changes include (1) using 392 cycles per year, (2) clarification of wash/rinse

temperatures to avoid ambiguity, (3) specification of agitation and spin speed settings, and (4)

new provisions to account for an automatic fill control feature. In addition, the following

informational measures will be defined: total (both hot and cold) water consumption, remaining

moisture content (RMC) in a test load after the final spin cycle, and a calculated modified energy

factor (MIFF). The MEF will include the energy needed to dry clothes in a dryer after a final

washer spin cycle.

Appendix Ji test procedure.

This test procedure will make some of the informational changes in the new "Appendix

J" test procedure mandatory. Major changes in the test procedure preclude making adjustments

from the existing test procedure with only a correction factor. Among the changes in test

procedure will be (1) new temperature use factors (TUF' s), (2) lowering inlet hot water from

B-i

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
1400 F to 1350 F, and (3) provisions to account for adaptive control and auto-fill. (Temperature

use factors are used to prorate energy consumption among cold, warm and hot wash, as well as to

factor in a warm rinse if offered.) Clothes washer loads specified will depend on washer clothes

container volume. Remaining moisture content after a final spin cycle will be accounted for and a

modified energy factor (MEF) will replace the current energy factor (EF). The above changes

should result in a more accurate prediction of actual energy.

B.3 INSTRUCTIONS FOR TEST PROCEDURE SPREADSHEET

[Compact _MEF_value.xls]

Both DOE test procedures J and Ji have been modeled on an Excel spreadsheet. The

input parameters are entered into both J and J 1. In some cases, these parameters are the same,

such as the capacity of the washer basket. In other cases, additional information is required for

the J 1 test procedure. Inputs can be adjusted to produce a desired EF. The same inputs are then

used to calculate an MEF based on the calculations for the Ji test procedure.

The test procedure model [Compact_MEF_value.xls] consists of four Excel worksheets:

App_f, App_ Ji, Comparison and Tub.

• App_Jincludes all of the equations of the current test procedure

• App_fl includes all of the equations in the J 1 test procedure

• Comparison contains the input table and allows the user to change input assumptions.

Some of these assumptions are in terms of ratios that can be based on rules of thumb

based on existing washers.

• Tub is used to estimate the gallons of water use per fill if this value is not known from

other sources.

Step 1: Determine water use from basket capacity (Tub capacity spreadsheet)

If the maximum water fill capacity of a washer is not known or if a generic example is

being created follow the procedure below. A tub capacity spreadsheet can assist with this

exercise.

Enter:

a) basket capacity

b) estimate the water fill fraction

c) estimate the basket diameter

d) estimate the annulus gap

From this we can calculate:

a) basket height

b) tub diameter

c) water height

d) gallons to fill the basket

B-2

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
e) gallons to fill the annulus

1) total maximum fill gallons

Step 2: Enter other parameters into test procedure spreadsheet

[spreadsheet: Compact_MEF_value.xls]

Inputs

Enter into Comparison Sheet

• Washer Drum Capacity

• Mechanical Energy

• Max. test cloth load

• RMC max. extraction

• RMC mm. extraction

• Max. Fill capacity

• Ratio of Mm. fill / Max. fill

• Fraction Hot in Warm

• Percent wash water

• Percent rinse water

• Values for warm rinse if washer has a warm rinse option

• Whether or not the washer has a adaptive fill and what the ratio is for adaptive fill gallons

to maximum fill gallons.

• Rinse / Wash ratio

B.4 DEFINITIONS

• Washer Drum Capacily is the volume in the washer basket as determined by the test

procedure.

• Max. Test Cloth Load is the load as specified in Table 5.1 of Appendix J 1 of the clothes

washer test procedure. For V-axis washers, Appendix J doesn't require a test load if it is

not adaptive fill.

Mechanical Energy is the energy used by the washer motor.

RIvIC max. extraction is the remaining moisture content after final spin.

RIVIC mm. extraction is lower remaining moisture content if multiple spins are available

(see test procedure for details).

• Ratio of. Mm. fill/Max. fill - minimum fill is the gallons of water when the washer fill

setting is at its minimum setting; maximum fill is the gallons of water when the washer is

set at its maximum water fill setting.

B-3

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
• Fraction hot in warm is the fraction of hot water mixed with cold water to achieve the

warm water inlet temperature. For example, a 0.4 fraction means warm water is achieved

by mixing 40% hot water with 60% cold water.

Percent wash water is the percentage of the total water use that is used in the wash cycle.

Percent rinse water is the percentage of the total water use that is used in the rinse cycle.

Adaptive Fill Ratio is the gallons of fill is adaptive fill control were used divided by the

max. fill.

Rinse / wash ratio is the gallons of rinse water used per gallon of wash water. For

example, RJW = 1 assumes that this ratio is constant for Max. and Mm. fill levels.

B.5 SAMPLE RESULTS FOR DETERMINING MEF VALUES

Based on the assumptions in Table B. 1, MEF values were estimated for clothes washer

capacities of 1.56 and 1.96 cubic feet. An additional assumption assumes the washer does not

have an adaptive fill control.

Table B.! Input Parameter Assumptions for Estimating MEFs from Energy Factors

INPUT PARAMETER ( Value Value

Basket Capacity (cu. ft.) 1.59 1.96

Mechanical Energy

(kwh/cycle)

0.27

____________________________________

0.27

RMC max. extraction 0.72

___________________________________

0.72

RMC mm. extraction 0.72 0.72

Ratio of Mm. fill I Max. fill 0.5 0.5

Fraction hot in warm 0.5 0.5

(Rinse I Wash) Ratio 1.0 1.0

Based on the above assumptions, Table B.2 shows the MEF values were estimated for a

1.59 cu.ft. and a 1.96 cu. ft. capacity clothes washers. In addition to the above assumptions, a

maximum water fill was required. This value was selected based on what level EF it would

produce. The EF was based on an assumed Alt. II and Alt. III temperature use factor (TUF)

configurations from Appendix J (both give the same result). The Energy Factors used were

based on the following:

B-4

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
• 0.90 current minimum EF for top-loading compact washers

(compact means <1.6 cu.ft.)

• 0.99 EF of an existing model washer with a 1.59 cu. ft. capacity

• 1.18 current minimum EF for standard capacity washers

• 1.20 EF of an existing model washer with a 1.96 Cu. ft. capacity

• 1.32 EF of an existing model washer with a 1.96 cu. ft. capacity

Table B.2 Estimated MEF Values for 1.56 and 1.96 Cubic Foot Clothes Washers

Basket Capacity EF (Energy Factor)* Max. Gallons Fill Estimated MEF

Cu. Ft.

No warm rinse With warm rinse

1.59 0.90 15.0 0.75 0.65

_______________

0.99 13.3 0.79 0.69

0.90 19.0 0.76 0.66

1.96 1.18 13.9 0.86 0.76

1.20 13.6 0.86 0.77

1.32 12.1 0.90 0.81

* Assuming a Alt. II or Alt. III cycle configuration

B-5

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88