### 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 theAE099version 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 theAE099Reference 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 theResidential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS).3 All residential fuels are considered simultaneously, and the

aPlease see pages 39 and45of theAE099for more details on growth assumptions. 12-3

### 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 AE099Reference 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 theAE099 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 theAE099baseline 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, a50%reduction in energy usage) to just under 0.03% in the peak year of the smallest savings case (MEF of 0.860, a5%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 of35%), 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

### In addition to the analysis based on standards with respect to theAE099Reference 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 theAE099High 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 toAE099Reference 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 theAE099Reference Case. Results for theseAE099Economic Growth cases are shown in Tables 12-10 and 12-11.

12-5

### Table 12.1 AE099Reference Case Forecast

NEMS-BRS Results:AE099Reference

# I2000

# I2005

# I2010

# I2015

# I2020 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 GnratingCflpaeity6 

### 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 A2of AE099:Energy Consumption, Residentiai 2 Comparable to Table A8 ofAE099:Electricity Sales by Sector Includes distillate fuel, residential fuel, kerosene, LPG, motor gasoline, coal, and renewable energy Comparable to Table A8 ofAE099: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

### Table 12.2 MEF=1.634 (50% Reduction in Energy Usage Forecast)

NEMS-BRS Results Difference fromAE099Reference (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 TotalUS 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 GeneratingCapacity

______ ______ ______ ______ _______ _____ _____ 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

### Table 12.3 MEF=1.362 (40% Reduction in Energy Usage Forecast)

NEMS-BRS Results Difference fromAE099Reference 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 GeneratingCapacity

______ ______ ______ ______ _______ ______ ______ ______ ______ 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

### Table 12.4 MEF=1.257 (35% Reduction in Energy Usage Forecast)

NEMS-BRS Results Difference fromAE099Reference Etr a p o lation 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 TotalUS 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 GeneratingCapacity 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

### Table 12.5 MEF=1.089(25%Reduction in Energy Usage Forecast)

NEMS-BRS Results Difference fromAE099Reference

______________________________________________________________________________________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

### Table 12.6 MEF=1.021 (20% Reduction in Energy Usage Forecast)

NEMS-BRS Results Difference fromAE099Reference

_____________________________________ 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

### Table 12.7 MEF 1.04 in 2004 and 1.26 in 2007; 2-Tier Forecast; Trial Standard Level 3

NEMS-BRS Results Difference fromAE099Reference

_________________________________________ ________________________________________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

### Table 12.8 MEF 1.04 in 2004 and 1.26 in 2007; 2-Tier High Elasticity Sensitivity Forecast

NEMS-BRS Results Difference fromAE099Reference 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 TotalUS 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

### Table 12.9 MEF 1.04 in 2004 and 1.26 in 2007; 2-Tier Medium Price/Income Sensitivity Forecast

NEMS-BRS Results Difference fromAE099Reference

_________________________________________ 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

### Table 12.10 MEF 1.04 in 2004 and 1.26 in 2007; 2-Tier High Economic Growth Forecast

NEMS-BRS Results Difference fromAE099Reference

______________________________________________ ________________________________________ Extrapolation 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Residential Sector Energy Consumption

______ _______ ______ ________ ________ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ElectricitySales(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

12-15Table 12.11 MEF 1.04 in 2004 and 1.26 in 2007; 2-Tier Low Economic Growth Forecast

NEMS-ERS Results Difference fromAE099Reference

_____________________________________ 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

### REFERENCES

1. US Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration,Annual Energy Outlook 1999: With Projections Through 2020, December, 1998. Washington, DC. Report No. DOEIEIA-0383(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

### 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 Electricity13-10 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

### 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 

### 260I040

20

0

-20 MEF StndLvi3

.---- -U-I634Lvi6 -

-.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 13.1NetNational Employment Impacts

13-1

### 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 among35sectors 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 or1.257MEF 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

### - 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 (level5)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 the1.257and 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-1.634Lvi 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

### 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

Lb CO N 0) 0 N CO U CO N 0) 0 C') CO Lb CO N 0) 0) o o 0 0 0 C') C') N 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& 1.26in2007 Lvi 3 1.021 Lvii -1.089 Lvi 2 ---i.257 Lvi 4 -1.362 Lv15 1.634 Lv16

13-4

### 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 in2007 :\_ - . - Stnd Lv13 45 •1.O2ILvM 1.089 Lvi 2 C- -1.257 Lvi 4 Stnd Lvi 6 -1.362 Lvi 5 F1.634Lvi6
(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) N N (N (N (N N N (N N (N CC 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

### 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 Figure13.5,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- o1500 (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

13-67000
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

__

# F 1000 ---________ Stnd Lvi 6, 5, 4 & 3

Stnd Lvi 2

__.-.---*- 0 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 N (N N (N (N N (N (N (N (N 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

13-7800

700

600

500 a 0 o 400 f) 0300

200

100

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

13-870

60

50 U,40 0 U,30

20

10

0 MEF
-+-1.04 in 20048 Stnd Lvi 6 1.26 in 2007 Lvi 3

- 1.634Lvi 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.

13-90.45
0.4
0.35
0.3 w0.25
.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

StndLviI

-

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

13-10140

120

100

..80

0 60I40

20

0 MEF -' 1.04 in 2004& Stnd Lvi 6 1.26 in 2007 - Lvi3 _---II n
-l.634Lvi 6 - -4E-1.362LvI5 .- StndLvi5,4&3 

### / Stnd Lvi 2_ - 1.257LvI4 , 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&

7

6

0 F-3

2

0 MEF Stnd Lvi 6
-i--1.04 in 2004& - - -- ------

- 1.26 in2007 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

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

13-13

### APPENDIX A. CLOTHES WASHER MANUFACTURERS

A-i

### 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

### 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

### 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 Suite855 Houston, TX 77074-2037

A-3

### 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 85West Tasman Drive San Jose, CA95134

A-4

### APPENDIX B. DETERMININGMEFUSING 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 for1.56and 1.96 Cubic Foot Clothes Washers B-5

B-i

### APPENDIX B: DETERMININGMEFUSING 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 theFederal 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. OldAppendix J test procedure. This test procedure specifies1400F 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

### 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_flincludes all of the equations in the J 1 test procedure • Comparisoncontains 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. • Tubis 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 (Tubcapacity 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

### e) gallons to fill the annulus

1) total maximum fill gallons Step 2: Enterother parameters into test procedure spreadsheet [spreadsheet: Compact_MEF_value.xls] Inputs Enter intoComparison 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 Capacilyis the volume in the washer basket as determined by the test procedure. • Max. Test Cloth Loadis the load as specified in Table5.1of 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 Energyis the energy used by the washer motor. RIvIC max. extractionis the remaining moisture content after final spin. RIVIC mm. extractionis 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

### • Fraction hot in warmis 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 wateris the percentage of the total water use that is used in the wash cycle. Percent rinse wateris the percentage of the total water use that is used in the rinse cycle. Adaptive Fill Ratiois the gallons of fill is adaptive fill control were used divided by the max. fill. Rinse / wash ratiois 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. fillIMax. fill 

### 0.5 0.5 Fraction hot in warm 

### 0.5 0.5 (RinseIWash) 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

### • 0.90current 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 • 1.20EF of an existing model washer with a 1.96 Cu. ft. capacity • 1.32EF 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 EstimatedMEF 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.IIor Alt. III cycle configuration

B-5