ANALYTICAL RESULTS IN SUPPORT OF STAKEHOLDER NEGOTIATIONS ON 


AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR
 

RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS AND 


RESIDENTIAL REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS AND FREEZERS
 

April 15, 2010 


The following analytical results have been generated by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

(LBNL) and Navigant Consulting, Inc. (NCI) to support stakeholder negotiations concerning 

amended energy conservation standards for residential clothes washers and residential 

refrigerators-freezers and freezers. The analytical results presented here are based on inputs 

(e.g., manufacturer selling prices as a function of efficiency) and analytical tools which are still 

under review. Therefore, the following information may not reflect final results to be published 

in subsequent DOE rulemaking documents. 

CLOTHES WASHERS 

Life-cycle cost (LCC), payback period (PBP), and national impact analysis (NIA) results were 

requested for the following efficiency levels. 

Table 1. Clothes Washer Efficiency Levels: Stakeholder Requested 

Level Modified Energy Factor 

(MEF) 

Water Factor 

(WF) 

Older Energy Star 1.42 9.0 

Old Energy Star 1.72 8.0 

Energy Star®/ CEE Tier 1 1.80 7.5 

CEE Tier 2 2.00 6.0 

CEE Tier 3 2.20 4.5 

New higher tier 2.40 4.0 

Notes: The Energy Star® level will shift to CEE Tier 2 level effective 1/1/2011. California’s pending petition for waiver 

from preemption would require a maximum 6.0 water factor. 

Analyses have been designed for DOE to analyze most of the requested efficiency levels. In 

addition, standby power limitations have also been considered. The efficiency levels and standby 

power limits are listed in the table below. 

1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2. Clothes Washer Efficiency Levels: ‘Stakeholder Requested’ and ‘Analyzed for DOE’
 

Requested Levels Top-Loading Washers Front-Loading Washers 

MEF WF MEF WF Standby 

Power MEF WF Standby 

Power 

Baseline 1.26 9.50 0.00 1.72 8.00 2.30 

1.42 9.0 1.40 9.50 0.00 - - -

1.72 8.0 1.72 8.00 0.00 1.72 7.50 1.70 

1.72 7.50 0.08 

1.80 7.5 

1.80 7.50 2.30 

1.80 7.50 1.70 1.80 7.50 0.08

1.80 7.50 0.08 

2.00 6.0 2.00 6.00 0.08 2.00 6.00 0.08 

2.20 4.5 2.26 4.48 0.08 2.20 4.50 0.08 

2.40 4.0 - - - 2.40 4.20 0.08 

- ­ ­ - - 2.60 3.80 0.08 

- ­ ­ - - 2.89 3.36 0.08 

The following LCC, PBP, and NIA results are based on the efficiency levels that have been 

analyzed for DOE. 

LCC and PBP Results 

The following LCC and PBP results were calculated separately for top-loading and front-loading 

clothes washers. 

Top-loading results were generated for four different scenarios. The scenarios differed based on 

the source of the manufacturing costs (AHAM or DOE) and assumptions regarding the base-case 

efficiency distribution. The base-case efficiency distribution represents the distribution of 

products by efficiency in the absence of new standards in the year 2015 (the year in which 

standards are assumed to be effective). The four scenarios which were analyzed are: 

Top-Loading Scenario A: 

Manufacturer Costs: AHAM. 


Base Case Efficiency Distribution: AHAM; Same as the year 2008.
 

Top-Loading Scenario B: 

Manufacturer Costs: AHAM. 


Base Case Efficiency Distribution: Migration of products to 1.72 MEF by 2015. 


Top-Loading Scenario C: 

Manufacturer Costs: DOE. 


Base Case Efficiency Distribution: AHAM; Same as the year 2008.
 

Top-Loading Scenario D: 

Manufacturer Costs: DOE. 


Base Case Efficiency Distribution: Migration of products to 1.72 MEF by 2015. 


2 

 

 

 

 

Table 3. Front-Loading Washers: LCC and PBP Results
 

Effcy 

Level 

2015 

Base 

Case 

Effcy 

Distr 

MEF WF Standby 

Power 

Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average 

Savings 

Households that Experience 

Median Average cu.ft./k 

Wh/cyc 

gal / 

cu.ft watt Net Cost No 

Impact 

Net 

Benefit 

0 0.0% 1.72 8.00 2.30 

1 0.0% 1.72 7.50 1.70 $0 0% 100% 0% NA NA 

2 0.0% 1.72 7.50 0.08 $0 0% 100% 0% NA NA 

3 4.3% 1.80 7.50 0.08 $0 0% 100% 0% NA NA 

4 24.0% 2.00 6.00 0.08 $8 0% 96% 4% 0.7 0.9 

5 48.9% 2.20 4.50 0.08 $104 0% 72% 27% 0.9 1.4 

6 11.4% 2.40 4.20 0.08 $273 5% 23% 72% 2.2 3.1 

7 11.4% 2.60 3.80 0.08 $321 8% 12% 80% 2.7 3.9 

8 0.0% 2.89 3.36 0.08 $503 9% 0% 91% 2.6 4.0 

Table 4A. Top-Loading Washers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario A
 

Effcy 

Level 

2015 

Base 

Case 

Effcy 

Distr 

MEF WF Standby 

Power 

Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average 

Savings 

Households that Experience 

Median Average cu.ft./k 

Wh/cyc 

gal / 

cu.ft watt Net Cost No 

Impact 

Net 

Benefit 

0 43.60% 1.26 9.50 0.00 

1 43.60% 1.40 9.50 0.00 -$49 43% 56% 0% 2.3 2.7 

2 1.85% 1.72 8.00 0.00 $174 2% 13% 85% 0.8 1.5 

3 0.62% 1.80 7.50 2.30 $111 12% 11% 77% 1.8 2.8 

4 0.62% 1.80 7.50 1.70 $112 13% 11% 77% 2.3 3.6 

5 0.62% 1.80 7.50 0.08 $131 7% 10% 83% 1.8 3.0 

6 4.55% 2.00 6.00 0.08 $324 5% 9% 86% 1.4 2.5 

7 4.55% 2.26 4.48 0.08 $521 8% 5% 87% 2.1 3.8 

Table 4B. Top-Loading Washers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B
 

Effcy 

Level 

2015 

Base 

Case 

Effcy 

Distr 

MEF WF Standby 

Power 

Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average 

Savings 

Households that Experience 

Median Average cu.ft./k 

Wh/cyc 

gal / 

cu.ft watt Net Cost No 

Impact 

Net 

Benefit 

0 0.00% 1.26 9.50 0.00 

1 0.00% 1.40 9.50 0.00 $0 0% 100% 0% NA NA 

2 89.05% 1.72 8.00 0.00 $0 0% 100% 0% NA NA 

3 0.62% 1.80 7.50 2.30 $111 12% 11% 77% 1.8 2.8 

4 0.62% 1.80 7.50 1.70 $112 13% 11% 77% 2.3 3.6 

5 0.62% 1.80 7.50 0.08 $131 7% 10% 83% 1.8 3.0 

6 4.55% 2.00 6.00 0.08 $324 5% 9% 86% 1.4 2.5 

7 4.55% 2.26 4.48 0.08 $521 8% 5% 87% 2.1 3.8 

3 

 

 

Table 4C. Top-Loading Washers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario C
 

Effcy 

Level 

2015 

Base 

Case 

Effcy 

Distr 

MEF WF Standby 

Power 

Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average 

Savings 

Households that Experience 

Median Average cu.ft./k 

Wh/cyc 

gal / 

cu.ft watt Net Cost No 

Impact 

Net 

Benefit 

0 43.60% 1.26 9.50 0.00 

1 43.60% 1.40 9.50 0.00 -$47 43% 56% 0% 0.2 0.3 

2 1.85% 1.72 8.00 0.00 $158 8% 13% 79% 2.1 3.6 

3 0.62% 1.80 7.50 2.30 $30 50% 11% 39% 10.1 15.9 

4 0.62% 1.80 7.50 1.70 $30 50% 11% 39% 10.6 16.4 

5 0.62% 1.80 7.50 0.08 $48 45% 10% 46% 9.4 16.0 

6 4.55% 2.00 6.00 0.08 $263 16% 9% 75% 3.9 7.0 

7 4.55% 2.26 4.48 0.08 $465 15% 5% 81% 3.5 6.3 

Table 4D. Top-Loading Washers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario D
 

Effcy 

Level 

2015 

Base 

Case 

Effcy 

Distr 

MEF WF Standby 

Power 

Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average 

Savings 

Households that Experience 

Median Average cu.ft./k 

Wh/cyc 

gal / 

cu.ft watt Net Cost No 

Impact 

Net 

Benefit 

0 0.00% 1.26 9.50 0.00 

1 0.00% 1.40 9.50 0.00 $0 0% 100% 0% NA NA 

2 89.05% 1.72 8.00 0.00 $0 0% 100% 0% NA NA 

3 0.62% 1.80 7.50 2.30 $30 50% 11% 39% 10.1 15.9 

4 0.62% 1.80 7.50 1.70 $30 50% 11% 39% 10.6 16.4 

5 0.62% 1.80 7.50 0.08 $48 45% 10% 46% 9.4 16.0 

6 4.55% 2.00 6.00 0.08 $263 16% 9% 75% 3.9 7.0 

7 4.55% 2.26 4.48 0.08 $465 15% 5% 81% 3.5 6.3 

NIA Results 

The following NIA results provide the national energy savings (NES), national water savings 

(NWS), and net present value (NPV) for the requested efficiency levels. 

The NIA was conducted using a cross-elasticity of demand to determine the change in market share 

of top- and front-loaders based on changes in the incremental price increase for each product class 

due to increased standards. For example, if the incremental price increase due to standards is larger 

for top-loaders than front-loaders, then front-loading washers are forecasted to gain market share. 

Shifts in market share between top- and front-loaders explains the negative NES and NWS for frontloaders, i.e., increased market share and shipments of front-loaders forecasted under the standards 

case results in increased front-loader national energy consumption relative to the front-loader basecase. Of course, the increase in front-loader shipments has a corresponding decrease in top-loader 

shipments, and the decreased shipments of top-loaders forecasted under the standards case results in 

an even further decrease in top-loader national energy consumption relative to the top-loader basecase. 

4 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The NIA results below are based on the same four scenarios considered in the LCC and PBP 

analysis. 

Table 5A. NIA Results, Scenario A 

1.40 MEF / 9.5 WF 1.72 MEF / 8.0 WF 1.80 MEF / 7.5 WF 

FL TL ALL FL TL ALL FL TL ALL 

NES (quad) -0.02 0.05 0.04 -0.08 1.02 0.94 -0.14 0.95 0.81 

NWS (trillion gal.) -0.03 -0.41 -0.44 -0.13 1.47 1.33 -0.25 1.26 1.01 

NPV @ 7% (bill $) -0.40 -0.88 -1.28 -1.77 8.76 6.99 -3.29 8.19 4.90 

NPV @ 3% (bill $) -0.85 -2.17 -3.02 -3.74 21.14 17.39 -6.95 19.67 12.72 

Mkt Shr in 2015 54% 46% 55% 45% 56% 44% 

Mkt Shr in 2030 56% 44% 57% 43% 58% 42% 

2.00 MEF / 6.0 WF 2.20 MEF / 4.5 WF** 2.40 MEF / 4.2 WF** 

FL TL ALL FL TL ALL FL TL ALL 

NES (quad) -0.25 1.44 1.18 -0.56 2.19 1.63 -0.37 2.09 1.71 

NWS (trillion gal.) -0.23 3.36 3.13 -0.42 5.86 5.43 -0.16 5.67 5.51 

NPV @ 7% (bill $) -5.74 16.43 10.68 -13.47 27.77 14.29 -12.30 26.08 13.78 

NPV @ 3% (bill $) -11.78 39.73 27.95 -27.52 66.87 39.35 -24.47 63.15 38.68 

Mkt Share in 2015 57% 43% 62% 38% 61% 39% 

Mkt Share in 2030 60% 40% 65% 35% 64% 36% 

** Top-loading washers analyzed as 2.26 MEF / 4.48 WF. 

Table 5B. NIA Results, Scenario B 

1.40 MEF / 9.5 WF 1.72 MEF / 8.0 WF 1.80 MEF / 7.5 WF 

FL TL ALL FL TL ALL FL TL ALL 

NES (quad) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.06 -0.07 -0.13 

NWS (trillion gal.) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.11 -0.22 -0.33 

NPV @ 7% (bill $) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.49 -0.63 -2.12 

NPV @ 3% (bill $) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.16 -1.61 -4.77 

Mkt Shr in 2015 54% 46% 54% 46% 55% 45% 

Mkt Shr in 2030 56% 44% 56% 44% 57% 43% 

2.00 MEF / 6.0 WF 2.20 MEF / 4.5 WF** 2.40 MEF / 4.2 WF** 

FL TL ALL FL TL ALL FL TL ALL 

NES (quad) -0.17 0.42 0.25 -0.48 1.18 0.70 -0.29 1.08 0.79 

NWS (trillion gal.) -0.10 1.92 1.83 -0.28 4.46 4.17 -0.03 4.28 4.25 

NPV @ 7% (bill $) -3.91 7.71 3.80 -11.51 19.09 7.58 -10.32 17.42 7.10 

NPV @ 3% (bill $) -7.91 18.72 10.81 -23.38 46.00 22.61 -20.32 42.32 22.01 

Mkt Share in 2015 56% 44% 61% 39% 60% 40% 

Mkt Share in 2030 59% 41% 64% 36% 62% 38% 

** Top-loading washers analyzed as 2.26 MEF / 4.48 WF. 

5 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5C. NIA Results, Scenario C 


1.40 MEF / 9.5 WF 1.72 MEF / 8.0 WF 1.80 MEF / 7.5 WF 

FL TL ALL FL TL ALL FL TL ALL 

NES (quad) 0.00 0.03 0.03 -0.23 1.21 0.98 -0.83 1.86 1.03 

NWS (trillion gal.) 0.00 -0.46 -0.46 -0.40 1.90 1.50 -1.45 3.32 1.87 

NPV @ 7% (bill $) -0.04 -1.16 -1.20 -5.30 11.12 5.82 -19.26 19.92 0.67 

NPV @ 3% (bill $) -0.08 -2.84 -2.92 -11.21 26.80 15.59 -40.76 47.54 6.78 

Mkt Shr in 2015 54% 46% 57% 43% 64% 36% 

Mkt Shr in 2030 56% 44% 59% 41% 67% 33% 

2.00 MEF / 6.0 WF 2.20 MEF / 4.5 WF** 2.40 MEF / 4.2 WF** 

FL TL ALL FL TL ALL FL TL ALL 

NES (quad) -0.74 2.04 1.29 -0.98 2.66 1.68 -0.78 2.55 1.77 

NWS (trillion gal.) -1.07 4.57 3.50 -1.10 6.64 5.54 -0.83 6.45 5.62 

NPV @ 7% (bill $) -17.20 23.97 6.77 -23.12 33.78 10.66 -22.01 32.02 10.00 

NPV @ 3% (bill $) -35.97 57.51 21.54 -47.87 80.76 32.89 -44.91 76.90 31.99 

Mkt Share in 2015 64% 36% 68% 32% 67% 33% 

Mkt Share in 2030 66% 34% 71% 29% 69% 31% 

** Top-loading washers analyzed as 2.26 MEF / 4.48 WF. 

Table 5D. NIA Results, Scenario D 

1.40 MEF / 9.5 WF 1.72 MEF / 8.0 WF 1.80 MEF / 7.5 WF 

FL TL ALL FL TL ALL FL TL ALL 

NES (quad) 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.86 0.86 -0.57 0.60 0.03 

NWS (trillion gal.) 0.00 -0.46 -0.46 0.00 1.16 1.16 -1.00 1.31 0.31 

NPV @ 7% (bill $) 0.00 -1.20 -1.20 0.00 5.98 5.98 -13.32 7.90 -5.41 

NPV @ 3% (bill $) 0.00 -2.93 -2.93 0.00 15.05 15.05 -28.18 18.73 -9.44 

Mkt Shr in 2015 54% 46% 54% 46% 61% 39% 

Mkt Shr in 2030 56% 44% 56% 44% 64% 36% 

2.00 MEF / 6.0 WF 2.20 MEF / 4.5 WF** 2.40 MEF / 4.2 WF** 

FL TL ALL FL TL ALL FL TL ALL 

NES (quad) -0.49 0.81 0.32 -0.71 1.45 0.74 -0.52 1.35 0.82 

NWS (trillion gal.) -0.64 2.71 2.07 -0.67 4.90 4.24 -0.41 4.72 4.32 

NPV @ 7% (bill $) -11.34 12.52 1.18 -16.97 22.48 5.50 -15.83 20.74 4.91 

NPV @ 3% (bill $) -23.60 30.11 6.50 -34.91 53.84 18.93 -31.90 50.03 18.13 

Mkt Share in 2015 60% 40% 64% 36% 63% 37% 

Mkt Share in 2030 63% 37% 67% 33% 66% 34% 

** Top-loading washers analyzed as 2.26 MEF / 4.48 WF. 

6 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFRIGERATORS 

Life-cycle cost (LCC), payback period (PBP), and national impact analysis (NIA) results were 

requested for the following product classes (PC) efficiency levels (EL). 

Table 6. Refrigerator and Freezer Efficiency Levels: Stakeholder Requested 

Product EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6 EL7 EL8 

PC3: Top Mount 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 

PC 5: Bottom Mount 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 

PC 7: Side by Sides 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%** 

PC 9: Vertical freezers 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 

PC 10: Chest units 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 

PC 11: Compact fridge 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 

PC 18: Compact freezers 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 

** Maximum EL considered in DOE’s Preliminary Analysis = 40%. 

The maximum reductions in annual energy use specified in the preliminary analysis have been 

reevaluated. As a result of the reevaluation, these maximum reductions have tentatively been 

determined to be overestimated. The table below identifies the efficiency levels which are likely to 

be analyzed for the next phase of the standards ruleamaking. 

Table 7. Refrigerator and Freezer Efficiency Levels: ‘Analyzed for DOE’ 

Product EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 EL6 EL7 EL8 

PC3: Top Mount 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 31.7% - -

PC 5: Bottom Mount 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 33.3% - -

PC 7: Side by Sides 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 31% - -

PC 9: Vertical freezers 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 43.2% 

PC 10: Chest units 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% - -

PC 11: Compact fridge 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 

PC 18: Compact freezers 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 39% -

In addition to the adjustments made to the maximum reductions in annual energy use, revisions have 

been made to the manufacturer selling price vs. efficiency relationships. In all cases, the incremental 

changes in manufacturer selling price to achieve reductions in energy use have increased relative to 

the estimates in the preliminary analysis. 

The following LCC, PBP, and NIA results are based on the efficiency levels likely to be 

analyzed for DOE in the next phase of the standards rulemaking. 

LCC and PBP Results 

The field energy consumption estimates in the preliminary analysis are also being reevaluated. 

For the preliminary analysis, usage adjustment factors (UAF) were developed to convert the 

rated or test energy consumption of a standard-sized refrigerator or feezer into a field-based 

value. UAF values determined in the preliminary analysis were greater than one. The 

7 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

reevaluation of the UAFs is still ongoing. Therefore, the following LCC and PBP results were 

calculated based on two different UAF scenarios. 

UAF Scenario A: Preliminary Analysis UAFs, i.e., field energy consumption > rated energy 

consumption. Weighted-average UAFs: PC3 = 1.23; PC5 = 1.08; PC7 = 1.44; PC9 = 1.37; 

PC10 = 1.48. 

UAF Scenario B: UAFs normalized to a weighted-average value of 1.0, i.e., field energy 

consumption = rated energy consumption. 

For the preliminary analysis, compact refrigerators and freezers were determined with a UAF set 

equal to one. Therefore, a single set of LCC and PBP results are presented for compacts. 

Table 8A. PC 3, Top-Mount Refrigerators: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario A 

Energy 

Efficiency 

Level 

Efficiency 

Index 

Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average 

Savings 

Consumers with 

Net Median Average 

Cost 

No 

Impact 

Net 

Benefit 

Baseline 1.00 

1 1.10 $59 0.6% 19.0% 80.4% 2.2 2.5 

2 1.15 $89 1.0% 13.3% 85.8% 2.4 2.8 

3 1.20 $71 21.7% 13.3% 65.0% 6.9 8.0 

4 1.25 $75 33.6% 0.0% 66.4% 8.1 9.4 

5 1.30 $32 55.3% 0.0% 44.7% 11.6 13.3 

6 1.32 $12 60.5% 0.0% 39.5% 12.8 14.6 

Table 8B. PC 3, Top-Mount Refrigerators: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B 


Energy 

Efficiency 

Level 

Efficiency 

Index 

Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average 

Savings 

Consumers with 

Net Median Average 

Cost 

No 

Impact 

Net 

Benefit 

Baseline 1.00 

1 1.10 $47 1.2% 18.9% 79.9% 2.6 3.0 

2 1.15 $71 2.0% 13.0% 85.1% 3.0 3.4 

3 1.20 $46 31.0% 13.0% 56.1% 8.4 9.6 

4 1.25 $42 45.1% 0.0% 54.9% 10.0 11.4 

5 1.30 -$9 66.1% 0.0% 33.9% 14.1 16.2 

6 1.32 -$32 71.3% 0.0% 28.7% 15.5 17.7 

8 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 9A. PC 5, Bottom-Mount Refrigerators: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario A 


Energy 

Efficiency 

Level 

Efficiency 

Index 

Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average 

Savings 

Consumers with 

Net Median Average 

Cost 

No 

Impact 

Net 

Benefit 

Baseline 1.00 

1 1.10 $8 0.1% 88.8% 11.1% 2.2 2.5 

2 1.15 $12 0.1% 88.8% 11.1% 2.4 2.8 

3 1.20 $15 0.4% 88.8% 10.8% 3.4 3.9 

4 1.25 $3 68.5% 0.0% 31.6% 15.0 17.3 

5 1.30 -$42 80.7% 0.0% 19.3% 19.4 22.5 

6 1.33 -$59 81.6% 0.0% 18.5% 19.6 22.7 

Table 9B. PC 5, Bottom-Mount Refrigerators: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B 


Energy 

Efficiency 

Level 

Efficiency 

Index 

Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average 

Savings 

Consumers with 

Net Median Average 

Cost 

No 

Impact 

Net 

Benefit 

Baseline 1.00 

1 1.10 $8 0.1% 88.5% 11.4% 2.3 2.7 

2 1.15 $12 0.2% 88.4% 11.5% 2.5 2.9 

3 1.20 $15 0.4% 88.4% 11.2% 3.5 4.1 

4 1.25 $0 71.8% 0.0% 28.2% 16.3 18.7 

5 1.30 -$48 83.3% 0.0% 16.7% 21.1 24.3 

6 1.33 -$67 84.2% 0.0% 15.8% 21.2 24.4 

9 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 10A. PC 7, Side-Mount Refrigerators: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario A 


Energy 

Efficiency 

Level 

Efficiency 

Index 

Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average 

Savings 

Consumers with 

Net Median Average 

Cost 

No 

Impact 

Net 

Benefit 

Baseline 1.00 

1 1.10 $31 0.0% 74.5% 25.5% 1.9 2.1 

2 1.15 $72 0.2% 31.4% 68.5% 1.9 2.2 

3 1.20 $98 2.4% 31.4% 66.3% 3.6 4.0 

4 1.25 $114 20.9% 0.0% 79.1% 6.3 7.2 

5 1.30 $49 51.7% 0.0% 48.3% 11.1 12.5 

6 1.31 $32 56.3% 0.0% 43.7% 11.9 13.4 

Table 10B. PC 7, Side-Mount Refrigerators: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B 


Energy 

Efficiency 

Level 

Efficiency 

Index 

Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average 

Savings 

Consumers with 

Net Median Average 

Cost 

No 

Impact 

Net 

Benefit 

Baseline 1.00 

1 1.10 $19 0.3% 75.2% 24.5% 2.8 3.1 

2 1.15 $45 0.9% 31.6% 67.6% 2.9 3.2 

3 1.20 $55 8.3% 31.6% 60.2% 5.3 5.9 

4 1.25 $48 41.7% 0.0% 58.4% 9.3 10.7 

5 1.30 -$40 74.1% 0.0% 25.9% 16.2 18.5 

6 1.31 -$62 77.7% 0.0% 22.3% 17.4 19.8 

10 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 11A. PC 9, Upright Freezers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario A 


Energy 

Efficiency 

Level 

Efficiency 

Index 

Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average 

Savings 

Consumers with 

Net Median Average 

Cost 

No 

Impact 

Net 

Benefit 

Baseline 1.00 

1 1.10 $111 0.0% 19.7% 80.3% 1.2 1.5 

2 1.15 $166 1.0% 1.5% 97.5% 2.4 2.9 

3 1.20 $223 1.4% 0.5% 98.2% 2.7 3.2 

4 1.25 $271 2.6% 0.4% 97.0% 3.3 3.9 

5 1.30 $321 3.4% 0.2% 96.3% 3.5 4.2 

6 1.35 $339 7.4% 0.0% 92.6% 4.6 5.6 

7 1.40 $334 14.4% 0.0% 85.6% 6.0 7.2 

8 1.43 $250 30.9% 0.0% 69.1% 8.7 10.5 

Table 11B. PC 9, Upright Freezers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B 


Energy 

Efficiency 

Level 

Efficiency 

Index 

Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average 

Savings 

Consumers with 

Net Median Average 

Cost 

No 

Impact 

Net 

Benefit 

Baseline 1.00 

1 1.10 $77 0.1% 19.7% 80.3% 1.7 2.1 

2 1.15 $111 3.2% 1.6% 95.2% 3.3 4.0 

3 1.20 $147 3.9% 0.5% 95.6% 3.7 4.4 

4 1.25 $174 6.7% 0.5% 92.8% 4.5 5.4 

5 1.30 $204 8.6% 0.2% 91.2% 4.9 5.8 

6 1.35 $201 16.6% 0.0% 83.4% 6.4 7.6 

7 1.40 $175 27.7% 0.0% 72.3% 8.3 9.9 

8 1.43 $69 50.2% 0.0% 49.8% 12.1 14.5 

11 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 12A. PC 10, Chest Freezers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario A 


Energy 

Efficiency 

Level 

Efficiency 

Index 

Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average 

Savings 

Consumers with 

Net Median Average 

Cost 

No 

Impact 

Net 

Benefit 

Baseline 1.00 

1 1.10 $71 0.0% 15.2% 84.8% 1.6 1.8 

2 1.15 $108 0.4% 0.8% 98.8% 2.2 2.5 

3 1.20 $120 7.7% 0.2% 92.1% 4.7 5.5 

4 1.25 $159 4.9% 0.2% 95.0% 4.2 4.8 

5 1.30 $160 14.1% 0.2% 85.8% 6.0 7.0 

6 1.35 $153 23.7% 0.0% 76.3% 7.7 8.9 

Table 12B. PC 10, Chest Freezers: LCC and PBP Results, Scenario B 


Energy 

Efficiency 

Level 

Efficiency 

Index 

Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average 

Savings 

Consumers with 

Net Median Average 

Cost 

No 

Impact 

Net 

Benefit 

Baseline 1.00 

1 1.10 $45 0.3% 15.7% 84.0% 2.3 2.6 

2 1.15 $67 1.9% 1.1% 97.0% 3.3 3.8 

3 1.20 $63 19.4% 0.3% 80.3% 7.0 8.2 

4 1.25 $88 13.9% 0.3% 85.7% 6.2 7.2 

5 1.30 $73 31.0% 0.3% 68.7% 9.0 10.4 

6 1.35 $51 44.9% 0.0% 55.1% 11.5 13.2 

12 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 13. PC 11, Compact Refrigerators: LCC and PBP Results
 

Energy 

Efficiency 

Level 

Efficiency 

Index 

Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average 

Savings 

Consumers with 

Net Median Average 

Cost 

No 

Impact 

Net 

Benefit 

Baseline 1.00 

1 1.10 $8 18.9% 2.9% 78.3% 2.5 2.4 

2 1.15 $13 15.8% 2.5% 81.7% 2.3 2.2 

3 1.20 $11 33.8% 2.5% 63.7% 3.4 3.3 

4 1.25 $3 58.0% 1.6% 40.4% 5.0 4.9 

5 1.30 $9 49.1% 0.0% 50.9% 4.3 4.2 

6 1.35 -$3 66.4% 0.0% 33.6% 5.6 5.4 

7 1.40 -$11 73.2% 0.0% 26.8% 6.3 6.1 

8 1.45 -$46 88.4% 0.0% 11.6% 8.9 8.6 

Table 14. PC 18, Compact Freezers: LCC and PBP Results
 

Energy 

Efficiency 

Level 

Efficiency 

Index 

Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average 

Savings 

Consumers with 

Net Median Average 

Cost 

No 

Impact 

Net 

Benefit 

Baseline 1.00 

1 1.10 $12 6.3% 4.7% 89.0% 2.0 2.0 

2 1.15 -$13 83.0% 0.0% 17.1% 8.8 9.3 

3 1.20 -$22 87.4% 0.0% 12.6% 9.6 9.8 

4 1.25 -$41 92.9% 0.0% 7.1% 11.4 11.5 

5 1.30 -$31 86.5% 0.0% 13.5% 9.5 9.5 

6 1.35 -$71 95.3% 0.0% 4.8% 12.7 12.7 

7 1.40 -$97 96.9% 0.0% 3.1% 14.0 14.0 

NIA Results 

The following NIA results provide the national energy savings (NES) and net present value (NPV) 

for the requested efficiency levels. 

For standard-sized refrigerators and freezers, the NIA results below are based on the same two 

scenarios considered in the LCC and PBP analysis. 

13 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 15. Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers: NES Results (quads)
 

Efficiency 

Level 

(% less than 

baseline 

energy use) 

Top-Mount RefrigeratorFreezer* 

Bottom-Mount RefrigeratorFreezer** Side-by-Side RefrigeratorFreezer*** 

Scenario A Scenario B Scenario A Scenario B Scenario A Scenario B 

1 (10) 1.10 0.89 0.04 0.03 0.31 0.21 

2 (15) 1.58 1.37 0.05 0.05 0.57 0.50 

3 (20) 2.31 1.88 0.19 0.18 1.30 0.90 

4 (25) 2.90 2.36 0.30 0.28 1.78 1.23 

5 (30) 3.42 2.79 0.34 0.32 2.20 1.52 

6 (31-33) 3.59 2.92 0.37 0.34 2.28 1.58 

* Includes product classes 1, 1A, 2, 3A, and 6 as well as product class 3.
 

** Includes product class 5A as well as product class 5.
 

*** Includes product class 4 as well as product class 7.
 

Table 16. Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers: NPV Results (billion $) 

Efficiency 

Level 

(% less 

than 

baseline) 

Top-Mount RefrigeratorFreezer* 

Bottom-Mount RefrigeratorFreezer** Side-by-Side RefrigeratorFreezer*** 

7% Disc Rt 3% Disc Rt 7% Disc Rt 3% Disc Rt 7% Disc Rt 3% Disc Rt 

Scen 

A 

Scen 

B 

Scen 

A 

Scen 

B 

Scen 

A 

Scen 

B 

Scen 

A 

Scen 

B 

Scen 

A 

Scen 

B 

Scen 

A 

Scen 

B 

1 (10) 4.42 3.44 12.12 9.56 0.15 0.14 0.42 0.38 1.25 0.79 3.48 2.27 

2 (15) 7.60 5.10 18.27 14.33 0.27 0.20 0.62 0.57 3.11 1.87 8.21 5.35 

3 (20) 4.63 2.55 16.54 11.13 -0.32 -0.38 -0.06 -0.25 3.23 1.30 10.59 5.45 

4 (25) 4.47 1.86 18.20 11.41 -0.64 -0.75 -0.33 -0.61 3.40 0.77 12.48 5.49 

5 (30) 1.25 -1.82 13.89 5.89 -0.92 -1.04 -0.63 -0.95 1.19 -2.08 9.76 1.13 

6 (31-33) -0.18 -3.40 11.73 3.34 -1.03 -1.16 -0.72 -1.07 0.63 -2.77 8.98 0.02 

* Includes product classes 1, 1A, 2, 3A, and 6 as well as product class 3.
 

** Includes product class 5A as well as product class 5.
 

*** Includes product class 4 as well as product class 7.
 

14 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 17. Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers: NES Results (quads)
 

Efficiency Level 

(% less than 

baseline energy 

use) 

Upright Freezers* Chest Freezers** 

Scenario A Scenario B Scenario A Scenario B 

1 (10) 0.34 0.25 0.23 0.16 

2 (15) 0.54 0.39 0.36 0.25 

3 (20) 0.75 0.54 0.49 0.33 

4 (25) 0.94 1.08 0.62 0.90 

5 (30) 1.14 0.82 0.73 0.50 

6 (35) 1.31 0.95 1.06 0.72 

7 (40) 1.46 1.06 - -

8 (43.2) 1.54 1.12 - -

* Includes product class 9 only. 


** Includes product classes 8 and 10A as well as product class 10.
 

Table 18. Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers: NPV Results (billion $) 

Efficiency 

Level 

(% less than 

baseline) 

Upright Freezers* Chest Freezers** 

7% Disc Rt 3% Disc Rt 7% Disc Rt 3% Disc Rt 

Scen A Scen B Scen A Scen B Scen A Scen B Scen A Scen B 

1 (10) 1.52 1.06 4.39 3.10 1.02 0.65 2.95 1.92 

2 (15) 2.24 1.50 6.64 4.58 1.50 0.92 4.44 2.81 

3 (20) 2.96 1.95 8.89 6.07 1.68 0.90 5.34 3.15 

4 (25) 3.56 3.56 10.88 7.31 2.16 2.16 6.80 4.03 

5 (30) 4.11 2.57 12.75 8.45 2.10 0.93 7.17 3.90 

6 (35) 4.18 2.41 13.64 8.68 3.81 2.13 12.22 7.45 

7 (40) 3.82 1.84 13.55 8.03 - ­ ­ ­

8 (43.2) 2.73 0.65 11.85 6.02 - ­ ­ ­

* Includes product class 9 only. 


** Includes product classes 8 and 10A as well as product class 10.
 

15 

Table 19. Compacts: NES Results (quads)
 

Efficiency Level 

(% less than baseline 

energy use) Compact Refrigerators* Compact Freezers** 

1 (10) 0.13 0.03 

2 (15) 0.20 0.04 

3 (20) 0.26 0.05 

4 (25) 0.31 0.06 

5 (30) 0.37 0.08 

6 (35) 0.41 0.08 

7 (40-39) 0.45 0.09 

8 (45) 0.46 -

* Includes product classes 11A, 12, 13, 13A, 14, and 15 as well as product class 11 

** Includes product classes 16 and 17 as well as product class 18 

Table 20. Compacts: NPV Results (billion $) 

Efficiency Level 

(% less than baseline) 

Compact Refrigerators* Compact Freezers** 

7% Disc Rt 3% Disc Rt 7% Disc Rt 3% Disc Rt 

1 (10) 0.32 0.78 0.09 0.22 

2 (15) 0.51 1.23 -0.06 -0.05 

3 (20) 0.44 1.16 -0.10 -0.11 

4 (25) 0.17 0.69 -0.20 -0.27 

5 (30) 0.38 1.16 -0.14 -0.14 

6 (35) 0.03 0.53 -0.32 -0.48 

7 (40-39) -0.19 0.14 -0.43 -0.66 

8 (45) -1.06 -1.53 - -

* Includes product classes 11A, 12, 13, 13A, 14, and 15 as well as product class 11 

** Includes product classes 16 and 17 as well as product class 18 

16