### APPENDIX 11C. MARKET SEGMENT SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

11C.1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 11C.2 COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHER SH IPMENTS BY MARKET SEGMENT IN THE SENSITIVITY CASE............................................................................................1 11C.3 IMPACT MARKET SEGMENT BREAKDOWN ON COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHER USAGE AND SHIPMENTS IN THE SENSITIVITY CASE ........................................................................................................................... ........5 11C.4 SCENARIO USED TO EVALUAT E THE SENSITIVITY CASE....................................6 11C.5 NATIONAL ENERGY AND WATER SAVING S IN THE SENSITIVITY CASE..........7 11C.6 NATIONAL IMPACTS IN THE SENSITIVITY CASE....................................................7 11C.7 MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS IN THE SENSITIVITY CASE ........................................................................................................................... ........8

LIST OF TABLES

Table 11C.2.1 Estimate of Alliance’s 2008 Revenue by Commercial Laundry Segment.......11C-2 Table 11C.2.2 Estimate of Alliance’s Revenue Split for Each Market Channel.....................11C-3 Table 11C.2.3 Estimate of Alliance’s 2008 Revenue Breakdown by Segment and Equipment Types .............................................................................................11C-3 Table 11C.3.1 Top-Loading Commer cial Clothes Washers: Comp arison of Base Case and Standards Case Shipment-Weighted Average Per-Unit Annual Energy and Water Consumption in 2013 for the Default Case and Sensitivity Case .........11C-6 Table 11C.3.2 Front-Loading Comme rcial Clothes Washers: Comparison of Base Case and Standards Case Shipment-Weighted Average Per-Unit Annual Energy and Water Consumption in 2013 for the Default Case and Sensitivity Case ..11C-6 Table 11C.4.1 Comparison of NES and NWS fo r Commercial Clothes Washers under the Default Case and Sensitivity Case ...................................................................11C-7 Table 11C.5.1 Comparison of NPV for Commer cial Clothes Washers under the Default Case and Sensitivity Case ................................................................................11C-8 Table 11C.6.1 Change in Industry Net Presen t Value for Top-Loading and Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washer s in the Default Case (Preservation of Gross Margin Percentage Markup – Price Elasticity of Demand Shipments) ...........11C-9Table 11C.6.2 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for Top-Loading and FrontLoading Commercial Clothes Washers in the Sensitivity Case (Preservation of Gross Margin Percen tage Markup – Price Elasticity of Demand Shipments).........................................................................................11C-9

11C-i

### APPENDIX 11C. MARKET SEGMENT SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

11C.1 INTRODUCTION

As described in the national impact analysis (NIA) (chapter 11 of this TSD), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) used the Consorti um for Energy Efficiency’s (CEE’s) report to segment commercial clothes washer (CCW) shipments among laundromats, multi-family housing, and on-premise laundry. 1 

### For this sensitivity analysis, DOE calculated an alternative split of CCW shipments among the three distributi on channels. The purpose of this appendix is to clarify how DOE made its estimates for the split used in the sensitivity analysis, describe how the analysis was conducted, and to present th e results for the NIA and manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) under the sensitivity. The scen ario using the altern ative market segment breakdown is referred to as the sensit ivity case throughout this appendix.

11C.2 COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHER SHIPMENTS BY MARKET SEGMENT IN THE SENSITIVITY CASE

As stated in the CEE report, 85 percent of CCW shipments are associated with multi

family housing while the remaining 15 percent are for laundromats. In response to the November 9, 2009 supplemental notice of proposed rule making (SNOPR) (the November 2009 SNOPR), the Joint Comment stated that using informa tion from Alliance Laundry System’s (Alliance’s) U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Fo rm 10-K as of December 31, 2008 (the 2008 10-K) suggests a split of 40 percent to multi-fam ily housing and 60 percent to laundromats. 2 

### The Joint Comment acknowledged that this split describe s dollar values, not shipments, and that commercial clothes dryers are also included in the estimates. Because laundromats also purchase large capacity clothes washers, the Joint Co mment believed a split of 55 percent of CCW shipments to laundromats and 45 percent to mu lti-family venues was more reasonable and should be evaluated by DOE for the final rule. a 

### Alliance agreed with th e split shown in the CEE report. b

a The Joint Comment was filed on behalf of Appliance Standards Awareness Project, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, American Rivers National Consumer Law Center, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, and the Seattle Public Utilities. The comment was submitted in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. EE–2006–STD– 0127) and is maintained in the Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program. This particular citation re fers to the comment (1) recorded as document number 67.10 and (2) which appears on pages 1–9 of document number 67.10. The specific information regarding the split between laundromats and multi-family housing can be found on pages 3–4.

b Alliance’s written comment was entitled “Response to DOE Commercial Clothes Washer SNOPR.” This document was entered as comment number 66.4 in the docket for this rulemaking, along with a letter submitted by Alliance entitled “Is Top-Loading a Feature Within the Me aning of EPCA?” The comment was submitted in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. EE–2006–STD–0127) and is maintained in the Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program. The specific information re garding the split between laundromats and multi-family housing can be found on page 2. 11C-1

### Because of the significant difference between the market split values provided by the Joint Comment and Alliance, DOE conducted an analysis usi ng the 2008 10-K and the information calculated as part of the MIA (see appendix 13A and 13C of this TSD) to estimate the possible mix of Alliance’s shipments to the different distribution channels. This sensitivity analysis was conducted before DOE received comments from Alliance confirming the 85/15 percentage shipment split for laundromats and multi-family housing and was intended to determine how far the CCW shipments could be skewed towards laundromats versus multi

family housing. As such, it is an extreme case me ant to explore the impacts of how different usage patterns in CCW market segments coul d change the impacts on the nation, not explore actual usage patterns. DOE notes th at no interested parties have s upplied actual data that directly contradicts the current market channel mix.

First, DOE used the 2008 10-K to estimate Alliance’s revenue for laundromats, multi

family housing, and on-premise laundry. The 2008 10- K shows that Alliance earned a total of $337.9 million from commercial laundry. To calcul ate Alliance’s revenue in the three commercial laundry segments, DOE assumed that Al liance’s revenue also matched the industry revenue percentages shown in the 2008 10-K. Table 11C.2.1 shows the estimates for the total revenue Alliance earned in each segment.

Table 11C.2.1 Estimate of Alliance’s 2008 Revenue by Commercial Laundry Segment
Commercial Laundry Channel Percentage of Commercial Laundry by Channel from Alliance’s 2008 10-K (%) Estimate of Alliance’s 2008 Revenue by Segment ($ million)

Laundromat 43 145.3

Multi-Family Housing 28 94.6

On-Premise Laundry 29 98.0

Total 100 337.9



### Along with its suggestion to use a 55/45 percentage shipment sp lit between multi-family housing and laundromats, the Joint Comment acknow ledges that estimating unit shipments using revenues is problematic. DOE not es that Alliance ships a wide variety of commercial laundry equipment and DOE research, Federal tax credits, and past Alliance Form 10-Ks indicate that CCWs represent less than a quarter of Alliance’ s total revenues. For example, in addition to clothes dryers, Alliance also supplies washer-extractors, high-capacity dryers, and other professional laundry equipment.

DOE estimated a shipment split for CCWs based on prior research (see appendix 13A and 13C), statements made by Alliance in its Form 10-Ks, and DOE’s industry experience. The 2008 10-K states that laundromats typically purchase washer-extractors and tumbler dryers;multi-family housing laundry typically purchase small-chassis washers and dryers; and onpremise laundries typically purchase washer-extr actors, tumbler dryers a nd flatwork finishers. Based on these statements, DOE determined that the multi-family housing market would feature less “large” equipment (consisting of high-capacity washers, washer-extractors, and tumbler dryers) and more “small” equipment (consisting of CCWs covered by this rulemaking and small

11C-2

### chassis dryers) while the laundromat and on-prem ise laundry market channels would purchase mostly “large” equipment.

Based on the analysis presen ted in appendix 13A and the it s evaluation of Federal tax credits in appendix 13C, DOE estimates th at Alliance’s 2008 CCW sales amounted to approximately $74 million out of a total of $110 m illion in total “small” equipment sales. Based on the statements in the 2008 10-K, DOE allocated large and small equipment by the three market channels in order to disaggregate sa les revenue by equipment type and hence estimate small equipment shipment volumes. DOE research suggests the revenue splits as shown in Table 11C.2.2 as one possible scenario. However, DOE r ecognizes that there is significant uncertainty in the revenue estimates by segment and equi pment due to the limited information DOE has received.

Table 11C.2.2 Estimate of Alliance’s Re venue Split for Each Market Channel Commercial Laundry Channel Large Equipment (%) Small Equipment (%) Total Per Channel (%) Laundromat 80 20 100 Multi-Family Housing 15 85 100 On-Premise Laundry 99 1 100


### The equipment sales revenue estimates by market channel in Table 11C.2.2 were then multiplied by the total revenues per market channel to produce Table 11C.2.3. DOE research suggests that the revenue splits in Table 11C.2.2 could be valid since the product of overall equipment sales splits and equipment type reve nue allocation by market segment and equipment type result in small equipment sales that are consistent with independently-derived small equipment revenue sales projections for 2008 ba sed on extrapolating data from appendix 13A and appendix 13C.

Table 11C.2.3 Estimate of Alliance’s 2008 Reve nue Breakdown by Segment and Equipment Types

Commercial Laundry Channel Large Equipment

Revenue Breakdown* ($ millions) Large Equipment

Revenue Breakdown (%) Small Equipment

Revenue Breakdown † ($ millions) Small Equipment

Revenue Breakdown (%) Laundromat 116.2 51.1 29.1 26.3 Multi-Family Housing 14.2 6.2 80.4 72.8 On-Premise Laundry 97.0 42.7 1.0 0.9 Totals 227.4 100.0 110.5 †† 100.0

* Large Equipment refers to non-covered equipment (large- capacity washers, washer-extr actors, and tumbler dyers). † Small Equipment refers to both covered CCWs and small-chassis dryers. †† In appendix 13C, DOE estimates that $73.6 million of the total small equipment purchased in the three segments are covered CCWs.


### To calculate the CCW shipment brea kdown by commercial laundry segment, DOE estimated that CCW shipments matched the reve nue breakdowns calculated for small equipment shown in Table 11C.2.3. Because usage patterns for on-premise laundry more closely mirror laundromats, DOE allocated the small percentage of these on-premise laundry shipments to

11C-3

### laundromats. This information suggests that Alli ance’s shipments could be weighted as heavily as 74 percent of shipments to multi-family housing and 26 percent to laundromats. However, DOE cautions that even if these splits are correct, actua l unit shipments could vary significantly based on the mix of CCWs being supplied.

In its market research, DOE noted that front -loading CCWs typically cost almost twice as much as top-loading CCWs. Thus, unless the pr oduct mix going into each market channel is similar, there could be significant differences in actual unit shipments by market channel. Route operator comments received by DOE in response to the November 2009 SNOPR (referred to the “Multiple Route Operators” comment in the final rule c 

### ) included anecdotal evidence that frontload shipments to the multi-family market are significantly lower than the overall 30/70 percent front-loading/top-loading CCW mix currently found in the industry. If this anec dotal evidence is an accurate reflection of route ope rators overall, it suggests a hi gher percentage of front-loading CCWs being sold into the laundromat channe l than into the multi-family housing market channel. Thus, it is possible that even with Alliance’s market channe l revenues split at an estimated 74 percent and 26 percent between multi-fam ily housing and laundromats, respectively, that the actual unit shipments are closer to the 85/15 percentage split between multi-family housing and laundromats that DOE used in its analysis.

In response to DOE’s request for comment for unit shipment information in the November 2009 SNOPR, Whirlpool s uggested that its shipments we re not as heavily weighted toward the 85 percent of shipments to multi-family channel and 15 percent to laundromats shown in the CEE report. d 

### However, Whirlpool did not specify any other shipment ratio. Alliance responded that the 85/15 percentage sh ipments split was representative.

For the purpose of exploring a sensitivity analysis at the extreme of potential market channel shipments, DOE assumed a 40/60 percentage split for Whirlpool’s unit shipments to the laundromat/multi-family housing channels, respectively. Additionally, DOE assumed a similar shipment mix of front-loading and top-loadi ng CCWs into each channel for Alliance and Whirlpool even though anecdotal evidence sugges ts that laundromats buy more front-loading equipment (and hence would receive fewer unit shipments). DOE used a shipment-weighted average between these two manufacturers with th e largest market share as a proxy to estimate shipments for the remainder of the industry. Thus , DOE proposes an industry average shipment split of 66 percent to multi-family housing and 34 percent to the laundromat channel for this sensitivity analysis. However, DOE cautions that based on the analysis ab ove, it is unlikely that the actual shipment split is skewed this far towards laundromats.

c Twenty route operators provided letters to Alliance, an d these letters were submitted as part of Alliance’s written comment in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. EE–2006–STD–0127). The comment is maintained in the Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program. The comment was entered as comment number 67.8 in the docket for this rulemaking.

d Whirlpool Corporation’s written comment was submitted in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. EE–2006– STD–0127) and is maintained in the Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program. The comment was entered as comment number 67.11 in the docket for this rulemaking. The specific information regarding the split between laundromats and multi-family housing can be found on page 4.

11C-4

### 11C.3 IMPACT MARKET SEGMENT BR EAKDOWN ON COMMERCIAL
CLOTHES WASHER USAGE AND SH IPMENTS IN THE SENSITIVITY
CASE

The split of industry shipments to the multi-family housing and laundromat channels impacts the overall usage of CCWs and their asso ciated lifetime in the building stock. Because CCWs in laundromats are used more freque ntly than in multi-family housing, a higher percentage of industry shipments to laundromats re sults in an increase in the average CCW usage in the building stock and a decrease in the average CCW lifetime.

The weighted-average combined CCW us age equals 1,567 cycles per year under the sensitivity case, i.e. , a market share split of 66 percent fo r multi-family housing and 34 percent for laundromats (referred to hereafter as the 66/34 split). This compares to 1,388 cycles per year under the default case, i.e. , a market share split of 85 percent for multi-family housing and 15 percent for laundromats (referred to hereafter as the 85/ 15 split). Increased CCW usage leads to a greater energy and water savings potentia l for CCW energy conservation standards.

The weighted-average combined CCW lifetim e equals 9.9 years under the sensitivity case based on a 66/34 split. This compares to a li fetime of 10.6 years under the default case based on an 85/15 split. Decreasing equipment lifetime leads to more replacements and higher annual CCW shipments.

Using the relationship between CCW modifi ed energy factor (MEF) and water factor (WF) and the annual energy and water consump tion described in Chapter 8, Table 11C.3.1 and Table 11C.3.2 present the per-unit annual electrical and gas ener gy use and water consumption, based on the shipment-weighted efficiencies (S WEFs) corresponding to th e base case and each trial standard level (TSL) for top-loading and front-loading CCWs, respectively. Because establishments that use CCWs use either electr ic or gas water heaters and dryers, the per-unit annual energy use values in the tables below ar e provided by fuel type. The energy and water use values shown in Table 11C.3.1 and Table 11C.3.2 are weighted-average values reflecting the market share of CCWs in multi-family housi ng and laundromats. The tables below present values based on the default case of the 85/15 split and the sensitivity case based on the 66/34 split. The water heating and drying energy consump tion data reflect the percentage of gas and electric water heaters and dryers in the comb ined multi-family and laundromat market. In the combined market under the default case with the 85/15 split, 17 and 83 percent of water heaters are electric and gas, respectivel y, while 34 and 66 percent of dryers are electric and gas, respectively. Under the sensitivity case with the 66/34 split, 13 and 87 percent of water heaters are electric and gas, respectivel y, while 26 and 74 percent of dryers are electric and gas, respectively. Under the sensitiv ity case with the 66/34 split, the values in Table 11C.3.1 and Table 11C.3.2 reflect the greater annual usage of CCWs and the greate r reliance on gas water heating and drying.

11C-5

### Table 11C.3.1 Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers: Comparison of Base Case and Standards Case Shipment-Weighted Aver age Per-Unit Annual Energy and Water Consumption in 2013 for the Default Case and Sensitivity Case

Base Case Trial Standard Level
1 2 3 4 5
SWEF (MEF) 1.32 1.42 1.42 1.60 1.60 1.60

SWEF (WF) 9.49 9.49 9.49 8.50 8.50 8.50 Default Case: 85/15 Split Annual Energy Use Electric (kilowatt

hour/year (kWh/yr)) 950 902 902 812 812 812

Gas (million British thermal units (MMBtu)/yr) 8.30 7.52 7.52 6.60 6.60 6.60

Annual Water Use (1000 gallons (ga)l/ yr) 36.9 36.9 36.9 33.0 32.2 33.0 Sensitivity Case: 66/34 Split Annual Energy Use Electric (kWh/yr) 879 837 837 752 752 752
Gas (MMBtu/yr) 10.14 9.21 9.21 8.10 8.10 8.10
Annual Water Use (1000 gal/ yr) 41.6 41.62 41.62 37.29 37.29 37.29



### Table 11C.3.2 Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers: Comparison of Base Case and Standards Case Shipment-Weighted Aver age Per-Unit Annual Energy and Water Consumption in 2013 for the Default Case and Sensitivity Case

Base Case Trial Standard Level
1 2 3 4 5 SWEF (MEF) 2.04 2.04 2.05 2.05 2.20 2.35

SWEF (WF) 5.50 5.48 5.41 5.41 5.10 4.40 Default Case: 85/15 Split Annual Energy Use Electric (kWh/yr) 683 682 680 680 643 610
Gas (MMBtu/yr) 4.96 4.94 4.92 4.92 4.51 4.19
Annual Water Use (1000 gal/ yr) 21.4 21.3 21.0 21.3 19.8 17.1 Sensitivity Case: 66/34 Split Annual Energy Use Electric (kWh/yr) 639 638 637 637 604 574
Gas (MMBtu/yr) 6.12 6.10 6.07 6.07 5.58 5.18
Annual Water Use (1000 gal/ yr) 24.12 24.04 23.73 23.73 22.38 19.31



### 11C.4 SCENARIO USED TO EVALUA TE THE SENSITIVITY CASE

For the sensitivity case, DOE used the same s cenario used to drive the results in chapter 11 (the default case). As descri bed in chapter 11, the de fault scenario uses the reference case for economic growth and accounts for the impacts of higher first costs on consumer purchases (the relative price elasticity scenario).

11C-6

### 11C.5 NATIONAL ENERGY AND WATER SAVI NGS IN THE SENSITIVITY CASE

Table 11C.5.1 compares the national energy savings (NES) results and national water savings (NWS) results for the TSLs analyzed for CCWs for the defa ult (85/15 split) and sensitivity (66/34 split) cases. Results for top- loading and front-loading CCWs are provided. The NES results are cumulative to 2043 and are s hown as primary energy savings, expressed in quadrillion (10 13 

### ) Btu (quads). NWS resu lts are expressed in b illions of gallons.

Table 11C.5.1 Comparison of NES and NWS for Commercial Clothes Washers under the Default Case and Sensitivity Case
Trial Standard Level
1 2 3 4 5 Top-Load (MEF/WF) 1.42/9.50 1.42/9.50 1.60/8.50 1.60/8.50 1.60/8.50
Front-Load (MEF/WF) 1.80/7.50 2.00/5.50 2.00/5.50 2.20/5/10 2.35/4.40 Default Case: 85/15 Split Top-Load NES ( quads ) 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.10 0.10 Front-Load NES ( quads ) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 Total NES ( quads ) 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.11 0.12 Sensitivity Case: 66/34 Split Top-Load NES ( quads ) 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.11 Front-Load NES ( quads ) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 Total NES ( quads ) 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.12 0.13 Change in Total NES

Increase (%) 9 9 9 8 9 Default Case: 85/15 Split Top-Load NWS ( billion gal ) 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.14 Front-Load NWS ( billion gal ) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.07 Total NWS ( billion gal ) 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.16 0.21 Sensitivity Case: 66/34 Split Top-Load NWS ( billion gal ) 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.15 0.15 Front-Load NWS ( billion gal ) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.08 Total NWS ( billion gal ) 0.00 0.01 0.16 0.18 0.23 Change in Total NWS
Increase (%) 9 9 11 10 11



### 11C.6 NATIONAL IMPACTS IN THE SENSITIVITY CASE

Table 11C.6.1 compares the net present value (NPV) results for the TSLs analyzed for CCWs for the default (85/15 split) and sensitivit y (66/34 split) cases. Results for top-loading and front-loading CCWs are provide d. NPV results are based on disc ount rates of 7 percent and 3 percent and are expressed in billions of dollars.

11C-7

### Table 11C.6.1 Comparison of NPV for Comme rcial Clothes Washers under the Default Case and Sensitivity Case
Trial Standard Level
1 2 3 4 5 Top-Load (MEF/WF) 1.42/9.50 1.42/9.50 1.60/8.50 1.60/8.50 1.60/8.50
Front-Load (MEF/WF) 1.80/7.50 2.00/5.50 2.00/5.50 2.20/5/10 2.35/4.40 Default Case: 85/15 Split, 7% discount rate Top-Load NPV ( 2008$ billion ) 0.01 0.01 0.34 0.34 0.34 Front-Load NPV ( 2008$ billion ) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.17 Total NPV ( 2008$ billion ) 0.01 0.02 0.36 0.41 0.51 Sensitivity Case: 66/34 Split, 7% discount rate Top-Load NPV ( 2008$ billion ) 0.02 0.02 0.39 0.39 0.39 Front-Load NPV ( 2008$ billion ) 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.19 Total NPV ( 2008$ billion ) 0.02 0.03 0.41 0.47 0.58 Change in Total NPV, 7% discount rate

Increase (%) 61 36 14 13 15 Default Case: 85/15 Split, 3% discount rate Top-Load NPV ( 2008$ billion ) 0.07 0.07 0.86 0.86 0.86 Front-Load NPV ( 2008$ billion ) 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.17 0.39 Total NPV ( 2008$ billion ) 0.08 0.10 0.89 1.03 1.25 Sensitivity Case: 66/34 Split, 3% discount rate Top-Load NPV ( 2008$ billion ) 0.08 0.08 0.96 0.96 0.96 Front-Load NPV ( 2008$ billion ) 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.18 0.43 Total NPV ( 2008$ billion ) 0.09 0.12 0.99 1.14 1.38 Change in Total NPV, 3% discount rate
Increase (%) 21 17 11 11 11



### 11C.7 MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS IN THE SENSITIVITY CASE

Industry shipments impact the total industr y revenue and the industry net present value (INPV). As described in section 11C.3, the alte rnative split of CCW shipments between multi

family housing and laundromats impact shipments due to different replacement rates in the two channels. To compare the MIA results in the sensitivity case, Table 11C.7.1 shows the original results that correspond to the MIA results in chapter 13 and Table 11C.7.2 shows the MIA results in the sensitivity case.

11C-8

### Table 11C.7.1 Change in Industry Net Presen t Value for Top-Loading and Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers in the Default Case (Preservation of Gross Margin Percentage Markup – Price Elas ticity of Demand Shipments)

Units Base Trial Standard Level Case 1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2008$ million) 62 64 62 55 51 39

Change in INPV (2008$ million) - 3 0 (7) (10) (23)

(%)

- 4.50 0.76 -11.39 -16.57 -37.30



### Table 11C.7.2 Changes in Industry Net Presen t Value for Top-Loading and Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers in the Sensitivity Case (Preservation of Gross Margin Percentage Markup – Price Elas ticity of Demand Shipments)

Units Base Trial Standard Level Case 1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2008$ million) 63 65 63 56 53 40

Change in INPV (2008$ million) - 3 1 (7) (10) (23)

(%)

- 4.50 0.83 -11.01 -16.08 -36.50



### The results in Table 11C.7.1 and Table 11C.7.2 show that the sensitivity scenario has minimal impact on CCW INPV. Because shipments increase slightly under the sensitivity scenario, the impacts on INPV are marginally lower. However, since total shipments do not greatly change in the sensitivity case, the MIA re sults are extremely close to the results under the standard scenarios shown in chapter 13.

11C-9

### REFERENCES

1 

### Consortium for Energy Efficiency. “Commerc ial Family-Sized Washers: An Initiative Description of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency,” 1998. Boston, MA.

2 

### U.S. Department of Energy-Office of Ener gy Efficiency and Rene wable Energy, “Energy Conservation Standards for Certain Consum er Products (Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, Microwave Ovens, and Electric and Gas K itchen Ranges and Ovens) and for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment (Comme rcial Clothes Washers);” Proposed Rule, Federal Register , 74 FR 57738. November 9, 2009.

11C-10