Forecast: LCC Difference

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 187 Outliers

.027 - 269

020 ________________________

.1 _____________ 2017

= I I i I 111111111

.013 1

. 134.5- L 7.25 ::: :

($1,000) ($700) ($400) ($100) $200

Certainty is 90.89% from -Infinity to $0 $

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

Figure G.55 MEF of 1.089 (25% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth. Frequency

Chart of LCC Differences

10,000 Trials

Forecast: LCC Difference

Cumulative Chart 187 Outliers

1.000

.750 d

- 10000

IF IIiIiII !I fti[ L 5Q0 _____________________ • _______________________________________________________ .ii

.-• L.i 1 p

.250 .4I!III

.000 1•....t....iiuttutttIIllhIflhIIIIIIII ..,... L[d .!. __________________________________ 0

($1,000) ($700) ($400) ($100) $200

Certainty is 90.89% from -Infinity to $0 $

Figure G.56 MEF of 1.089 (25% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences

G-29

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Forecast: LCC Difference

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 153 Outliers

.033 331

.025 11111J1111L 248.2

__________________________ I I] 1111111 ___________________

. .017 H' 165.5 .

008 !JI!i.IldI.] 82 75

I 1 L

000Lu.inII.LIliIIIdlIIII 1111 I L . .. 0

($1,500) ($938) ($375) $188 $750

Certainty is 83.21% from -Infinity to $0 $

Figure G.57 MEF of 1.257 (35% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences

Forecast: LCC Difference

10,000 Trials Cumulative Chart 153 Outliers

1.000 10000

750 _____________________________________________________ _____________ 1

-'1

-'

.500 .=

.250

eari = ($332 .000t ._.,e.ummiu,ffl11111111101110111111 .111111Utfl19 0

($1,500) ($938) ($375) $188 $750

Certainty is 83.21% from -Infinity to $0 $

Figure G.58 MEF of 1.257 (35% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences

G-30

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

Forecast: LCC Difference

Frequency Chart 136 Outliers

.034

.025

339

254.2

. IlIlIHhlIl :'

=

I

I I IIIHIIIIII rD

. .017 "'I 169.5.

lIi1

.008 iiii41Ii llh1Ii1Iffl 84.75

l lhtIhIh11I1lI1II1IIIIIIItI1I! .000 ....,I..III,II I . _____________ 0

($1,750) ($1,125) ($500) $125 $750

Certainty is 84.94% from -Infinity to $0 $

Figure G.59 MEF = 1.26 in 2007, High Growth. Frequency Chart of LCC

Differences

Forecast: LCC Difference

10,000 Trials Cumulative Chart 136 Outliers

1 .000 10000

.750

-'1

-'

. .500

=

rD

.250

($33J

.000 ....,...uuuu..iiiiiiiiiiIIIIIIItII liii 1'III"uIiIl 0

($1,750) ($1,125) ($500) $125 $750

Certainty is 84.94% from -Infinity to $0 $

Figure G.60 MEF = 1.26 in 2007, High Growth. Cumulative Chart of LCC

Differences

G-3 1

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

Forecast: LCC Difference

Frequency Chart 144 Outliers

.031 -311

233.2

. 1 1 h1 IISSL .016

_______

1 1

_____________

155.5 .

''-'''I =

'H -

.008 I1ø 11 J it

huIl

l

, .. .

)j 'IL[[[J ilei=($33 lIIIIIIIIIIIlIllj .000 i..,H . . _____________ 0

($1,500) ($938) ($375) $188 $750

Certainty is 83.25% from -Infinity to $0 $

Figure G.61 MEF of 1.362 (40% Reduction in Energy Usage), High Growth.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences

Forecast: LCC Difference

10,000 Trials Cumulative Chart 144 Outliers

1.000 - 10000

_______________________________________________________

iiiiiiiillHllIHHHHI1ll ______________________________111111Jfl1HIu M H lllF-

.250_____________ .000 .11a11...1nllliIIIIIIHIIIIIIII ilL' ______________ I - 0

I

($1,500) ($938) ($375) $188 $750

Certainty is 83.25% from -Infinity to $0 $

Figure G.62 MEF of 1.3 62 (40% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences

G-32

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

Forecast: LCC Difference

Frequency Chart 90 Outliers

.031

.023 .iiI11I!1IIIL.

-305

228.7

. 015 iiiIL _______ 1525

! L 625 ::: 1 1;....

____________ ___________________________

:

($1,500) ($938) ($375) $188 $750

Certainty is 74.75% from -Infinity to $0 $

Figure G.63 MEF of 1.485 (45% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

Frequency Chart of LCC Differences

Forecast: LCC Difference

10,000 Trials Cumulative Chart 90 Outliers

1 000 ___________________________ _____

10000

.750 __________________________________________________________ __________ _ flifliHhIIIIIHIIIIHflhIIII

.500

.

.250 ______________________ 000 _._...w..niilifflIllhIIJllhIIIIIIII1I Mean = S25b .IIu,mnu1 0

($1,500) ($938) ($375) $188 $750

Certainty is 74.75% from -Infinity to $0 $

Figure G.64 MEF of 1.485 (45% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences

G-33

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

Forecast: LCC Difference

Frequency Chart 118 Outliers

.031

.0231 ____________________________________ !1IJIJII1Jd1 ____________

- 312

__________ 234 II !1 ii 11

- iiil . .016W- _________________________________ 156

.008

i1llM _____

-78

1 I ________

Mean = ($265 .ldIflftJft l IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIM i .000 I I MjIflflT.

'1

.

. 0

($1,500) ($938) ($375) $188 $750

Certainty is 74.76% from -Infinity to $0 $

Figure G.65 MEF of 1.634 (50% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth. Frequency

Chart of LCC Differences

Forecast: LCC Difference

10,000 Trials Cumulative Chart 118 Outliers

1

_________________________________________________________

___________.1iiiifflilUHI1HHHPIIU 10000

-I

-

______________________________________________________________________________________ iiiI 'r.. 1

5001 .= -I.' [J 11 111FMFllll 11

I.. .2501 ______________________.1

IVIj1

flhl!!1II1IIIII .000 =

0

'1

($1,500) ($938) ($375) $188 $750

Certainty is 74.76% from -Infinity to $0 $

Figure G.66 MEF of 1.634 (50% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth.

Cumulative Chart of LCC Differences

G-34

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
APPENDIX H. PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

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

..........

.........

.........

.........

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

.........

.........

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

.........

.........

.........

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

...........

...........

...........

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

..........

..........

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

..........

..........

..........

...........

..........

..........

..........

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

..........

..........

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

..........

..........

..........

TABLE OF CONTENTS

H.1 PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS H-i

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure H.1 MEF of 0.860 (5% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case H-2

Figure H.2 MEF of 0.908 (10% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case H-2

Figure H.3 MEF of 0.961 (15% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case H-3

Figure H.4 MEF of 1.021 (20% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case H-3

Figure H.5 MEF of 1.04 in 2004, Reference Case H-4

Figure H.6 MEF of 1.089 (25% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case H-4

Figure H.7 MEF of 1.257 (35% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case H-5

Figure H.8 MEF = 1.26 in 2007, Reference Case H-5

Figure H.9 MEF of 1.362 (40% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case H-6

Figure H. 10 MEF of 1.485 (45% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case H-6

Figure H. ii MEF of 1.634 (50% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case H-7

Figure H.12 MEF of 0.860(5% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth H-8

Figure H.i3 MEF of 0.908 (10% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth H-8

Figure H.14 MEF of 0.961 (15% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth H-9

Figure H.15 MEF of 1.021 (20% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth H-9

Figure H.16 MEF = 1.04 in 2004, Low Growth H-b

Figure H.17 MEF of 1.089 (25% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth H-b

Figure H.18 MEF of 1.257 (35% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth H-il

Figure H.19 MEF = 1.26 in 2007, Low Growth H-il

Figure H.20 MEF of 1.362 (40% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth H-12

Figure H.21 MEF of 1.485 (45% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth H-12

Figure H.22 MEF of 1.634 (50% Reduction of Energy Use), Low Growth H-13

Figure H.23 MEF of 0.860 (5% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth H-14

Figure H.24 MEF of 0.908 (10% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth H-14

Figure H.25 MEF of 0.961 (15% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth H-15

Figure H.26 MEF of 1.02 1 (20% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth H-is

Figure H.27 MEF = 1.04 in 2004, High Growth H-16

Figure H.28 MEF of 1.089 (25% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth H-16

Figure H.29 MEF of 1.257 (35% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth H-17

Figure H.30 MEF = 1.26 in 2007 H-18

Figure H.3b MEF of 1.362 (40% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth H-b8

Figure H.32 MEF of 1.485 (45% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth H-b9

Figure H.33 MEF of 1.634 (50% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth H-i9

H-i

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
APPENDIX H. PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

H.! PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

The following section contains the preliminary payback period results for all the

efficiency improvement levels. All charts show the frequency distribution of simple payback

periods. Charts are shown for scenarios of reference, low economic growth and high

economic growth cases as defined by EIA's Annual Energy Outlook (AE099).

H-i

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

Frequency Chart 288 Outliers

.383

.287

3829

.096 957.2

.000 1

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Figure H.1 MEF of 0.860 (5% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 306 Outliers

.460 - 4598

.345 - ______ _________________________________________________

= rD .

. .230-

=

o =

- rD

I-

_____ ______________________________________ .115-- 1

Mean=0.7 .000 lIi.n.i, •------- .

1

0.0 1.3 2.5 3.8 5.0

Figure H.2 MEF of 0.908 (10% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case

H-2

Figure F.2.3 MEF of 0.961 (15% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Forecast: Payback (yrs)

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 348 Outliers

.230 2295

. 172 - _____ ______________________________________________

. :'

=

- . 115 - ____ ____________________________________________ -

=

I = . 057 -

_ ____________ 573.7

II Mean=1.4 -

.'J'Ju i.....

I

0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0

-

Figure H.3 MEF of 0.961 (15% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case

10,000 Trials

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

Frequency Chart 227 Outliers

.271

.203 - ________ _______________________________________

- 2710

__________

=

. .136 - _____ -•-- -

=

rD

=

.068 - _______ -- 677.5

.000 - . - 0

0.0 6.3 12.5 18.8 25.0

Figure H.4 MEF of 1.021 (20% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case

H-3

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

.030

.022

.015

::

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

Frequency Chart 156 Outliers

- 298

223.5

•11

149 •

--74.5

17.5

Figure H.5 MEF of 1.04 in 2004, Reference Case

10,000 Trials

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

Frequency Chart 166 Outliers

.026

Il

- 263

.020 _!J! I.Ih _?!htI1J0" I 197.2

131

0.0 4.4 8.8 13.1 17.5

Figure 11.6 MEF of 1.089 (25% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case

H-4

4.4 8.8 13.1

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

Frequency Chart 224 Outliers

418

313.5

-'1 ::: •1

. 209

-

rD

o

.010 104.5

1

r1ean

.000 iintI..ru.I.II 'I!IflhLi 1 !1 0

0.0 6.3 12.5 18.8 25.0

Figure H.7 MEF of 1.257 (35% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case

10,000 Trials

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

Frequency Chart 237 Outliers

.039

.02i________ _____ _________________________________

- 388

________ 291

.O .019 _____________l I llllI. [ar .L.... _________________________________________________________ ________________ 194 -

=

-o tHl

o

.010- I

1

II! 97

.000 11H 0

0.0 5.6 11.3 16.9 22.5

Figure H.8 MEF = 1.26 in 2007, Reference Case

H-5

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

Frequency Chart 215 Outliers

.041

I

.031 i Iii. _________________________________________ 305.2

1

.020 ______

203. 5 -

rD

C =

.o.o L Ij1

101.7 iJ o1IIith

.000 L thiYb_ 0

4

0.0 6.3 12.5 18.8 25.0

Figure H.9 MEF of 1.362 (40% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case

10,000 Trials

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

Frequency Chart 197 Outliers

.033

IIIIIIIIIl..i .

328

• 025 246

1

I.

____________ .016

_______

_

__________________________________________

- 164 -

II =

C =

1 ______ .0u8 _________________________

l

__________ 82

Mean = 8.6 I11ii1ii

.000 I I kmnii.murii9 0

0.0 6.9 13.8 20.6 27.5

Figure H.10 MEF of 1.485 (45% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case

H-6

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

Frequency Chart 168 Outliers

.034

.025

337

252.7

017 _____________ UiL _____________________________________________________________________________ 168 5

:4.25

,

0.0 6.9 13.8 20.6 27.5

Figure H.11 MEF of 1.634 (50% Reduction in Energy Use), Reference Case

H-7

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Forecast: Payback (yrs)

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 330 Outliers

3623

.272 - ____ ___________________________________________

. 181--- _______________

.091- 905.7

.000L Ln=0A 0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Figure H.12 MEF of 0.860 (5% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 293 Outliers

.467 4667

.350 - ______ __________________________________________________

=

. .233- -

=

=

.117 - _____ _____________________________________________ -

000 L?0L7 0

0.0 1.4 2.8 4.1 5.5

Figure H.13 MEF of 0.908 (10% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth

H-8

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

Frequency Chart 308 Outliers

.243

.182 - ____ ______________________________________

2428

_________

= rD

. .121 - ________________________________________

=

.

.061- 607

Mean = 1.4

.000

.j_.___.__ -

- 0

0.0 2.8 5.5 8.3 11.0

.

Figure H.14 MEF of 0.961 (15% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 225 Outliers

.251 2505

.188 - ________ _______________________________________________

. .125- --

=

-= V

.063 - 626.2

.000 IbJUIHUILLI V 4

0

0.0 6.3 12.5 18.8 25.0

Figure H.15 MEF of 1.021 (20% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth

H-9

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

Frequency Chart 197 Outliers

.029

2 .02 i,ii 11 1111111,,.

-7Li

1 292

, 1 -

.015 -146 .

::: - :

0.0 4.4 8.8 13.1 17.5

Figure 11.16 MEF = 1.04 in 2004, Low Growth

10,000 Trials

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

Frequency Chart 140 Outliers

.027 - 274

.021 1btitIJL1 205.5

= I

.014 __- H 137 -

i

007 685 L 0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

Figure H.17 MEF of 1.089 (25% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth

H- 10

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

Frequency Chart 245 Outliers

.041

.031

412

-309

= ii . .021 _________________________________________________________________________ 206

103

0.0 6.3 12.5 18.8 25.0

Figure H.18 MEF of 1.257 (35% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 245 Outliers

:::r h u lL_ :::

.020 200

_______ ________________________________________ 100

::L ' -

gniimi.

0.0 6.3 12.5 18.8 25.0

Figure H.19 MEF = 1.26 in 2007, Low Growth

H-i 1

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

Frequency Chart 219 Outliers

.0441

.033 1 ,IiIiii ________________________________

- 441

_________ 330.7

1

1

.022 ______ ______________________________________ 220.5

.

=

.011 110.2

Mean = 7.

.000 OR1IuIIIIIIIII

1

0.0 6.9 13.8 20.6 27.5

Figure H.20 MEF of 1.362 (40% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth

10,000 Trials

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

Frequency Chart 230 Outliers

029

Il 022 ______lIllIllIll I ____________________________

294

_______ 220.5

-'1

-'

.os -147

0 =

& .007 73.5

Meii 9.2

.000 uuIuuIIuIII1uhul

I

0.0 6.9 13.8 20.6 27.5

Figure H.21 MEF of 1.485 (45% Reduction in Energy Use), Low Growth

H- 12

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Forecast: Payback (yrs)

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 211 Outliers

.030

-

299

022 _______ I 1 1 2242

______________ il 111ft1i' LI J.

. .015 I ji1L L1.J._ ____________________________________________________________________ 149.5 -

=

-

::: Aft' Ii1111 i:

0.0 6.9 13.8 20.6 27.5

Figure H.22 MEF of 1.634 (50% Reduction of Energy Use), Low Growth

H- 13

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Forecast: Payback (yrs)

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 326 Outliers

- 3623

.272--- -

=

. .181- - _________________________________

=

=

.091 - 905.7

Mean=0.1 -

.000 - --

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7

-r -0

Figure H.23 MEF of 0.860 (5% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 284 Outliers

.467 - - 4673

.350 - _____ _________________________________________________

:'

=

. .234- -

=

=

I- ____ ________________________________________

.000L

2.5 3.8 5.0

Figure H.24 MEF of 0.908 (10% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth

H- 14

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

Frequency Chart 320 Outliers

.236

.177 - _____ ______________________________________

- 2358

________

=

.118 -

=

rD

=

.059 - 589.5

IL

Mean=1.4

.000- bL ..----'------------ -0

0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0

-

Figure H.25 MEF of 0.961 (15% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 279 Outliers

.240 - 2401

.180

=

. .120

=

C

.060 600.2

.000 . 0

0.0 5.6 11.3 16.9 22.5

Figure H.26 MEF of 1.021 (20% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth

- Im.mn

H- 15

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

Frequency Chart 209 Outliers

.028

021 d .illiilIIliIi.h _______________________________________________________________

279

_________________ 209.2

-'1

j

-'

.014 139.5 -

-

.

=

.007 _________________________________ 69.75 L JI"!"In

4311 ___ ________ I1IlIII11III1Oh1I1ffl L .000 _____ 111.1kII IIIII1ljIflW,Uuu1tI! !lrni,I ..IIrL 0

0.0 3.8 7.5 11.3 15.0

Figure H.27 MEF = 1.04 in 2004, High Growth

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 147 Outliers

.029

-

287

o22J___IiiiiLiJJL,hL] 215.2

I II .1

.014

Iiii1 •

143.5

:: ____ ____________________________________

175

0.0 4.4 8.8 13.1 17.5

Figure H.28 MEF of 1.089 (25% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth

H- 16

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

.042

031

.021-

.

I-

.000

0.0

-

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

Frequency Chart 245 Outliers

- 416

- 312

•11

-I

rD

208

=

-- 104

0

22.5

Figure H.29 MEF of 1.257 (35% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 218 Outl iers

.044 - 438

. 033 IL 328 .5

h1] 022 -________________________

.1 I ii

. - 219

=

- I -

C

011 -. -'..J

--••

II

109

=

.

I

. uiiuhliii .5

1 1

.. .. -

000 . . 0

0.0 5.6 11.3 16.9 22.5

Figure H.30 MEF = 1.26 in 2007

H- 17

5.6 11.3 16.9

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

Frequency Chart 251 Outliers

.041 - 414

310.5

•11

. .021 207 -

- I

-

.010 1: . 103.5

=

000 . 1 P11 U i: J .-. 0

0.0 5.6 11.3 16.9 22.5

Figure H.31 MEF of 1.362 (40% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth

10,000 Trials

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

Frequency Chart 227 Outliers

.032

024 Ill

'

IllIllill.

315

-

236.2

1

- .016 157.5-

. OIl 1

=

.008 ________ 78.75

11 H Mein =

.000 . ujJI.IJIIII

1

0

0.0 6.3 12.5 18.8 25.0

Figure H.32 MEF of 1.485 (45% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth

H- 18

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
10,000 Trials

Forecast: Payback (yrs)

Frequency Chart 199 Outliers

.031

.024 I i

314

235.5

.016 157 .2

_________ .008 __________________________________

•..:

_____________ 78.5

I 0

0.0 6.3 12.5 18.8 25.0

Figure H.33 MEF of 1.634 (50% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth

H- 19

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
APPENDIX I. CONSUMER RESEARCH REPORT

I-i

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
APPENDIX I. CONSUMER RESEARCH REPORT

..........

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

..........

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

..........

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1 INTRODUCTION - PRESENTATION OF CONSUMER RESEARCH 1-2

1.2 SOURCES OF INFORMATION 1-2

1.3 SOURCES AND PROJECTS 1-2

1.3.1 Major Studies by Consortiums 1-2

1.3.1.2 THELMA (The High-Efficiency Laundry

Metering & Marketing Analysis Project) 1-2

1.3.1.3 THELMATask2.1 FinaiReport 1-3

1.3.1.4 THELMA Task 2.3 Draft 1-5

I..3.1.5 THELMA Task4 Draft 1-7

Gl.3.1.6 THELMA, Final Report 1-8

1.3.2 Bern / Kansas Study 1-9

1.3.3 WashWise I-il

1.3.4 Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership (NEEP) 1-14

1.4 INDIVIDUAL UTILITY DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT/MARKET

TRANSFORMATION PROGRAMS 1-15

1.4.1 Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) - Utility Survey 1-15

1.4.2 Commonwealth Electric - Utility Survey 1-15

1.4.3 Consumer Publications 1-16

1.4.3.1 Consumer Reports/Consumers Union 1-16

1.4.3.2 Consumer - New Zealand publication 1-16

1.4.3.3 Choice - (Australian Consumer Magazine) 1-17

1.5 TRADE ORGANIZATIONS 1-17

1.5.1 The Soap and Detergent Association (SDA) 1-17

1.5.2 Arthur D. Little (ADL) Report on the behalf of AHAM, 1991 1-18

1.5.3 EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) Journal 1-19

1.5.4 Fort Hood Demonstration Study (metering study) 1-20

1.6 GOVERNMENT PROJECTS 1-20

1.6.1 Energy Star Program 1-20

1.6.2 Commercial Laundry Field Study 1-21

1.6.3 MacDill Air Force Base 1-22

1.6.4 Fort Hood Demonstration Study (metering study) 1-23

1.6.5 Fort Hood Government Procurement - Department of Defense 1-23

'-ii

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
DRAFT REPORT ON CONSUMER RESEARCH FOR CLOTHES WASHERS

CONSUMER RESEARCH SUMMARY

I.! INTRODUCTION -PRESENTATION OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

This report is a summary of consumer research on clothes washers.

1.2 SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Listed below are sources of information regarding consumer issues. Some programs are

applicable to more than one general heading.

Major Studies by Consortiums

The High Efficiency Laundry Metering & Marketing Analysis (THELMA)

Bern, Kansas / Maytag demonstration project

Wash Wise - Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NWEEA)

Northeast Energy Efficiency Program (NEEP)

Individual Utility Demand Side Management (DSM)/Market Transformation Programs

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG& E, California)

Commonwealth Electric

Consumer Publications

Consumer Reports (USA)

Consumer (New Zealand)

CHOICE (Australia)

Trade & Proftssional Organizations

Soap & Detergent Association

American Home Appliance Association (AHAM)

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)

I-i

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Government Programs

Energy Star Appliance Programs (DOE, EPA) - D&R International and other

ORNL - Commercial Laundry Field Study

MacDill Air Force Base, DOD

Fort Hood Demonstration Study, DOD

Fort Hood Government Procurement, DOD

1.3 SOURCES AND PROJECTS

1.3.1 Major Studies by Consortiums

1.3.1.2 THELMA (The High-Efficiency Laundry Metering & Marketing Analysis

Project)

Sponsors:

The High-Efficiency Laundry Metering & Marketing Analysis (THELMA) study is an

Electric Power Research Institute Tailored Collaborative project sponsored by a consortium

of28 electric, gas, water and sewer utilities, as well as the Electric Power Research Institute

(EPRI) and the U.S. Department of Energy. The project is being coordinated through EPRI.

Contractors:

Hagler Bailly Consulting Inc., Phone: (608) 232-2800

Dethman & Associates, Phone: (206) 545-0717

SBW Consulting, Inc., Phone: (206) 827-0330

National Center for Appropriate Technology, Phone: (206) 324-8064

Arther D. Little, Phone: (617) 498-5000

Objectives:

The broad goals of THELMA are to acquire the information necessary for leveraging a

lasting market transformation to efficient clothes washers and to design effective incentive

programs and other promotional tools for simulating the purchase of efficient washers.

Specific objectives include:

Characterize status of H-axis technology.

Confirm savings estimates.

Assess customer laundering habits.

Identif' market barriers.

Suggest strategies for utility actions.

Methodologies:

The THELMA report includes the following volumes (not all are currently published):

Volume 1: Final Research Plan

1-2

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Volume 2: Laboratory Testing of Clothes Washers

Volume 3: General Market Assessment

Volume 4: Distribution Channels

Volume 5: Product Demonstrations

Volume 6: Product Users: In-Home Interviews

Volume 7: Product Users: Field Monitoring

Volume 8: Product Benefits and Target Markets

Volume 9: Product Users: Further Evaluations

Individual THELMA report volumes, organized by tasks, are discussed below.

Future Work:

Findings of the THELMA project will be published in a nine volume set. Four volumes were

made available to LBNL; all but the Laboratory Testing Report were draft documents. It is

not certain when the other eight report volumes will become available to the general public.

Additional field testing with the Neptune, Maytag was done but this report is not available

yet. There are currently no plans for EPRI to do additional work.

1.3.1.3 THELMA Task 2.1 Final Report

Title: Results of Focus Groups with Consumers

Date: June 1995

Report leader: Dethman & Associates

Objectives:

Qualitatively assess the current market for H-axis washers.

To explore consumer attitudes, rather than to measure them.

Identify and explore the educational needs of consumers.

Inform other THELMA research components.

Methodologies:

Washers: prior to introduction of Neptune (Maytag); both top-loading and front-loading Haxis washers were discussed.

Description: Focus Groups with Consumers.

Date: February 6-9, 1995.

Location: Bellevue, Washington & Concord, California

Sample size: Four focus groups of 10 people each (2 in each location).

Sample demographics: selected by wash loads and income

Rebates: None

Topics covered included:

satisfaction with current washer

reactions to H-axis washer

interest in buying a H-axis washer

'-3

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
consumer descriptions of H-axis washers

Findings: [from Executive Summary]

Barriers to Acceptance of H-axis Washers

Awareness of H-axis washers was extremely low among focus group participants.

Participants reactions were initially quite negative to front-loading H-axis washers,

based on old associations. They also were resistant to certain features, citing

concerns about the need to bend; leaking; child safety; and ease of use. (Participants

were shown photographs of front-loading and top-loading models; information and

diagrams that compared the mechanical action and cleaning technique of V-axis and

H-axis washers; specific details of resource and cost savings).

Participants viewed top-loading H-axis washers as a confusing hybrid. They also had

concerns about specific features (e.g., double door entry; the hatch always rotating

to the top).

Even when given basic information about H-axis washers, participants had a

multitude of questions and concerns.

The Appeal ofH-axis Washers

Most participants in the focus groups said they might consider buying an H-axis

washer if it was equal to their V-axis washer in terms of reliability, capacity, price,

and convenience.

Participants who spontaneously suggested H-axis benefits were few in number and

quite tentative.

Participants perceived that resource conservation is less important than other washer

attributes such as ease of use and cleaning ability.

Participants rarely mentioned energy and water efficiency as key buying criteria;

rather, they mentioned cost, reliability, large capacity, versatility, and easy use.

Key Buying Criteria [from Results of Focus Groups with Consumers, Draft]

The most frequently mentioned buying criteria were:

Cost

Reliability and durability

Large capacity

Versatile features (e.g., water levels; wash speeds; temperature settings; rinse cycles;

delicate settings; dispensers; etc.)

Controls that were easy to use

Factors that were occasionally mentioned included: ease of home maintenance; safety

features; gas vs. electricity; type of agitator; noise level; aesthetics; length of wash cycle.

Energy and water efficiency were rarely mentioned, except in the context of selecting the

water level to match the load size.

'-4

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
1.3.1.4 THELMA Task 2.3 Draft

Title: Laundry Demonstration Center

Date: April 1996

Report leader: Dethman & Associates

Objectives:

The Demonstration Center's purpose was to introduce potential H-axis consumers to two

types of H-axis washers, and to collect their reactions to and insights about these washers.

The primary objectives of the Demonstration Center were to assess respondents:

Awareness and initial impressions of H-axis washers.

Preferences for top-loading vs. front-loading H-axis washers.

Reactions to trying out an H-axis washers when they conducted a "test wash".

Likelihood of buying an H-axis washer.

Questions about H-axis washers and reactions to H-axis utility program ideas.

Methodologies:

Washers:

Participants were shown a top-loading and a front-loading machine, and they

performed a test wash on the front loader.

Neptune washer (Maytag) was not involved.

Description: Surveyed participants after demonstrating washers.

Time period of surveys: November 7, 1995 to February 21, 1996.

Location: Lynnwood, Washington (a suburban area just north of Seattle)

Sample size: one hundred in depth interviews were conducted.

Sample demographics:

Random from phone books covering neighborhoods near the demonstration center.

Participants who had some potential for buying an H-axis washer were selected.

Homeowners with at least $30,000 income

Currently owned V-axis machines

Household did four or more wash loads per week

Findings: [from Executive Summary]

What's Important in a New Washer?

Capacity (51%)

Specific features such as dispensers, cycles (48%)

Efficiency (3 5%) (e.g., selecting cold wash rinse or adjusting water level)

Reputationlreliability (31%)

Purchase price (28%)

'-5

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
What Initial Impressions Did Participants Have of H-axis Washers?

One-third had heard of residential H-axis washers; 15% had used one.

Just over a quarter of respondents said they would be extremely or very likely to buy one.

Those less predisposed to H-axis washers most often cited "lack of information" as the

reason for their negative ratings; other concerns included front-loading issues (e.g., bending,

leaking) and inferior performance.

What Difference Did Hands-on Experience Make?

Findings are based on two specific brands of washers, and therefore, may not apply equally well to

other H-axis machines, especially findings on specific product features.

Response to Front-load Washer (Washer A)

Perceptions on capacity changed. Over a third of participants remarked that they could have

added more clothes.

Many asked for reliable data on the true capacity of H-axis washers, and on the relationship

between capacity and cleaning performance.

About half thought the clothes would get as clean and rinse as well as with their V-axis

washer.

About half were unsure or expected inferior cleaning and rinsing. Respondents were

confused about how clothes could get clean without immersion in water, or without the

scrubbing action of an agitator.

Respondents wanted more hands-on proof about the machines's performance under a variety

of real life settings.

Appealing features included: overall appearance, quietness, gentleness on clothes, familiar

controls, better balance, and the convenient dispensers for bleach!softener.

Areas of concern included: bending to load and unload, fear of leaks, accessibility of controls

to children, and dispenser spills.

Response to Top-Load Washer (Washer B)

This was a top-load, horizontal axis washer.

Said they preferred the top-loading H-axis washer in theory but preferred the front-loading

H-axis washer because they felt the overall design was more logical, more familiar from

laundromat experiences, and more user-friendly.

The majority of respondents who said they preferred a top loader said they would never buy

Washer B. Reaction to Washer B was dominated by negative response to the latched

opening used to enter the drum, as well as concerns about the machine's basic quality and

finish.

How Did Particzpants View H-axis Washers in the End?

Respondents were most likely to believe that H-axis washers did reduce wear and tear, but

were less sure about their superior cleaning/rinsing ability and equivalent capacity.

Respondents were evenly split between those who said that the higher purchase price ($600-

$800 purchase price) would deter them from buying an H-axis washer, and those who said

1-6

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
it might be worth paying more, if the savings, superior performance and reliability of H-axis

washers were proven.

Two-thirds were impressed with improved efficiency and financial savings; others wanted

proof or thought the savings were too small.

The number of participants who rated themselves extremely/very likely to buy an H-axis

washer had more than doubled (from 28% to 67%), after the interview and test wash.

Most respondents said they would need more information before actually buying an H-axis

washer. Respondents required proven data about the H-axis washers' track record; ease of

repair; efficiency/savings; cleaning, rinsing, wear & tear; and capacity.

I..3.1.5 THELMA Task 4 Draft

Title: Impact Analysis

Date: October 1996

Report leader: SBW Consulting, Inc. (for EPRI Retail Market Tools and Services)

Objectives:

To assess energy and water savings in an "in-home" environment as compared to a laboratory

setting. Laboratory testing can provide savings estimates but must make assumptions about

peoples' laundry practices. In-home monitoring can provide estimates under more realistic

and diverse conditions.

Methodologies.

Washers: Two types of H-axis washers were used.

Washer A was installed in 46 of 50 sites. It is a front-loading model that was

officially released to the U.S. market in September 1996 by a major U.S. appliance

manufacturer. It has a maximum spin speed of 650 rpm.

Washer C was installed in 4 of 50 sites. It is a front-loading model manufactured in

Europe and available in the United States. Washer C requires 220 Volt service and

only a cold-water connection because it has an internal electric water heater.

Description: Existing washer and dryer were monitored for a 6-week period.

An H-axis washer was then substituted for the V-axis washer, and the H-axis washer

and dryer were then monitored for a 7-week period.

Dates:

Phase I (existing washer monitored) Sept. 1995 - Dec. 1995,

Phase II (H-axis washer monitored) May 1996 - Aug. 1996.

Locations:

Phase I: 22 sites within a 10-mile radius in the Greater-Seattle, Washington area

4 sites in Tacoma, Washington

Phase II: 19 sites in Salem, Oregon

5 sites in the Bay Area of California (Fremont, San Rafael, Richmond)

Sample size: 50 homes were monitored.

'-7

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Findings:

Water savings ranged from 11 to 74 percent with an average water savings of 36 percent.

Energy is saved if warm or hot water is used for washing or if the washer features a high spin

speed. Average savings were 1.02 kWh/wash load.

Participants with the H-axis Washer A reduced their load size by 4 percent. Those with

Washer C reduced on average reduced their load size by 10 percent.

There was no significant change in the wash temperatures selected between the V-axis and

H-axis washers.

G1.3.1.6 THELMA, Final Report

Title: Laboratory Testing of Clothes Washers, Final Report

Date: April 17, 1997

Contractor: Arthur D. Little, Inc. (ADL)

Principle investigators: J Dieckmann, Detlef Westphalen

Project Managers: R. Gillman, J. Kesseiring; Customer Systems Group, EPRI

This report was a continuation of an earlier report of the same title, published in December

1995. Principal investigators for the earlier report (also by ADL) are: J Dieckmann, W.

Murphy. An additional washer not previously available was tested in the updated report.

Objectives:

To test energy and water consumption and other performance parameters discussed below.

Methodologies:

Washers: Number of clothes washers tested: seven H-axis and one V-axis washers. Washers

were labeled A through H. It is believed that a prototype Neptune (Maytag) was

included in the testing. Clothes washers could be identified by noting their unique

specifications.

Laboratory testing of washer to determine (for 8 washers):

DOE washer capacity

Hot and cold water consumption

Energy consumption by the washer mechanical drive

DOE energy factor

Water extraction effectiveness

Effect of water extraction effectiveness on dryer energy

Soil removal effectiveness

Rinsing effectiveness

Gentleness of action

1-8

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Findings: [from report Conclusions]

The normal wash cycle times of the eight H-axis machines ranged between 40 minutes and

110 minutes. The V-axis normal wash cycle required 37 minutes.

The energy factor of the H-axis machines, as measured by the DOE test procedure, was

approximately 95% higher than the V-axis machine that was tested (i.e., H-axis energy

consumption normalized to the basket volume is approximately 45% less than V-axis).

The average water consumption of the eight H-axis machines, normalized to the basket

volume, is 25% less than the V-axis machine at maximum fill level and 10% less than the

V-axis at minimum fill level.

The H-axis washers tested all had higher spin G's than the V-axis machine, resulting in

measurably lower remaining moisture content (RMC).

Electric clothes dryer energy decreases linearly with decreasing RMC.

As a group, the soil removal effectiveness of the H-axis washers, as measured by the AHAM

soil removal test, was 50% greater than for the V-axis machine.

The average rinsing effectiveness of the H-axis washers was 50% greater than the V-axis

washer.

The AHAM gentleness of action test results were comparable for H-axis and V-axis

machines.

1.3.2 Bern / Kansas Study

Title: Bern Clothes Washer Study - Final Report

Date: March 1998

Report: ORNL/M 6382

Sponsors: Department of Energy, Maytag

Contractor: Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Contacts:

John Tomlinson, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Phone: (423) 574-0291

D.T. Rizy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Linda Eggerss, Maytag, Phone: (515) 791-8518

Web Site: www.energystar.gov

Objectives:

To evaluate the energy and water savings of high-efficiency, H-axis washers in a community

which has been converted to the new design.

To determine the impact of the new washer on customers' laundry habits and perceptions

To demonstrate the findings and to develop information helpful to utilities (energy and

water) and others with an eye towards moving the current clothes washer market to higher

efficiency options.

'-9

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
Methodologies:

Washers: Monitoring was done with the existing V-axis washing machines in Phase I and

with the Maytag Neptune H-axis washer in Phase II..

Description: Demonstration/monitor & metering study.

H-axis washers were installed in 105 homes in Bern, Kansas.

Interviews and questionnaires were used to determine the machines users satisfaction

with the washer.

Dates: monitoring took place between June, 1997 and September 1997.

Location: Bern, Kansas; a rural community with a population of about 200

Sample size: 105 homes

Conditions: participants were allowed to keep washers after the study free of charge

Data collected on:

impacts of load size

water consumption

energy consumption

detergent use and consumption

impacts on other additives

impacts on laundry habits

impacts on machine settings

cleaning performance

impacts on load dampness

impacts on drying habits

municipal utility impacts

Findings: [from Executive Summary and Conclusions]

Overall, it was found that the changeover to the H-axis washer reduced the average water

consumption from 41.5 gallons/load to 25.8 gallons/load - a water savings of about 38%.

The H-axis washer's energy consumption including washer energy and hot water energy fell

by 58% due to hot water savings and the impact of a highly efficient motor in the H-axis.

The remaining moisture content of damp loads removed from the H-axis washers was, on

average, 7% lower than for loads removed from participants' V-axis washers.

The data and subsequent analyses also showed that across all loads, temperature settings, use

of detergent and other additives, participants found the cleaning performance of the H-axis

technology to be generally superior to their Phase I washer irrespective of its age.

Participants seemed to adapt easily to the H-axis design, and laundry habits (average load

weights, detergent use, how loads were dried, when loads were washed during the week,

wash/rinse temperatures and other factors) remained largely unchanged from Phase Ito Phase

II.

Taken together, these findings suggest that a changeover to H-axis technology delivers large

savings in energy and water to the customer with an improvement in cleaning performance

and utility.

1-10

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
The fraction of loads in which participants were "completely satisfied" with the cleaning

performance increased threefold from 15 to 45% in the changeover from the average V-axis

washer to the H-axis washer in the study.

Overall, the study showed that the changeover to the H-axis washer has little impact on the

way in which customers washed and dried clothes.

1.3.3 Wash Wise

Title: Coming Clean About Resource-Efficient Clothes Washers. An Initial Wash Wise Program

and Market Progress Report - Final Report

Report Number: E98-003

Date: January28, 1998

Commissioned by:

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NWEEA); comprised primarily of electric utilities

in the Pacific Northwest.

Contractors:

• Portland Energy Conservation Inc. (PEC1)

• Gilmore Research

• Pacific Energy Associates (PEA)

Contacts:

• Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

Tom Eckman, Phone: (503) 827-8416

Gabriel Foulkes, Phone: (503) 827-8416 x225

Ben Bronfrnan, Phone: (503) 827-8416 x226

• Portland Energy Conservation Inc. (PECI)

Lois Gordan, Phone: (503) 248-4636 x207

• Pacific Energy Associates (PEA)

David Hewitt, Phone: (360) 571-0497

Gary Smith, Phone: (503) 590-4609

• Gilmore Research Group

Denise Bauman, Phone: (503) 236-4551

• Oregon Department of Energy

Charlie Stevens, Phone: (503) 229-5625

Web site: http://www.nwalliance.org

Objectives:

• To dramatically increase the market share of resource-efficient clothes washers (RECWs)

in the program area over the next three years.

I-li

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88
To influence the development and support of maximum energy and water efficiency levels

for revised federal clothes washer standards.

Methodologies:

Washers: At the time the surveys below were done, the Maytag, Neptune H-axis washer was

not on the market. Frigidaire, Staber and Europeans had horizontal axis washers on the

market.

Description: This project has several aspects to it:

a telephone survey of 419 participants/purchasers of RECWs as part of the WashWise

rebate program (a rebate program funded by utilities)

an intercept survey of 42 consumers shopping for laundry equipment

a telephone survey of 205 appliance retailers

a telephone survey of qualified representatives of nine major appliance manufacturer and

importers of European products

Location: Pacific Northwest; Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and western Montana

Gilmore Research conducted the following surveys:

Participant Survey - those who participated in the rebate program and bought an Haxis clothes washer. Consumers got a $130 instant rebate and dealers got a $20

rebate from the sponsoring utility.

Intercept Surveys - what people thought of H-axis washers before they became

participants and before they used the H-axis washers.

Retailer Survey (dealers) how many they think they could sell.

Manufacturer Survey - predicted future H-axis sales.

Pacific Energy Associates evaluated the program and discussed key findings in the report:

Coming Clean About Resource-Efficient Clothes Washers: An Initial Wash Wise Program

and Market Progress Report.- Final Report; January 28, 1998

This report includes analysis of:

reasons for purchasing a RECW;

satisfaction with WashWise program;

product pricing and RECW cost barrier;

manufacturer's perception of the RECW market;

opportunities for increasing RECW sales.

Findings:

Purchaser Survey

This consisted of419 interviews with people who had purchased a RECW in the beginning

months of Wash Wise.

Demographics: 36% had incomes of less than $40,000 per year, 39% had household

incomes between $40, 000 and $75,000 per year.

Main reasons for purchasing a RECW were: energy or water savings, 74%; cleaner

clothes, 18%; and gentler on clothes ,15%.

1-12

EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 88