Forecast: LCC Difference

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 187 Outliers .027 

# - 269 020 ______

__________________ 

### .1

________ _____ 2017

= I 

## I i I 111111111 .013 1

. 134.5- 7.25 

# L ::: : ($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 5Q

_____________________ 0 

# •

_______________________________________________________ 

# .ii .-• 1 

### L.i 

# p .250 

# .4I!III 

# ttutttIIllhIflhIIIIIIII 

# L[d .000 

# 1•.... 

# .!.

_____________________



# ..,

# ... t....iiu

_____________ 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-29Forecast: 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 0 .111111Utfl19 ($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

### 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. 

## i1 lI .008 

# iiii41Ii llh1Ii1Iffl 84.75 

# llhtIhIh11I1lI1II1IIIIIIItI1I! .000 

# ....,I..III,III . _____________ 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-3 110,000 Trials Forecast: LCC Difference Frequency Chart 144 Outliers 

### .031 -311 233.2
IISSL 

# 11h1

. .016

_______ 

# 11

_____________ 155.5

. ''-'''I = 

## 'H

- .008 

## I1ø 11 

# J i

# t 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_____________ 

# I -
.000 

# .11a11...1nllliIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIilL'

______________ 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

### 10,000 Trials Forecast: LCC Difference Frequency Chart 90 Outliers .031 .023 

### .iiI11I!1IIIL. 

# - 305 228.7 

# IL

. 015 iii


## __ _____ 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



# __________________________________________________________ __________

# flifliHhIIIIIHIIIIHflhIIII .750



## _ .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-3310,000 Trials Forecast: LCC Difference Frequency Chart 118 Outliers .031 

# .0231

____________________________________ 

# !1IJIJII1Jd1

____________ - 312

__________ 234 II !1 ii 11

- 

# iiil

. .016W-

_________________________________ 156 .008 i 1llM _____ -78

________ 1 I Mean = ($265

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIM l i .ldIflftJft .000 MjIflflT. .

I I 

## '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 

# 11111FMFllll 

# 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

### 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 FigureH.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 of1.257 (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

### 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

### 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- 

### =

- 

### rD o = 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

### Forecast: Payback (yrs)

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 348 Outliers .230 2295

172 -
_____ . ______________________________________________

. :' 

### = 115

-
____ - . ____________________________________________ -

### = 

# I = 057

- 

# _ . __________ __ 573.7 

# II Mean=1.4

- i.... . .'J'Ju 

### 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

### 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 

# I.Ih_?! 

# _!J! 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 13.110,000 Trials Forecast: Payback (yrs) Frequency Chart 224 Outliers 418 313.5 -'1 

# ::: •1 

# . 209

- rD o .010 104.5 1 r1ean 

# 'I!IflhL1 .000 

# i !1 iintI..ru.I.II 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 

# I [arL 

# llllI _____________l .O .019 

# .....

_________________________________________________________ 

# .

________________ 194

-= -o tHl o .010- I 1 II! 97 

# 1H .000 

# 1 0 0.0 5.6 11.3 16.9 22.5 Figure H.8 MEF = 1.26 in 2007, Reference Case

H-5

# 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 thiYb

_ 

# L

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 

# I11ii1ii Mean = 8.6 .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-610,000 Trials Forecast: Payback (yrs) Frequency Chart 168 Outliers .034 .025 337 252.7 

# UiL 017

_____________ _____________________________________________________________________________ 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-7Forecast: Payback (yrs)

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 330 Outliers 3623

.272 - ____ ___________________________________________

. 181---

_______________ 905.7 .091- .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-810,000 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

### 10,000 Trials Forecast: Payback (yrs) Frequency Chart 197 Outliers .029 2 

# i,ii

# 11 .02 

# 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- 1010,000 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 u 

# ::: h 

# : 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

### 10,000 Trials Forecast: Payback (yrs) Frequency Chart 219 Outliers .0441

.033

# 1 ,IiI iii ________________________________ - 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

### 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- 13Forecast: Payback (yrs)

10,000 Trials Frequency Chart 326 Outliers

- 3623 .272---

- = . .181- -

_________________________________ = = .091

- 905.7

Mean=0.1

- .000 - -- -r -0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 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

# 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

### 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- 1610,000 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 Outliers .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

# 10,000 Trials Forecast: Payback (yrs) Frequency Chart 251 Outliers .041

- 414 310.5 •11

. .021 207

-

- I

- .010 

# 1: . 103.5 

### = 

# 1 

# P11U iJ 000 . :.-. 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 of1.485 (45% Reduction in Energy Use), High Growth

H- 18

### 10,000 Trials Forecast: Payback (yrs) Frequency Chart 199 Outliers .031 .024 

# I i 314 235.5 

# 2 .016 157 

# .

_________ .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

### APPENDIX I. CONSUMER RESEARCH REPORT

I-i

### 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

### 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-iGovernment 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

### 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

### 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 of

H-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

### 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 (35%) (e.g., selecting cold wash rinse or adjusting water level) Reputationlreliability (31%) Purchase price (28%)

'-5What 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 1-6it 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 of650rpm. Washer Cwas installed in 4 of50 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. '-7Findings:

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
1-8Findings: [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.

'-9Methodologies:

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 105homes 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 from41.5 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 by58% 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.
1-10The fraction of loads in which participants were "completely satisfied" with the cleaning

performance increased threefold from 15 to45%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

### 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 of205 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 $75,000per year. Main reasons for purchasing a RECW were: energy or water savings, 74%; cleaner clothes, 18%; and gentler on clothes ,15%. 1-12