Slide 1 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Residential Appliance Measure Updates Danielle Gidding Bonneville Power Administration Ryan Firestone and Wayne Leonard Navigant Consulting August 3, 2010

Slide 2 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Purpose Update residential appliance measures to 6 th Plan supply curves: Dishwashers Clothes washers Refrigerators Freezers June 29 th RTF Meeting Presentation of methodology for all appliances Approval of: full update to SF clothes washers savings methodology for dishwashers. Today Approval of updates for dishwashers (including cost), refrigerators, and freezers. Revisit baseline assumption for clothes washers

Slide 3 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Methodology – as presented at the last RTF meeting Identify available measure datasets Define baseline as average performance of dataset sales weighted where possible Establish appropriate measure tiers Identify algorithms for translating performance metrics into energy and water usage. Determine energy and water savings, relative to updated baseline Normalize savings to account for differences in features across baseline and measure groups (e.g. tub volume, refrigerator volume). Present proposed savings, compare to current PTR savings and identify causes for change.

Slide 4 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Energy and Water Algorithms Primarily DOE, mostly as used in 6 th Plan (FY10) Analyses

Slide 5 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Datasets California Energy Commission Appliance Database Manufacturer reported performance metrics and date of submission QC: checked against CEE certification data where possible for accuracy CEC datasets used in 6 th Plan analysis, but more recent version of the database used for this analysis. Cleaning: remove duplicates (same manufacture and specs, different model #); incomplete records; and records older than the date that the current federal standard went into effect. Oregon Tax Credit 2007 data included in 6 th Plan analysis, and used for this analysis Sales volume, basic performance metrics, retail price

Slide 6 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Datasets DOE Bottom-up Cost Estimates Incremental cost of improved efficiency determined from a materials and manufacturing perspective. Costs scaled up to account for pass-through of cost to retail level Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) Shipment weighted average performance and specifications for dishwashers, clothes washers, refrigerators, freezers D&R International – Energy Star market share. Estimates of efficiency for Energy Star and non-Energy Star appliances.

Slide 7 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Single Family Residential Clothes Washers – Revisit of Baseline

Slide 8 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers - Revisit Savings and costs approved at June 29 th RTF meeting Approved MEF of 1.93 – average of models in CEC database from January 1, 2007 to the present. Since then, additional 2009 AHAM data published Additional baselines to consider: AHAM 2009 data (available as of July 2010) AHAM data extrapolated to 2010 to account for increasing efficiency over time. Setting the baseline for clothes washers impacts measures savings, non-programmatic savings, and 6 th plan achievable potential

Slide 9 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers – Baseline Options Keep CEC DB baseline (1.93) – Pro: accounts for trending Con: not based on sales weighting Use AHAM 2009 data (1.85) – Pro: most recent shipment weighted data available Cons: one year out of date for an appliance that continues to improve Energy Star criteria increases from 1.8 (current) to 2.0 in January 2011, suggesting a bump up in market average. Use AHAM data extrapolated to 2010 (1.91) - Pro: Uses most recent shipment weighted data available with marginal increase Con: MEF increase trend is not linear; extrapolation may not be appropriate

Slide 10 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers – Baseline Comparison Note that shipment weighted average does not increase linearly

Slide 11 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers – Results Results shown for electric DHW, electric Dryer. Energy Star groupings only. See backup slides for more comprehensive results, including CEE and Washington State tier groupings and additional fuel types.

Slide 12 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers – Options for Approval Option 1: Keep approved baseline from CEC database (MEF = 1.93) Option 2: Approve updated baseline from 2009 AHAM database (MEF = 1.85) Option 3: Approve AHAM data extrapolated to 2010 (MEF = 1.92)

Slide 13 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Residential Dishwashers

Slide 14 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers June 29 RTF Approved savings methodology Unique records from CEC DB used to estimate baseline (average of all records) Also used to determine average performance within each group (e.g. “any Energy Star”)

Slide 15 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers Today Current and upcoming federal, Energy Star, and CEE criteria Baseline options Cost model Usage: Adjusting for capacity Does larger capacity imply less cycles per year? Additional inputs (lifetime, load shape, water costs and embodied energy) Results More efficient dishwashers tend to be larger and have more non- energy utility (special features, brand). Results, including cost-effectiveness, are very sensitive baseline and usage assumptions

Slide 16 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers – Federal, Energy Star, and CEE Criteria for Standard Size Dishwashers

Slide 17 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers – Baseline Options As with clothes washers, three options CEC DB baseline (EF = 0.71) – Pro: accounts for trending Con: not based on sales weighting Use AHAM 2009 data (EF = 0.68) – Pro: most recent shipment weighted data available Con: one year behind for an appliance that continues to improve Use AHAM data extrapolated to 2010 (EF = 0.70) - Pro: Uses most recent shipment weighted data available with marginal increase Con: EF increase trend is not linear; extrapolation may not be appropriate

Slide 18 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers – Baseline Options

Slide 19 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers – Incremental Cost Model Bottom-up incremental costs from DOE/Navigant Consulting background analysis in 2006 for appliance efficiency standards. Material and other manufacturing costs to produce estimated Cost scaled to retail level Results not finalized and published on EERE website because the federal standard it was intended to support was superseded by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). Analysis contact: Steve Witkowski, DOE DOE EERE Project Manager. In between data points, interpolated values are used for today’s analysis

Slide 20 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers – Results By Group

Slide 21 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers – Usage Options On average, more efficient washers are also larger (higher place settings rating). Three usage options 1) Constant number of cycles per year (215 cycles per year) Independent of washer capacity Interpretation: Users use washer at fixed times, regardless of how full the dishwasher is. 2) Constant number of place settings per year, Assume CEC DB average place settings and 215 cycles per year. (215 cycles per year x 11.7 place settings) Interpretation: Users use washer when it’s full 3) Average of 1) and 2) Interpretation: Users sometimes use washer at fixed times, and sometimes use washer when it’s full

Slide 22 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers – Usage Options Electric DHW Savings using CEC DB Baseline Usage assumption has significant impact on ∆kWh and ∆gallons

Slide 23 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Baseline and Measure Characterization Res. Dishwashers Electric, Gas and Any DWH measures Lifetime: 12.3 years (as in FY10 analysis and in current deemed measures). Non-energy benefit: $10.03/1000 gallons for water supply and waste water services. (6 th Plan value, from FY10 analysis). disaggregated into 5.29 kWh /1000 gallons (6 th Plan) $9.24/1000 gallons (preserves B/C ratio when kWh savings are included) Loadshape: ResWASH DHW Electric Fuel Share: 64% (6 th Plan assumption)

Slide 24 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers – Results, Electric DHW Usage cases arranged left to right from most conservative savings estimate to least conservative savings estimate. See backup slides for results for all fuel types

Slide 25 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers – Proposal Select a baseline CEC CB (EF = 0.71, kWh/yr = 313) AHAM 2009 (EF = 0.68, kWh/yr = 325) AHAM 2010 Extrapolation (EF = 0.70, kWh = 315) Select a usage case Usage Case 1: Constant Cycles per Year Usage Case 2: Constant Place Settings per Year Usage Case 3: Average of Case 1 and Case 2 Approve methodology and resulting savings and incremental costs.

Slide 26 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Residential Refrigerators

Slide 27 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Refrigerators – Standards and Criteria

Slide 28 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Refrigerators – CEC DB Distribution

Slide 29 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Refrigerators – Is the CEC DB Representative of Market Share?

Slide 30 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Refrigerators – Baseline Development Approach Use CEC data to determine average % more efficient than federal standard by group: {Energy Star, non Energy Star} x {configurations} Use DOE and Energy Star market share data to determine the weighting of each group

Slide 31 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Refrigerators – Baseline Development Approach

Slide 32 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Refrigerators – Measure Groups Use CEC data to determine average % more efficient than federal standard by group

Slide 33 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Refrigerator - Incremental Costs Bottom-up incremental costs from DOE/Navigant Consulting background analysis in 2009 for appliance efficiency standards. Material and other manufacturing costs to produce estimated Cost scaled to retail level Data from: Preliminary Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products: Refrigerators, Refrigerator-freezers, and Freezers, U.S. DOE, 11/1/ m_tsd.pdf

Slide 34 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Baseline and Measure Characterization Res. Refrigerators Lifetime: 20 years (as in FY10 analysis and in current deemed measures). Loadshape: ResFRIG HVAC Interaction Factor: -7%

Slide 35 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Refrigerators – Results

Slide 36 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Refrigerators – Proposal Accepts savings and cost methodologies and resulting savings and incremental costs.

Slide 37 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Residential Freezers

Slide 38 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Freezers – Standards and Criteria

Slide 39 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Freezers – CEC DB Distribution Note the large number of models introduced this year.

Slide 40 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Freezers – Is the CEC DB Representative of Market Share?

Slide 41 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Freezers – Baseline Development Approach Use CEC data to determine average % more efficient than federal standard by group: {Energy Star, non Energy Star} x {configurations} Use AHAM and Energy Star market share data to determine the weighting of each group

Slide 42 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Freezers – Baseline Development Approach

Slide 43 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Freezers – Measure Groups Use CEC data to determine average % more efficient than federal standard by group

Slide 44 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Res. Freezers- Incremental Costs Bottom-up incremental costs from DOE/Navigant Consulting background analysis in 2009 for appliance efficiency standards. Material and other manufacturing costs to produce estimated Cost scaled to retail level Preliminary Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products: Refrigerators, Refrigerator-freezers, and Freezers, U.S. DOE, 11/1/ relim_tsd.pdf

Slide 45 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Baseline and Measure Characterization Res. Freezers Lifetime: 20 years (as in FY10 analysis and in current deemed measures). Loadshape: ResFRZR HVAC Interaction Factor: -7%

Slide 46 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Freezers – Results Accepts savings and cost methodologies and resulting savings and incremental costs.

Slide 47 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Freezers – Proposal Accepts savings and cost methodologies and resulting savings and incremental costs.

Slide 48 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Back Up Slides

Slide 49 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers – Results Comparison CEC DB Baseline (MEF = 1.93) Electric DHW

Slide 50 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers – Results Comparison CEC DB Baseline (MEF = 1.93) Gas DHW

Slide 51 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers – Results Comparison CEC DB Baseline (MEF = 1.93) Any DHW and Dryer Fuel

Slide 52 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers – 1.85 Baseline AHAM 2009 Baseline (MEF = 1.85) Electric DHW

Slide 53 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers – Results Comparison AHAM 2009 Baseline (MEF = 1.85) Gas DHW

Slide 54 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers – Results Comparison AHAM 2009 Baseline (MEF = 1.85) Any DHW and Dryer Fuel

Slide 55 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers – Results Comparison AHAM 2010 Extrapolation Baseline (MEF = 1.92) Electric DHW

Slide 56 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers – Results Comparison AHAM 2010 Extrapolation Baseline (MEF = 1.92) Gas DHW

Slide 57 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N SF Clothes Washers – Results Comparison AHAM 2010 Extrapolation Baseline (MEF = 1.92) Any DHW and Dryer Fuel

Slide 58 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers – Results Comparison Electric DHW

Slide 59 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers – Results Comparison Gas DHW

Slide 60 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Dishwashers – Results Comparison Any DHW