Appendix B1. Estimated National Savings from Future Equipment Efficiency Standards

Avg. Cumulative Savings

Other Emission Incre- lnvestment for Sales Carbon Savings Savings in 2010 mental Thru 2010 Thru 2010 (MMT) (1000 tons) Cost (million S) (millions) 2010 2020 SO2 NOX

Sales in 1997 generally from Appliance magazine (1/98). Ballast sales from NEMA 18/97 data submitted to DOE. Transformer sales in kVA for 1995 from ORNL
9/97 transformer report. Lamp sales for '94 from Dept. of Commerce. Comm'l HVAC sales for '95 based on data in 1/96 Appliance & 4/18/95 A/C, Heating and
Refrigeration News. Clothes washer sales allocated to electric & gas based on DOE 1998 estimate of energy savings from a MEF 1.4 standard. Dishwasher sales
allocated to electric & gas based on electric & fossil fuel water heater saturations in EIA 1995.

Effective dates are ACEEE estimates and assume that DOE moves on schedule to finish on-going standard rulemakings.

For clothes washers, a 6-year phase-in period is assumed given the controversies these standards have raised.

Notes:

Equipment life generally from DOE. Electronic ballast life of 50,000 hours assumed based on discussion at DOE workshop. Commercial a/c life from ASIIRAE 90.1 analyses.
Reflector lamp life based on 2000 hour rated life.

Avg. energy used by old and new units from DOE Technical Support Documents, analyses by LBNL standards group, and EIA 1995

adjusted for efficiency differences between stock and new units. For lighting products, annual energy use assumes 3600 op hrs/yr.

Clothes washer savings include impacts of higher spin speeds on clothes dryer energy use. Range savings apply to 23% of ranges that have pilot lights (LBNL 1996).
Analysis generally assumes that following new standard, average product will exceed new standard by same amount that average product today exceeds current standard. For
residential a/c and heat pumps, assume average unit will exceed new standard by 0.5 SEER points, not the 0.9 SEER points by which current standard is exceeded. For water
heaters, assume current electric/gas EF of .871.57 and future EF of .935/.61. For transformers, there is no current standard and basecase is per ONRL 1997. For ballasts,
analysis does not take credit for 54% of covered ballasts sales which are presently electronic.

For dry-type transformers, new standard assumed to be NEMA TP-1; for liquid immersed, new standard based on ORNL average losses case.

Analysis is static and generally assumes that equipment sales remain static at 1997 levels, and that efficiency levels in absence of standards remain at present levels.
Incremental costs generally from Nadel and Suezzo 1998.

Energy savings – Annual sales * Savings/unit * # years standard has been in effect / Ratio electricity sales/generation (to account for T&D losses). Emissions savings for 2010 & 2
based on data in EIA Annual Energy Outlook 1998. Emissions savings assume that fossil fuel generation is displaced using emissions coefficients and fuel shares from AEO98.
Energy bill savings based on projected 2010 energy prices (E1A Annual Energy Outlook 1998). Clothes washer analysis includes value of water savings per DOE 1998.

· Nel present value calculations assume 6% real discount rate. Costs and savings discounted to 1999, but expressed in terms of 1996 S.

S. Nadel, ACEEE, 8/13/98

Appendix B2. Analysis of Energy Savings from Energy Star Programs for Electronics and Packaged Commercial Re

HOME ELECTRONICS

Estimated Saturation
If Energy Star

Energy Bill
Savings

Sales

Successful

2020

Energy Savings
(TWh)
2010 2020

in 2010

Carbon Savings
(MMT)

(million $)

2010 2020

8.3

83%

1.0%

75%

90%

6.0

7.2

1,243

1.3

1.5

VCRs

Cable boxes

5.0

80%

-0.9%

75%

90%

2.6

3.1

542

0.6

0.6

3.8

91%

1.3%

50%

75%

2.1

3.2

440

0.5

0.6

Electricity prices and carbon/TWh derived from EIA 1997.

Appendix C. Impacts of Efficiency Investments Spurred by a Federal Public Benefit Trust Fund

199 39% 39% 59% 394 9915 $92 99%% 99%
0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
13% JJ8 338 138

26 Incremental carbon savings (MMT)

42

101

7 Row 5 Row 6.

8 Based on 1995 split between efficiency, low income and R&D (from Scheer et al. 1998), including $71 million for low-income weatherization (Baxter 1998), but assuming R&D Increases 25% due to increased renewables R&D.

Notes continued on next page

Appendix C. Impacts of Efficiency Investments Spurred by a Federal Public Benefit Trust Fund (continued)

Notes continued:

9 Four broad studies of 1990-1994 utility programs indicate a simple average of $0.036/kWh saved including utility and customer payments (Nadel and Geller 1996). A review of four market
transformation efforts indicates a simple average of $0.021/kWh, again including utility, government, and end-user payments (Nadel and Latham 1998). Based on these studies, we estimate
an average of $0.03/kWh for future programs. Support for this value is provided by the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, which has found many productive ways to expend its nearly
$30 million annual budget on programs below its cost ceiling of $0.03/kWh saved.

10 A review of utility lighting programs found that utillities paid an average of 56% of total costs including measure and administrative costs (Eto, et al. 1994). A review of large commercial
programs found that utility costs averaged 76% of total costs (Eto et al. 1995). A review of five successful market transformation Initiatives found that utility and government expenditures
accounted for only 8% of total costs on a simple average basis. Given this wide disparity, and given a trend toward market transformation programs and other program approaches with
lower utility cost shares, we estimate that in the future, the PBF share of total costs will average one-third.

11 (Row 7 Row 8 / Row 10) + 50% of Row 11 from ten years ago (assuming measures last 10 years on average [see Row 12] and 50% of the measures are replaced when they wear out (a
typical DSM program analysis assumption]).

12 Measure lives vary widely from just a few years to more than 20. We use 13 as the average based on average measure lives for many of the largest DSM programs as reported by Eto et al. 1995. 13 Row 113.5; where 3.5 is the number of kWh saved/S invested for measures with a 13 year life, avg. cost of $.03/kWh and assuming a 5% real discount rate.

14 A review of the largest DSM programs found freerider levels averaged 12% (Eto et al. 1995). We round up to 20% under the assumption that PBF programs will be subject to political pressures to a greater extent, which will tend to raise freerider levels.

15 Row 13 (1 - Row 14).

16 For a typical program, savings after 10 years will be 75% of original savings (see Sumi and Coates 1989, for example). This works out to an average savings degredation of 3%/year.

17 Row 17 from previous year times Row 16 minus 69% of Row 15 from 13 years ago (measure wears out, and while assumption is that 75% of measures will be replaced after they wear out. this is accounted for in Rows 11 and 13). 69% factor is to account for degredation in measure performance as per Row 16.

18 Row 15+ Row 17

19 From EIA, AEO98, in 19965. These prices are average of residential (weighted 50%), commercial and industrial prices (each weighted 25%). We give greater weight to residential since
PBF programs will primarily be oriented towards residential and small commercial/industrial customers who are less likely to be served by energy service companies.
20 Row 18 Row 19

21 Current state PBF programs total approximately $1.06 billion (see note 6). In addition, we think that funds averaging approximately 2 mils/kWh are likely in OR, WA and WI, a total of
$0.4 billion additional. Furthermore, in our estimation, in the absence of a federal PBF, PBF's are possible in the following states: AZ, DC, IA, ID, IN, MD, MN, NH; NV, OH, TX. If
half of these states adopt PBF's averaging 1 mil, an additional $0.4 billion will be raised. Thus, in total, we estimate that PBF's totaling approximately $1.9 billion/year will be established,
which represents 28% of the combined federal/state PBF funds available, leaving 72% to be affected by the federal PBF.

22 Row 18 Row 21.

23 Row 22 Row 19.

24 From EIA, AEO98.
25 From EIA, AEO98. Based on fossil fuel power plants.
26 Row 22/ Row 24 Row 25.
27 From EIA, AEO98.
28 Row 22/Row 24 Row 27.
29 From EIA, AEO98.
30 Row 22 / Row 24 Row 29.

Used to account for transmission and distribution losses between the generation plant and point of end-use.

Based on fossil fuel power plants.

Based on fossil fuel power plants.

S. Nadel, ACEEE, 8/13/98

Policy Case (d)

Notes:

(h) Incremental cost per vehicle multiplied by new vehicle sales.

Savings