1. Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers Cost & Cost-Effectiveness RTF Meeting March 2nd, 2010 (continued from Feb 2 nd, 2010 meeting, with more Cost discussion )

2. Background At the Feb 2 nd RTF meeting, we saw: 2 Summary: Cost varies dramatically through various data sources. Difficult to compare equipment with like feature sets. Proposal: Use average cost by refrigerator/freezer and door type categories. Data Source Key: 1.ADL Report – Re-design for Efficiency at Manufacturer Level 2.PG&E Workpaper - Catalog/online price research 3.Online Data Search 4.Food Technology Service Center 5.CEE Analysis

3. Background (continued) And: 3 Efficiency standard becomes Energy Star 2.0 (no longer CEE Tier II). Update Savings based on new Energy Star Standards, using available equipment lists to categorize the market. Use average incremental cost from all sources. Measure Life = 12 years.

4. Background (continued #2) The RTF approved: – The new Energy Star 2.0 Efficiency Standard – Energy savings methodology But, the RTF wanted to see another review of the costs. 4

5. Further Review of the Costs No Changes Made to the following Data Sources – #1 – ADL study – #4 – Food Service Technology Center – Recommend removing these sources from the analysis They’re not consistent with the proposed methodology Proposed Methodology to Determine Incremental Cost – Incremental Cost of equipment with like-features either Lowest cost models Direct comparison of f – Baseline incremental cost composed of 75% non-Energy Star 2.0 equipment 25% Energy Star 2.0 equipment – Costs normalized by volume 5

6. Remaining Data Sources Data Source #2 – PG&E Workpaper – PG&E recently updated their cost data to reflect Energy Star 2.0 – For RTF – modified PG&E’s analysis Remove higher priced models by same manufacturer with same volume – An attempt to remove the costs of non-energy efficiency features Normalize results by volume Data Source #3 – Online Data Search – In the February RTF presentation, this was represented as a study of costs for glass door equipment – this was an error. Data represents solid door equipment only Data Source #5 – CEE – Mostly follows proposed methodology, with some inconsistencies in feature sets. As a result, costs may be high. Data Source #6 – Autoquotes Comparison (New cost analysis from Nick O’Neil) – Used “Autoquotes” (list price and features database) to estimate incremental costs for glass door refrigerators, with comparison of like feature sets. 6

7. Cost Details from February 7

8. Updated Cost Data 8

9. Economics from February Note: Run w/estimated 6 th Plan inputs. 9

10. Updated Economics Note: Run w/ final 6 th Plan Inputs. 10