Residential Refrigerators and Freezers UES Measure Update Regional Technical Forum October 14, 2014

Measure Overview Baseline Type: Current Practice Current Category: Refrigerator-freezers: Proven Freezers: Small Saver Current Status: Active Current Sunset Date: Refrigerator-freezers: April 2015 Freezers: October 2014 Reason for Update/Review: New Federal Standards (effective September 15, 2014). New ENERGY STAR and CEE criteria. 2

Staff Highlighted Areas Do we have sufficient data for a Proven measure? Measure grouping – what is the right level of aggregation of product classes and sizes? Baseline – is a the filtered CEC Appliance DB method appropriate? Lifetime – use of median time to failure Expand measures to include compact products? Are our cost data reliable? 3

New federal standards (Sept 2014) are at a level where incremental savings beyond the new standards are not cost effective. Spoiler Alert 4 Sources: Energy consumption and incremental capital cost: DOE NIA for Standard Size Refrigerators and Refrigerator-freezers. Costs in 2008$ Levelized cost: ProCost Category-level Total Levelized Cost Previous standard Current standard

New Federal Standards 5 42 classes of appliances (!) Combinations of – Configuration: {Single Door, Chest Freezer, All-Refrigerator, Top Freezer w/o Ice thru door, Top-Mounted Freezer, Bottom-Mounted Freezer, Internal Freezer, Side-by-Side, Upright Freezer} – Defrost Type: {Automatic, Partial automatic, Manual} – Built In: {True, False} – Compact: {True, False} – Automatic Ice Maker: {True, False} – Through-The-Door Service: {True, False} For each class, Standard is a linear function of adjusted volume (AV) – Annual Energy Consumption = m*AV + b – AV, Internal Freezer = Refrigerator Volume x Freezer Volume – AV, all others = Refrigerator Volume x Freezer Volume

New Federal Standards 6 Note: these standards are relative to a different testing procedure than the previous federal standards. Table in the DOE Technical Support Document for this rulemaking provides the previous standards expressed relative to the new test procedure. STD

New ENERGY STAR and CEE Criteria 7 Criteria are expressed as a % lower annual energy consumption than Federal Standard – ENERGY STAR: 10% – CEE Tier 1: 10% – CEE Tier 2: 15% – CEE Tier 3: 20% CEE Tiers do not cover freezers – Members did not want to encourage extra appliances/added load ENERGY STAR was previously 20% relative to previous Standard CEE Tiers were previously 20 to 25% / 25 to 30% / >30% relative to previous Standard

Measure Grouping There are not enough products to get good saving estimates for each class Proposed Grouping: {Fridge/Fridge- freezer, Freezer} x {not Compact, Compact} 8 Number of unique, recent products in the CEC database

Methods - Energy 9 Data source: CEC Appliance Database Classify all unique models registered from September 2013 onward. – “Unique”: only count models with same specifications once – “from September 2013 onward”: only consider recent models to approximate the post-Standard market Exclude models that are not Standard compliant – Also consider including these models, but setting energy consumption equal to federal standard Estimate average energy consumption – For all products by type (market average) – For all products by type in each efficiency tier Savings = [Energy market average ] – [Energy efficiency tier ]

Methods – HVAC Interaction 10 Data source: RTF Standard Information Workbook – 6 th Plan Estimate of HVAC Interaction (for lighting) based on distribution of heating system types in the NW Data source: RBSA – % of refrigerators and freezers in conditioned spaces, by type {standard size, compact} x {refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer, freezer}

Methods – Incremental Cost 11 Data source: DOE Technical Support Documents from rulemaking process – Incremental cost by level of efficiency, per product class For each Class, develop Cost vs. Efficiency curve fit. Determine cost for each efficiency tier of CEC models. Determine average cost for CEC models. Incremental cost = [Cost tier ] – [Cost average ]

Cost data 12 Costs are DOE price forecasts of 2014 prices, done using data from ~2007/08 Data source: DOE Technical Support Documents (Chapter 8) from rulemaking process – Data collected ~2007/08 – baseline cost data: market study of units less efficient than ENERGY STAR – Efficient cost data: Analysis of AHAM* and reverse engineering of products on market. Reflects the incremental cost of improved efficiency, exclusive of non-energy features Costs forecasted to 2014 based on examination of historical price data for appliances and equipment that have been subject to conservation standards. – [price forecast ] = [price current ] x [cumulative production] [learning rate parameter] – Experience rate: The percentage reduction in cost that occurs with each doubling of cumulative production DOE assumed 40.7% for refrigerators and freezers Note that there are small cost and energy discrepancies between the written report and the NIA workbooks. The data in the NIA workbooks was used for this RTF analysis. *Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

Methods – Lifetime 13 Data source: DOE Technical Support Documents from rulemaking process Guidelines call for median time to failure. “Measure lifetime is defined as the median number of years during which at least half the deliveries of a measure are in place and operable, i.e., produce savings.” RTF Guidelines for the Estimation of Measure Lifetime Section Staff/CAT propose to use median times to failure. Used in current RTF measures

Results 14

What if we bring non-compliant models up to the Standard level, instead of throwing them out? 15

What if we set the baseline close to the Standard (non-ENERGY STAR)? 16

Summary of Changes to Analysis New federal standard New ENERGY STAR and CEE criteria Updated CEC appliance database set Include compact models Remove CEC entries that are not Standard compliant Lifetime – Refrigerator-freezer: change from mean to median time to failure, as per Guidelines 17

Current and Proposed Measure Comparison 18 This comparison is of limited meaningfulness because the proposed measure is relative to a different federal standard and a different annual energy consumption test procedure.

Current and Proposed Measure Comparison 19

Current and Proposed Measure Comparison 20

Current and Proposed Measure Comparison This comparison is of limited meaningfulness because the proposed measure is relative to a different federal standard and a different annual energy consumption test procedure.

Staff Highlighted Areas Do we have sufficient data for a Proven measure? Measure grouping – what is the right level of aggregation of product classes and sizes? Baseline – is a the filtered CEC Appliance DB method appropriate? Lifetime – use of median time to failure Expand measures to include compact products? Are our cost data reliable? 22

Decision “I __________________ move to: Approve the updates to the Residential Refrigerator and Freezers UES measures as presented. Do not include non-compliant CEC Appliance Database models in the analysis Expand measures to include compact products Use median, rather than mean, time to failure for lifetime. Set the Status of both measures to ‘Active’. Set the Category of both measures to ‘Proven’. Set the Sunset date to October, 2018.” 23 Revised DOE TSD’s expected in 2018.