2003 Refrigerator and Appliance Recycling Program Evaluation

1. 2003 Refrigerator and Appliance Recycling Program Evaluation CALMAC/MAESTRO Meeting San Francisco, CA July 26, 2006 Tami Rasmussen tami.rasmussen@kema.com

2. Acknowledgements • Study funded through the California public goods charge for energy efficiency • Managed for the CPUC by SCE • Review and input from the California IOUs • PG&E • SCE • SDG&E

3. Study Objectives • Verification - To verify • Participation • Hard-to-reach rates • Savings estimates • Market Potential • To estimate the program market potential to support the development of future program year goals • Appliance Degradation • To determine the extent to which unit energy consumption (UEC) of refrigerators increases as the unit ages

4. Verification - activities and compliance • Overall - verified reported activities and compliance with program rules • Discrepancies due to • Changing definition of program year (from pick-up date to request date) • Some units less than 14 cubic feet included in program (some were picked up, others were database errors) • More than two units picked up per location. • Inconsistent information across utilities and program implementers with which to match customers. Results reasonable, but not precise.

5. Verification - Savings • One utility accidentally used the wrong deemed savings in its report to the Commission.

6. Market Potential • Combined data from multiple sources to estimate market potential for recycled refrigerators and freezers. • Sources included: • 2002 Statewide RASS survey for penetration of units and discard rates • 2002 Discarder Survey fordiscarders inSCE territory, to estimate percent of discarded units that are working   • The 2002 RARP evaluation forpercent of working discards transferred (versus destroyed (landfill or recycled)) • 2002 RARP participant data to adjust for size and age of participant units

7. Estimated Market Potential

8. Degradation Analysis -purpose and approach • Determine extent to which unit energy consumption (UEC) increases as unit ages • Approach • Compared manufacturers reported UEC (when new) to DOE test results (used or old) - 240 units available • Tested analytical models to express increased UEC as a function of age and other characteristics

9. Degradation Analysis -Limitation of results • Manufacturer data • Limited in time • Varies over the years • Interpolated among models • Uncertainty regarding age of metered units • Used minimum (most recent) and maximum (earliest) production dates • Weak correlation between production date and recycler estimate of unit age • Imprecision matching model numbers • Found manufacturer’s UEC for 136 of 240 units

10. Degradation Analysis - Results 1 Metered Data as a Proportion of New UEC Percentage of Units Proportion of New UEC

11. Degradation Analysis - Results 2 • Regression Analysis • Discernable relationship between age and change in UEC • R2 of 0.60 indicates not all variation in data are explained • Best model: • Shows unit consumption increases with age • Indicates UEC increases as a function of other characteristics such as: • Refrigerator or freezer • Size (in cubic feet) • Configuration (side-by-side, top freezer, etc.) • Sample too small to be definitive

12. Full report available at www.calmac.org http://www.calmac.org/publications/2003_EM&V_RARP_Study.pdf