Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Viewpoint

Energy efficiency standards for refrigerators in Brazil: A methodology for

impact evaluation
Conrado Augustus de Melo a,n, Gilberto de Martino Jannuzzi b,1
a
Núcleo Interdisciplinar de Planejamento Energético (NIPE), University of Campinas, Rua Mendeleyev, 200 Campinas, CEP: 13083-860 Sa~ o Paulo, Brazil
b ~ Paulo, Brazil
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Campinas, UNICAMP, Rua Mendeleyev, 200 Campinas, CEP: 13083-860 Sao

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Article history: In Brazil energy efficiency standards for cold appliances was established in 2007. A specified single set
Received 25 February 2010 of MEPS (minimum energy performance standards) for refrigerators, freezers and freezer refrigerators
Accepted 19 July 2010 was implemented without evaluating its impacts and estimation of potential electricity savings. This
paper presents a methodology for assessing the impacts of the Brazilian MEPS for cold appliances. It
Keywords: uses a bottom-up approach to estimate residential end-use consumption and to evaluate the energy
Energy efficiency saving potential for refrigerators. The household electricity consumption is projected by modeling
Refrigerators appliance ownership using an econometric approach based on the recent household survey data. A
Impacts evaluation cost–benefit analysis for more stringent standards is presented from the perspective of the society and
electricity customers. The results showed that even considering the current market conditions (high
discount rate for financing new efficient equipment) some MEPS options are advantageous for
customers. The analysis also demonstrates significant cost-effective saving potential from the society
perspective that could reach 21 TWh throughout the period of 2010–2030—about 25% of current
residential consumption.
& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and also considering the views of trader’s associations and

Minimum energy performance standards (MEPS) are mechan-
isms of public policy that prohibits the commercialization of
products which do not comply with specific limits of energy
consumption. MEPS have been implemented in many countries
(Harrington and Damnics, 2004) and are an effective mechanism
to promote energy savings and market transformation (Rosen-
quist et al., 2006; Schiellerup, 2002).
The international experience shows that the adoption of these
energy standards requires the implementation of some steps such
as technology assessment, market assessment, price-efficiency
relationship, life-cycle costs and also a prospective evaluation of
impacts is required. As an example, McMahon (2004) compares
the establishment of MEPS in the USA and Australia. This
comparative analysis shows the existence of similar steps in the
processes adopted and an evident concern with impacts of the
adoption of the standards under the perspective of the consumers
(the life-cycle costs), of the society (national benefits and costs),
manufacturers (industry, competition and commercial issues).
In Brazil energy efficiency standards policy formally begins
with the ‘‘Energy Efficient Act’’ enacted in 2001 (Brazil, 2001). The
specified set of MEPS for refrigerators, freezers and fridge freezers
and air conditioning devices was adopted only 6 years after the
Law (MME—Ministry of Mines and Energy, 2007). Criteria to
specify the first MEPS for residential refrigerators were based on
the experience of the Brazilian Labeling Program (PBE). Through
the PBE, Brazilian manufacturers, CEPEL2 and INMETRO3 decided
to eliminate the last label classes on a voluntary basis. The
standard prohibits manufacturers and importers from placing F
and G rated appliances on the Brazilian market. Table 1 shows the
equations used for estimating the MEPS for the existing
refrigerator models in the country.
Nevertheless, estimates of energy savings potential by adopt-
ing the proposed standards were not made. The Brazilian Ministry
of Mines and Energy justified that there was not enough
information about replacements of old appliances by new
equipments (MME—Ministry of Mines and Energy, 2006a,
2006b). The lack of this type of analysis makes a precise

n
Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 61 98151877.
2
E-mail addresses: conrado@fem.unicamp.br, conradoaugustusmelo@gmail.com Electric Power Research Center—http://www.cepel.br.
3
(C. Augustus de Melo), jannuzzi@fem.unicamp.br (G. de Martino Jannuzzi). INMETRO—Institute of the Ministry of Science and Technology, which is
1
Tel.: + 55 19 3289 3125. responsible for the labeling program.

0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.07.032

Please cite this article as: Augustus de Melo, C., de Martino Jannuzzi, G., Energy efficiency standards for refrigerators in Brazil: A
methodology for impact.... Energy Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.07.032
2 C. Augustus de Melo, G. de Martino Jannuzzi / Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
Table 1
MEPS of ordinance 362/2007.
Source: MME—Ministry of Mines and Energy, 2007.
Categories Equations for maximum consumption levels (MCL—kWh/
month)
R141B Cyclopentane
Refrigerator MCL ¼ 0.0422  AV + 23.3227 NMC¼ 0.0416  AV + 22.9786
Combined MCL ¼ 0.1118  AV+ 20.8413 NMC¼ 0.1101  AV + 20.5338
refrigerator/
freezer
Combined MCL ¼ 0.1292  AV+ 9.1322 NMC¼ 0.1258  AV+ 8.8936
refrigerator/
freezer frost free
Vertical freezers MCL ¼ 0.0257  AV + 47.8582 NMC¼ 0.0254  AV + 47.1521
Vertical freezers MCL ¼ 0.0217  AV + 71.6286 NMC¼ 0.0214  AV + 70.5718
frost free
Horizontal MCL ¼ 0.0925  AV + 15.9759 NMC¼ 0.0911  AV + 15.7402
freezers
Note: R141B and cyclopentane are refrigerants. AV is the adjusted volume.
assessment of energy efficiency potential impracticable in the
context of national energy planning. The estimates of energy
saving potential through MEPS could assist in the identification of
cost-effective opportunities to reduce the requirements for power
sector expansion. The National Energy Plan 2030 (MME & EPE,
2007) does not consider specifically the potential impacts of
energy efficiency mechanisms in the behavior of the projected
electricity demand.
The main goal of this paper is to present a model for impact
evaluation of MEPS in Brazil for the case of home cold appliances.
The model is conceived to examine the economic and energy
impacts considering the consumer and society’s perspective.
2. Refrigeration energy projections: methodology
The proposed methodology combines a bottom-up approach
based on detailed engineering appliance data with a stock forecast
model which considers the growth rate of appliance ownership in
the residential sector and sales. The ownership of basic appli-
ances, such as refrigerators, is dynamic and depends mainly on
the household income level and the appliance prices. The model
utilizes population forecasts in combination with an econometric
parameterization to estimate the national ownership rate for each
year in the forecast. In the horizon of this study, occurring in the
year 2030, the estimated total population of Brazil’s 237 million
inhabitants while in the year 2005 this value was about 180
million.
The projected scenarios follow the basic assumptions adopted
by National Plan of Energy 2030 (MME & EPE, 2007). The
potentials of energy conservation are estimated from the
differences between the projections of two scenarios: (1) the
BASE Scenario, which reflects the continuity of the current
refrigerators energy consumption, called ‘‘BASE Scenario’’ and
(2) ‘‘MEPS Scenarios’’, where more stringent MEPS options are
applied. In both scenarios we have considered the national
average tariff of Brazilian the residential sector at US$123.04/
MWh (Brazilian Electricity Regulatory Agency—ANEEL, 2006).
2.1. Data sources
Three main data bases are used in the present research:
(1) For the historical series of GDP/per capita (gross domestic
product/population) and index of appliances prices (IPA-OG)
Please cite this article as: Augustus de Melo, C., de Martino Jannuzzi, G., Energy efficiency standards for refrigerators in Brazil: A
methodology for impact.... Energy Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.07.032
IPEADATA was used. Available in: http://www.ipeadata.gov.
br/.
(2) In the case of the historical series of equipment rate of
ownership, as well as, the number of residences and
projection of the population were used the data from IBGE
(Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics—IBGE, 2005).
Available in: http://www.sidra.ibge.gov.br.
(3) The detailed description of the stock appliances in the
household sector was based on the survey done by ELETRO-
BRAS (2005).
2.2. Refrigerator energy consumption and MEPS options
Refrigerators have undergone significant reductions in elec-
tricity consumption over the last two decades in Brazil. A 27%
decrease in electricity consumption was observed in models with
volumes between 250 and 300 l (most popular models) since
1990. (MME & EPE, 2007). Table 2 provides detailed assumptions
for the models used in this paper. The data used to estimate
baseline energy consumption for the equivalent refrigerators was
collected from a national survey (ELETROBRAS, 2005). Informa-
tion from a total of 49 refrigerator models from 8 different
manufactures was used to establish the three equivalent models
adopted by the authors (Table 2).
In order to calculate the potential for energy efficiency
improvement from MEPS for each equivalent model presented
in Table 2, the authors used literature data from Queiroz et al.
(2003) and CLASP (2006), whose design and class configuration is
similar to the equivalent model. These proxy data, although not
accurate, provides a solid basis for the projection of prices and
efficiency savings at the household and national level (CLASP,
2006).
Tables 3–5 present the engineering data used in the estimates
for each equivalent model. The engineering data considers up to
seven combinations of efficiency improvement options in order to
increase energy efficiency. Design options combinations are
cumulative: each subsequent option includes all measures of
the previous combination and an additional one. For instance, for
the equivalent model-1-door 200–300 l presented in Table 3, the
efficiency can be improved up to 107%, which is equivalent to a
51% reduction in electricity consumption and to a corresponding
price increase of 16%.
The main factor affecting the life-cycle cost of each design
option is the degree to which the first cost increases with the
improved efficiency. The relation between the product efficiency
and its cost is based on the cost incurred to manufacturers to
implement a particular energy-saving design. The model assumes
retail price scales, in percentage terms, as the manufacturer’s
incremental costs. This assumption allows the estimate of retail
prices by using a price estimate of current baseline models in
combination with fractional price increases (CLASP, 2006).
2.3. Stock forecast
A forecast of the total number of products operating in Brazil in
each year, and the rate at which old, inefficient products are
replaced with new, efficient ones must be made in order to
determine the national-level impacts of MEPS. The general form
of the econometric parameterization of product rate of ownership
is given by
S ¼ kY a Pb ð1Þ
where S is the appliance rate of ownership in the household
sector. Y is the income (GDP), P is the appliance prices, and k is a
 C. Augustus de Melo, G. de Martino Jannuzzi / Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 3

Table 2
MEPS assumed for equivalent models.

Equivalent model Market share (Brazil) (%) BASE consumption (kWh/year) Energy efficiency design
Options assumed (V ¼ volume; C ¼consumption)

One-door 201–300 (L) 32.59 326 Refrigerator Europe, 2‘‘Star’’a

Procel Label C V ¼ 204 l, C ¼335 kWh/year

One-door 301–400 (L) 25.46 483 Refrigerator, Brazil, 1‘‘Star’’b

Procel Label A V ¼ 320 l, C ¼360 kWh/year

Combined ‘‘Frost Free’’ 14.18 580 Refrigerator, Europe, 4‘‘Star’’a

301–400 (L) Procel Label A V ¼ 355 l, C¼591 kWh/year

a
Source: CLASP (2006).
b
Source: Queiroz et al. (2003).

Table 3
Engineering parameters for equivalent model-1-door 200–300 l.
Source: Based on CLASP (2006)

Design number Design option Efficiency improvement (%) Purchase price (US$)a Electricity consumption
(kWh/year)

0 Baseline 0 417 326

1 Baseline + increased door insulation ( +15 mm) 12 421 291
2 1+ decreased door leakage 14 421 286
3 2+ optimized compressor 30 433 251
4 3+ increased cabinet insulation (+ 15 mm) 64 450 199
5 4+ increased door insulation (+ 15 mm) 75 454 186
6 5+ increased cabinet insulation (+ 15 mm) 102 475 161
7 6+ double evap. Heat cap 107 483 157

a
2,4 R$/US$ as for 2005.

Table 4
Engineering parameters for equivalent model-1-door 301–400 l.
Source: Queiroz et al. (2003).

Design number Design option Efficiency improvement (%) Purchase Electricity consumption
price (US$)a (kWh/year)

0 Baseline 0 583 483

1 Baseline + more efficient compressor 21 636 399
2 1+ increase of door insulating thermal thickness 1.27 cm 25 648 386
3 2+ increase of wall insulating thermal thickness 1.27 cm 39 706 347
4 3+ increase of wall insulating thermal thickness 2.54 cm 41 723 343
5 4+ increase of wall insulating thermal thickness 2.54 cm 51 764 320

a
2,4 R$/US$ as for 2005.

Table 5
Engineering parameters for equivalent model-2-door 301–400 l frost free.
Source: Based on CLASP (2006).

Design number Design option Efficiency improvement (%) Purchase price (US$)a Electricity consumption
(kWh/year)

0 Base 0 750 580

1 Base + improved compressor 14 758 509
2 1+ increase of door insulating (35/65 mm) 19 765 487
3 2+ increase of door insulating (50/80) mm 23 773 472
4 3+ decreased door leakage 24 773 468
5 4+ increased cabinet insulation (45/65 mm) 38 795 420
6 5+ increased cabinet insulation (60/80 mm) 48 810 392
7 6+ doubled cond. surface 71 848 339

a
2,4 R$/US$ as for 2005.

constant. The parameters a and b represent the impacts of the

Table 6
income and price, respectively, on equipment ownership. Model parameters for cold appliances ownership.
A least squares fit to the data for each appliance was
performed and the results are given in Table 6 and shown Parameters Refrigerator
in Fig. 1. The strong correlation between ownership with a 0.05666
b  0.00791
income and appliance prices is evident. The results are R2 0.95034
relatively well modeled indicating the resolving power of the

Please cite this article as: Augustus de Melo, C., de Martino Jannuzzi, G., Energy efficiency standards for refrigerators in Brazil: A
methodology for impact.... Energy Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.07.032
4 C. Augustus de Melo, G. de Martino Jannuzzi / Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

0.94 The method is given by

Data
0.94 X
Model OC
0.93 LCC ¼ Eq þ ð6Þ
ð1þ RÞn
Rate of Ownership

0.93
0.92 where Eq is the equipment cost (retail price), n is the year since
0.92
purchase and OC is the annual operating cost. Operating cost is
summed over each year of the lifetime of the appliance. Operating
0.91
cost is calculated as follows:
0.91
0.90 OC ¼ EnC  Tariff ð7Þ
0.90 where EnC [kWh/year] is the energy consumption and Tariff is the
0.89 price of electricity [US$/kWh].
0.89
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Fig. 1. Refrigerator rate of ownership: model and actual data. 2.6. Societal point of view

other variables, income (proxy is GDP/per capita) and index of
appliances prices.
2.4. Refrigerators sales model
The sales model determines the fraction of appliances that will
be affected by efficiency programs at any point in the forecast. The
determination of economically driven appliance ownership rates
allows for the calculation of the total stock of appliances and
product sales. Sales are driven by the increase in households
owning appliances, or by the replacement of retired appliances. In
Brazil there is a combined effect of economic growth and increase
of number of household, which the ‘‘first purchase’’ component is
a considerable driver of sales. Sales due to increased ownership
are given by
PCðyÞ ¼ NRðyÞSðyÞNRðy1ÞSðy1Þ
where PC stands for first purchase, NR(y) is the number of
households in each year, S(y) is the function presented in Eq. (1).
In addition to first purchases, the model describes the
replacement of an appliance in terms of an annual retirement
probability that varies as a function of the appliance age. It is
given by
1 after the MEPS option implementation.
Pe ðIdÞ ¼
1þ eððIdVuÞ=DidÞ
where P(Id) is the probability of retirement at a given appliance
age (Id), Vu is the average lifetime of the product, and where Did is
the mean deviation of replacement ages, assumed to be 2 years. In
this way, the appliances replacement in each year is given by
X
30
SubðyÞ ¼ stock ðy1,IdÞ  Pe ðIdÞ
Id ¼ 1
where Sub(y) is the number of equipment replaced in year y.
Stock(y 1, Id) is the number of products of vintage Id remaining
in each year. Id equal 30 is the maximum age of refrigerators in
the stock in each year. At last, the total sales (TS) for the each year
are given by
TSðyÞ ¼ SubðyÞ þPCðyÞ
2.5. Customers point of view
This perspective is a critical factor in the decision for which
MEPS is appropriate minimum efficiency level. Then for each
household is provided an estimate of the financial impacts of
minimum efficiency standards at the unit level through life-cycle
cost (LCC) methodology. There are two main components in this
analysis which are the equipment cost and the operation costs.
Under the societal perspective the method consists in
calculating the total energy savings resulted from the difference
in energy consumption between the BASE and the MEPS
scenarios. In the BASE case, all products are assumed to be
operating at the current efficiency baseline characterized by the
current appliances stock. In the MEPS case, those products,
purchased after the MEPS implementation, are assumed to
operate at the efficiency determined by specific MEPS options.
In this method MEPS affects only new products, not those already
installed before the implementation year. In the first implement-
ing year of standards, therefore, savings are small, since the
standard only has an effect on the products purchased in that
year. As time goes on, more and more of the product stock is
impacted by standards. The total energy saving is given by
ESðyÞ ¼ CEBASE ðyÞCEMEPS ðyÞ ð8Þ
ð2Þ where ES is the total energy saving, CE is the energy consumption
in each scenario given by
X
30
CEðyÞ ¼ stockðy,IdÞ  CeðypÞ ð9Þ
Id ¼ 1
where Ce is determined according to the year of purchase (yp).
The Ce differs between the BASE and the MEPS scenarios for year
ð3Þ
The benefits for society are accounted as the total economic
savings occurred from electricity savings. The following equation
illustrates the model of accounting of the benefits (BS):
BSðyÞ ¼ ESðyÞ  Tariff ð10Þ
On the other hand the national costs in year (y) are the sum of
ð4Þ equipment costs equal to the retail price times the total number
of sales in each scenario. The following equation illustrates the
model of accounting of the costs (CS):
CSðyÞ ¼ ðTSMEPS ðyÞ  EqMEPS ðyÞÞðTSBASE ðyÞ  EqBASE ðyÞÞ ð11Þ
where TS is the total units sold and Eq is the equipment price.
The net present value of the MEPS option is then defined as the
ð5Þ sum over a particular forecast period of the net national savings in
each year, multiplied by the appropriate national policy discount
rate as given for
 
X 1
VPL ¼ BSðyÞCSðyÞ  yy0 ð12Þ
y ð1 þrn Þ
where r is the discounting rate considered 8%4 in the simulations.
4
The ‘‘minimum discounting rate applied in the evaluation of the expansion
alternatives’’ (MME & EPE, 2007).

Please cite this article as: Augustus de Melo, C., de Martino Jannuzzi, G., Energy efficiency standards for refrigerators in Brazil: A
methodology for impact.... Energy Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.07.032
 C. Augustus de Melo, G. de Martino Jannuzzi / Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 5

Table 7 1000
Results: consumption and savings potential. 1 door 301 -400 liters
1 door 200 - 300 liters
Brazil 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Frost free 300 - 400 liters
900

BASE Models Consumption (TWh/year)

201–300 7.3 8.19 8.28 9.13 9.85 800

US$
301–400 8.44 9.47 9.58 10.56 11.39 700
301–400 FF 5.64 6.33 6.4 7.05 7.61
Total 21.38 23.99 24.26 26.74 28.85

MEPS Models Consumption (TWh/year) 600

201–300 7.12 6.85 5.23 4.42 4.74

301–400 8.31 8.45 7.26 6.98 7.51 500
301–400 FF 5.53 5.5 4.5 4.12 4.44
Total 20.96 20.8 16.99 15.52 16.69
400
Saving potential Models Energy saving (TWh/year)
100 200 300 400 500 600
kWh/year
201–300 0.18 1.34 3.05 4.71 5.11
301–400 0.13 1.02 2.32 3.58 3.88 Fig. 2. Life-cycle cost analysis.
301–400 FF 0.11 0.83 1.9 2.93 3.17
Total 0.42 3.19 7.27 11.22 12.16
analysis. However, even in these conditions we found options that
% 1.96 13.30 29.97 41.96 42.15
are still cost-effective for two equivalent models. While the
technical innovations increasing the retail price the appliance
3. Model results and impacts energy consumption (kWh/year) decreases as long as more
innovations are incorporated in the refrigerator. In the case of
The energy saving potential and the economic evaluation front 1-door (301–400 l) no design options proved to be economically
to the perspective of the consumers and the society are described viable, due high costs of technical innovations when compared to
as follow. These results pursue the premises of economic growth another options. Fig. 2 shows the results obtained from life-cycle
of the B1 scenarios (rate of 4.1% per year) presented in the cost analysis performed. Table 8 summarizes the results of
National Energy Plan (2030) (MME & EPE, 2007). analysis for each equivalent model. The total cumulative
electricity saving during the period analyzed (2010–2030) is
7 TWh under the customer perspective.
3.1. Maximum energy saving potential

The aggregation of all energy efficiency design options for each
equivalent model represents the maximum energy saving poten-
tial, i.e. the highest level of energy saving is achieved through the
most stringent MEPS for refrigerators. The electricity demand
projections for each equivalent model studied are presented in
Table 7. The savings are the difference between the projected
scenarios. Electricity savings increase steeply after the year of
program implementation (2010) as more and more efficient
refrigerators are brought into the stock due to the replacement of
old appliances. While in the base case the total consumption still
rises from 21.38 TWh in 2010 to 26.74 TWh in 2025, in the MEPS
scenario the consumption reduces from 20.96 to 15.52 TWh in
2025. By this year, when the stock will be completely replaced by
efficient products, MEPS will have reduced refrigerator
consumption by about 42% compared to the base case.5 This
corresponds to about 10% of the current (2007) total residential
electricity consumption.
3.2. Customer perspective
3.3. Societal perspective
The societal perspective is here considered as the projection of
the total national expenses taking into account the costs of energy
efficiency improvements and the benefits from the energy
savings. This exercise indicates the existence of a bigger role that
more stringent MEPS could play. The net present value for each
design option is given in Table 9. For instance, under the customer
perspective for the case of the equivalent model-1-door
201–300 l, the improvement in energy efficiency is cost-
effective up to ‘‘design option 2’’. On the other hand, under the
societal perspective all design options considered for this case
resulted in positive net present values (NPV). Even the most
expensive option has a positive net present value, which is US$
183 million throughout the period of 2010 the 2030. Considering
only the cost-effective options presented in Table 6 (option 7 for
the 1-door 200–300 l model, option 2 for the combined frost-free
301–400 l model) the total energy savings are 20.9 TWh,
corresponding to US$ 264 million.

The life-cycle cost analysis gives a trade-off between max-

imum efficiency and incremental cost associated with the
improvements. The Brazilian retail market practices a high
discount rate 63.6%6 and this reflects directly in the viability
5
We should remember that equipment with volume lesser that 200 l and
greater that 400 l are not considered in this analysis.
6
(Institute for Retail Development, 2007). Credit, Interest and Default.
Available at: http://www.idv.org.br/conjuntura-cji-texto.aspx?IdTextoCJI=243 Ac-
cessed: September 2008.
4. Conclusions
The methodology presented based on econometric approach
and engineering data for refrigerator ownership and performance
provides a practical instrument for impact evaluation of the
minimum energy performance standards for Brazilian refrigera-
tors. In the Brazilian current policy context it can be a useful tool
for energy planning, since we have not yet evaluated the effects of
adopted MEPS into the future energy projections.

Please cite this article as: Augustus de Melo, C., de Martino Jannuzzi, G., Energy efficiency standards for refrigerators in Brazil: A
methodology for impact.... Energy Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.07.032
6 C. Augustus de Melo, G. de Martino Jannuzzi / Energy Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Table 8
Cost-effectively efficiency improvement and energy saving potential.

Model equivalent (liters) Cost-effective technical innovations Energy efficiency improvement (%) Cumulative energy saving
(2010–2030) (TWh)

One-door (201–300) Increase of door insulating 14 4.9

(15 mm)+ decreased door leakage
One-door (301–400) – – –
Combined ‘‘Frost Free’’ Improved compressor +increase of 19 2.1
(301–400) door insulating (35/65 mm)

Table 9
Net value present (NPV) in 2010 for each design option.

Design option One-door (201–300 l) (US$ million) One-door (301–400 l) (US$ million) Combined ‘‘Frost Free’’ (301–400 l) (US$ million)

PVB PVC NPV PVB PVC NPV PVB PVC NPV

1 719  238 481 1.338  2.522  1.184 623  505 117

2 845  285 560 1.535  3.083  1.547 830  749 81
3 1.551  724 827 2.170  5.881  3.711 960  992  33
4 2.626  1.661 965 2.283  6.720  4.438 1.016  1.100  84
5 2.885  1.899 985 2.648  8.678  6.029 1.423  2.022  598
6 3.386  2.814 571 1.690  2.943  1.253
7 3.479  3.295 183 2.165  4.861  2.696

Note: NPV is the net present value, PVC is the present value of costs and PVB is the present value of benefits.

The simulations prove that there is a substantial economic
savings to consumers and society as a whole. The actual societal
benefits should in fact be greater if socio-economic externalities
of the saved electricity were included.
In conclusion, we believe that the analysis presented gives an
estimate to date of the level of refrigerator efficiency savings that
could be used for policy makers in the process of MEPS
enforcement that still in its initial control stage in Brazil. We also
present here a method to estimate future savings due to
implementation of MEPS.
Acknowledgements
The author Conrado Augustus de Melo would like to thank
CNPq (National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Develop-
ment) to give an opportunity to realize studies for his Ph.D. at the
Energy Planning Program of FEM/UNICAMP.
References
Brazilian Electricity Regulatory Agency—ANEEL, 2006. Average Tariffs by Con-
sumption Class by Regions and Brazil (R$/MWh). Available at: /http://www.
aneel.gov.br/S. (accessed March 2007).
Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics—IBGE, 2005. Projec- a~ o da Populac- a~ o
por Sexo e Idade para o Perı́odo de 1980–2050 – Revisa~ o 2004 – Metodologia e
Resultados.
Brazil. Law 10.295, of 2001, October—‘‘Energy Efficiency Law’’, D.O.U., Brası́lia, DF,
2001. Available at: / http://www.mme.gov.brS (accessed April 2007).
CLASP, 2006. Methodology Description for the Policy Analysis Modeling System.
Available at: /http://www.clasponline.org/files/PAMSMethodology.pdfS (ac-
cessed May 24, 2008).
ELETROBRAS, 2005. Survey of Appliances and Consumer Habits. Available at:
/http://www.eletrobras.com/pci/main.aspS (accessed in May 2008).
Harrington, L., Damnics, M., 2004. Energy Labeling and Standards Programs
Throughout the World, The National Appliance and Equipment Energy
Efficiency Committee, Australia. Available at: /http://www.energyrating.gov.
au/library/pubs/200404internatlabelreview.pdfS (accessed June 30, 2008).
McMahon, J.E., 2004. Comparison of Australian and US cost–benefit approaches
to MEPS. Report Presented to the National Appliance and Equipment
Energy Efficiency Committee (NAEEEC), Sydney, Australia, March 25–26,
2004.
MME—Ministry of Mines and Energy, 2006a. Nota técnica 21/2006—DDE. ĺndices
mı́nimos de eficiência energética para condicionadores de ar.
MME—Ministry of Mines and Energy, 2006b. Nota técnica 20/2006—DDE. ĺndices
mı́nimos de eficiência energética para refrigeradores e congeladores.
MME—Ministry of Mines and Energy, 2007. Portaria Interministerial no. 362, de 24
de dezembro de 2007. Establish MEPS for refrigerators and freezers.
Brası́lia—DF, 2007.
MME & EPE, 2007. National Energy Plan 2030. Available at: /http://www.epe.gov.
br/Lists/Estudos/Estudos.aspxS (accessed August 2008).
Queiroz, G., et al., 2003. A life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) for setting energy-
efficiency standards in Brazil: the case of residential refrigerators. IEI—Inter-
national Energy Initiative. Available at: /http://www.iei-la.org/documents/
RelIEI2-56-01-03.pdfS (accessed May 2008).
Rosenquist, G., et al., 2006. Energy efficiency standards for equipment: additional
opportunities in the residential and commercial sectors. Energy Policy 34 (17),
3257–3267.
Schiellerup, P., 2002. An examination of the effectiveness of the EU mini-
mum standard on cold appliances: the British case. Energy Policy 30 (4),
327–332.

Please cite this article as: Augustus de Melo, C., de Martino Jannuzzi, G., Energy efficiency standards for refrigerators in Brazil: A
methodology for impact.... Energy Policy (2010), doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.07.032