CHAPTER 8. LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

8.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 8-1 

8.1.1 General Approach for LCC and PBP Analysis................................................................ 8-1 

8.1.2 Overview of LCC and PBP Inputs................................................................................... 8-3 

8.2 LIFE-CYCLE COST INPUTS ...................................................................................... 8-13 

8.2.1 Total Installed Cost Inputs ............................................................................................. 8-13 

8.2.1.1 Dishwashers ................................................................................................. 8-15 

8.2.1.2 Dehumidifiers .............................................................................................. 8-17 

8.2.1.3 Cooking Products – Cooktops ..................................................................... 8-21 

8.2.1.4 Cooking Products – Ovens...........................................................................8-25 

8.2.1.5 Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens ....................................................... 8-29 

8.2.1.6 Commercial Clothes Washers...................................................................... 8-31 

8.2.2 Operating Cost Inputs .................................................................................................... 8-33 

8.2.2.1 Annual Energy and Water Consumption ..................................................... 8-36 

8.2.2.2 Energy and Water Prices.............................................................................. 8-42 

8.2.2.3 Energy and Water Price Trends ................................................................... 8-56 

8.2.2.4 Repair and Maintenance Costs..................................................................... 8-59 

8.2.3 Product Lifetime ............................................................................................................ 8-59 

8.2.3.1 Dishwashers ................................................................................................. 8-60 

8.2.3.2 Dehumidifiers .............................................................................................. 8-60 

8.2.3.3 Cooking Products – Cooktops and Ovens ................................................... 8-61 

8.2.3.4 Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens ....................................................... 8-62 

8.2.3.5 Commercial Clothes Washers...................................................................... 8-63 

8.2.4 Discount Rates ............................................................................................................... 8-64 

8.2.4.1 Discount Rate for New Housing Equipment ............................................... 8-65 

8.2.4.2 Discount Rate for Residential Replacement Equipment.............................. 8-66 

8.2.4.3 Discount Rates for Commercial Clothes Washers....................................... 8-69 

8.2.5 Effective Date of Standard............................................................................................. 8-72 

8.2.6 Equipment Assignment for the Base Case..................................................................... 8-72 

8.2.6.1 Dishwashers ................................................................................................. 8-73 

8.2.6.2 Dehumidifiers .............................................................................................. 8-74 

8.2.6.3 Cooking Products – Cooktops ..................................................................... 8-75 

8.2.6.4 Cooking Products – Ovens...........................................................................8-77 

8.2.6.5 Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens ....................................................... 8-79 

8.2.6.6 Commercial Clothes Washers...................................................................... 8-80 

8.3 PAYBACK PERIOD INPUTS ...................................................................................... 8-81 

8.4 LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS...................................... 8-82 

8.4.1 Dishwashers ................................................................................................................... 8-83 

8.4.1.1 Base Case LCC Distributions ...................................................................... 8-83 

8.4.1.2 Standard-Level Distributions of LCC Impacts ............................................ 8-83 

8.4.1.3 Standard-Level PBP Distributions............................................................... 8-84 

8-i 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
8.4.1.4 LCC and PBP Results .................................................................................. 8-85 

8.4.2 Dehumidifiers ................................................................................................................ 8-88 

8.4.2.1 Base Case LCC Distributions ...................................................................... 8-88 

8.4.2.2 Standard-Level Distributions of LCC Impacts ............................................ 8-89 

8.4.2.3 Standard-Level PBP Distributions............................................................... 8-90 

8.4.2.4 LCC and PBP Results .................................................................................. 8-91 

8.4.3 Cooking Products – Cooktops ....................................................................................... 8-96 

8.4.3.1 Base Case LCC Distributions ...................................................................... 8-96 

8.4.3.2 Standard-Level Distributions of LCC Impacts ............................................ 8-98 

8.4.3.3 Standard-Level PBP Distributions............................................................... 8-99 

8.4.3.4 LCC and PBP Results ................................................................................ 8-100 

8.4.4 Cooking Products – Ovens........................................................................................... 8-104 

8.4.4.1 Base Case LCC Distributions .................................................................... 8-104 

8.4.4.2 Standard-Level Distributions of LCC Impacts .......................................... 8-106 

8.4.4.3 Standard-Level PBP Distributions............................................................. 8-107 

8.4.4.4 LCC and PBP Results ................................................................................ 8-108 

8.4.5 Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens ....................................................................... 8-114 

8.4.5.1 Base Case LCC Distributions .................................................................... 8-114 

8.4.5.2 Standard-Level Distributions of LCC Impacts .......................................... 8-114 

8.4.5.3 Standard-Level PBP Distributions............................................................. 8-115 

8.4.5.4 LCC and PBP Results ................................................................................ 8-116 

8.4.6 Commercial Clothes Washers...................................................................................... 8-118 

8.4.6.1 Base Case LCC Distributions .................................................................... 8-118 

8.4.6.2 Standard-Level Distributions of LCC Impacts .......................................... 8-119 

8.4.6.3 Standard-Level PBP Distributions............................................................. 8-119 

8.4.6.4 LCC and PBP Results ................................................................................ 8-120 

8.5 REBUTTABLE PAYBACK PERIOD ........................................................................ 8-124 

8.5.1 Metric........................................................................................................................... 8-124 

8.5.1.1 Dishwashers ............................................................................................... 8-124 

8.5.1.2 Dehumidifiers ............................................................................................ 8-124 

8.5.1.3 Cooking Products....................................................................................... 8-125 

8.5.1.4 Commercial Clothes Washers.................................................................... 8-126 

8.5.2 Inputs............................................................................................................................ 8-126 

8.5.3 Results.......................................................................................................................... 8-126 

8.5.3.1 Dishwashers ............................................................................................... 8-127 

8.5.3.2 Dehumidifiers ............................................................................................ 8-127 

8.5.3.3 Cooking Products – Cooktops ................................................................... 8-128 

8.5.3.4 Cooking Products – Ovens.........................................................................8-128 

8.5.3.5 Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens ..................................................... 8-128 

8.5.3.6 Commercial Clothes Washers.................................................................... 8-129 

LIST OF TABLES 

8-ii 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.1.1 Dishwashers: LCC and PBP Input Summary ...................................................... 8-6 

Table 8.1.2 Dehumidifiers: LCC and PBP Input Summary.................................................... 8-7 

Table 8.1.3 Cooktops: LCC and PBP Input Summary ........................................................... 8-8 

Table 8.1.4 Ovens: LCC and PBP Input Summary................................................................. 8-9 

Table 8.1.5 Microwave Ovens: LCC and PBP Input Summary ........................................... 8-11 

Table 8.1.6 Commercial Clothes Washers: LCC and PBP Input Summary ......................... 8-12 

Table 8.2.1 Inputs for Total Installed Cost ........................................................................... 8-14 

Table 8.2.2 Dishwashers: Baseline Manufacturer Costs....................................................... 8-15 

Table 8.2.3 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases .... 8-16 

Table 8.2.4 Dishwashers: Overall Markups......................................................................... 8-16 

Table 8.2.5 Dishwashers: Baseline Installation Costs .......................................................... 8-17 

Table 8.2.6 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation 

Costs, and Total Installed Costs......................................................................... 8-17 

Table 8.2.7 Dehumidifiers: Baseline Manufacturer Costs.................................................... 8-18 

Table 8.2.8 Dehumidifiers, 0-35.00 pints/day: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost 

Increases............................................................................................................. 8-18 

Table 8.2.9 Dehumidifiers, 35.01-45.00 pints/day: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost 

Increases............................................................................................................. 8-19 

Table 8.2.10 Dehumidifiers, 54.01-74.99 pints/day: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost 

Increases............................................................................................................. 8-19 

Table 8.2.11 Dehumidifiers: Overall Markups ...................................................................... 8-19 

Table 8.2.12 Dehumidifiers, 0-35.00 pints/day: Consumer Equipment Prices, 

Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs...................................................... 8-20 

Table 8.2.13 Dehumidifiers, 35.01-45.00 pints/day: Consumer Equipment Prices, 

Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs...................................................... 8-20 

Table 8.2.14 Dehumidifiers, 54.01-74.99 pints/day: Consumer Equipment Prices, 

Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs...................................................... 8-21 

Table 8.2.15 Cooktops: Baseline Manufacturer Costs............................................................ 8-21 

Table 8.2.16 Cooking Products: Producer Price Indexes....................................................... 8-22 

Table 8.2.17 Electric Coil Cooktops: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases ............. 8-22 

Table 8.2.18 Electric Smooth Cooktops: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases........ 8-22 

Table 8.2.19 Gas Cooktops: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases ........................... 8-22 

Table 8.2.20 Cooktops: Overall Markups .............................................................................. 8-23 

Table 8.2.21 Cooking Range: Baseline Installation Costs...................................................... 8-23 

Table 8.2.22 Installation Costs for an Electrical Outlet.......................................................... 8-24 

Table 8.2.23 Electric Coil Cooktops: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, 

and Total Installed Costs.................................................................................... 8-24 

Table 8.2.24 Electric Smooth Cooktops: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation 

Costs, and Total Installed Costs......................................................................... 8-25 

Table 8.2.25 Gas Cooktops: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and Total 

Installed Costs.................................................................................................... 8-25 

Table 8.2.26 Ovens: Baseline Manufacturer Costs................................................................. 8-25 

Table 8.2.27 Electric Standard Ovens: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases ........... 8-26 

Table 8.2.28 Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost 

Increases............................................................................................................. 8-26 

8-iii 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.29 Gas Standard Ovens: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases ................. 8-26 

Table 8.2.30 Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases ......... 8-27 

Table 8.2.31 Ovens: Overall Markups ................................................................................... 8-27 

Table 8.2.32 Electric Standard Ovens: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, 

and Total Installed Costs.................................................................................... 8-28 

Table 8.2.33 Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation 

Costs, and Total Installed Costs......................................................................... 8-28 

Table 8.2.34 Gas Standard Ovens: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and 

Total Installed Costs .......................................................................................... 8-29 

Table 8.2.35 Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, 

and Total Installed Costs.................................................................................... 8-29 

Table 8.2.36 Microwave Ovens: Baseline Manufacturer Costs.............................................. 8-29 

Table 8.2.37 Microwave Ovens: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases .................... 8-30 

Table 8.2.38 Microwave Ovens: Overall Markups................................................................ 8-30 

Table 8.2.39 Microwave Ovens: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and 

Total Installed Costs .......................................................................................... 8-31 

Table 8.2.40 Commercial Clothes Washers: Baseline Manufacturer Costs ........................... 8-31 

Table 8.2.41 Commercial Clothes Washers: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost 

Increases............................................................................................................. 8-32 

Table 8.2.42 Commercial Clothes Washers: Overall Markups ............................................. 8-32 

Table 8.2.43 Commercial Clothes Washers: Baseline Installation Costs ............................... 8-33 

Table 8.2.44 Commercial Clothes Washers: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation 

Costs, and Total Installed Costs......................................................................... 8-33 

Table 8.2.45 Inputs for Operating Cost................................................................................... 8-34 

Table 8.2.46 Standard Dishwashers: Annual Energy and Water Use by Efficiency 

Level .................................................................................................................. 8-37 

Table 8.2.47 0-35 Pints/Day Dehumidifiers: Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level........ 8-38 

Table 8.2.48 35.01-45 Pints/Day Dehumidifiers: Annual Energy Use by Efficiency 

Level .................................................................................................................. 8-38 

Table 8.2.49 54.01-74.99 Pints/Day Dehumidifiers: Annual Energy Use by Efficiency 

Level .................................................................................................................. 8-38 

Table 8.2.50 Electric Coil Cooktops: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level ..... 8-39 

Table 8.2.51 Electric Smooth Cooktops: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency 

Level .................................................................................................................. 8-39 

Table 8.2.52 Gas Cooktops: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level .................. 8-39 

Table 8.2.53 Electric Standard Ovens: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency 

Level .................................................................................................................. 8-39 

Table 8.2.54 Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency 

Level .................................................................................................................. 8-40 

Table 8.2.55 Gas Standard Ovens: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level ........ 8-40 

Table 8.2.56 Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency 

Level .................................................................................................................. 8-40 

Table 8.2.57 Microwave Ovens: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level ........... 8-41 

Table 8.2.58 Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application: Annual Energy 

and Water Use by Efficiency Level ................................................................... 8-42 

8-iv 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.59 Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat Application: Annual Energy 

and Water Use by Efficiency Level ................................................................... 8-42 

Table 8.2.60 Average Residential Electricity Prices in 2004 ................................................. 8-44 

Table 8.2.61 Average Residential Electricity Prices for Cooking Products in 2005 .............. 8-45 

Table 8.2.62 Average Residential Electricity Prices for Dishwashers and Dehumidifiers 

in 2005 ............................................................................................................... 8-46 

Table 8.2.63 Average Commercial Electricity Prices in 2004................................................ 8-47 

Table 8.2.64 Average Commercial Electricity Prices for Commercial Clothes Washers 

in 2005 ............................................................................................................... 8-48 

Table 8.2.65 Average Residential Natural Gas Prices in 2005 ............................................... 8-49 

Table 8.2.66 Average Residential Natural Gas Prices for Cooking Products and 

Dishwashers in 2005 .......................................................................................... 8-50 

Table 8.2.67 Average Commercial Natural Gas Prices in 2005 ............................................. 8-51 

Table 8.2.68 Average Commercial Natural Gas Prices for Commercial Clothes Washers 

in 2005 ............................................................................................................... 8-52 

Table 8.2.69 Average Residential Oil Prices in 2005 ............................................................. 8-53 

Table 8.2.70 Average Residential Oil Prices for Dishwashers in 2005 .................................. 8-54 

Table 8.2.71 Average Per-Unit-Volume Water Prices in 2004 .............................................. 8-55 

Table 8.2.72 Average Per-Unit-Volume Water Prices for Dishwashers in 2006 ................... 8-56 

Table 8.2.73 Average Per-Unit-Volume Water Prices for Commercial Clothes Washers 

in 2006 ............................................................................................................... 8-56 

Table 8.2.74 Dishwashers: Product Lifetime Estimates and Sources.................................... 8-60 

Table 8.2.75 Dishwashers: Average, Minimum, and Maximum Product Lifetimes Used 

in LCC Analysis................................................................................................. 8-60 

Table 8.2.76 Dehumidifiers: Product Lifetime Estimates and Sources ................................. 8-61 

Table 8.2.77 Dehumidifiers: Average, Minimum, and Maximum Product Lifetimes 

Used in LCC Analysis ....................................................................................... 8-61 

Table 8.2.78 Cooktops and Ovens: Product Lifetime Estimates and Sources ........................ 8-61 

Table 8.2.79 Cooktops and Ovens: Average, Minimum, and Maximum Product 

Lifetimes Used in LCC Analysis ....................................................................... 8-62 

Table 8.2.80 Microwave Ovens: Product Lifetime Estimates and Sources........................... 8-62 

Table 8.2.81 Microwave Ovens: Average, Minimum, and Maximum Product Lifetimes 

Used in LCC Analysis ....................................................................................... 8-63 

Table 8.2.82 Commercial Clothes Washers: Product Lifetime Estimates and Sources ........ 8-64 

Table 8.2.83 Commercial Clothes Washers: Average, Minimum, and Maximum

Product Lifetimes Used in LCC Analysis.......................................................... 8-64 

Table 8.2.84 Data Used to Calculate Real Effective Mortgage Rates .................................... 8-65 

Table 8.2.85 Average Shares of Considered Household Debt and Equity Types .................. 8-66 

Table 8.2.86 Average Nominal Interest Rates for Household Debt Classes (percent)........... 8-67 

Table 8.2.87 Average Real Effective Interest Rates for Household Debt Classes 

(percent) ............................................................................................................. 8-67 

Table 8.2.88 Average Nominal and Real Interest Rates for Household Equity Types........... 8-68 

Table 8.2.89 Shares and Interest or Return Rates Used for Household Debt and Equity 

Types.................................................................................................................. 8-69 

8-v 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.90 

Table 8.2.92 Discount Rates for Commercial Clothes Washers............................................. 8-72 

................................... 8-74 

.......................................................... 8-74 

............................................. 8-76 

................................................................. 8-77 

................................... 8-78 

...................................................................... 8-79 

................................................... 8-80 

Table 8.2.93 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: Base Case Market Shares

Table 8.2.94 Dehumidifiers: Base Case Market Shares

Table 8.2.95 Gas Cooktops: Percent of Shipments with Pilots 

Table 8.2.96 Cooktops: Base Case Market Shares 

Table 8.2.97 Gas Standard Ovens: Percent of Shipments with Pilots 

Table 8.2.98 Ovens: Base Case Market Shares 

Table 8.2.99 Microwave Ovens: Base Case Market Shares 

Data for the Calculation of Weighted-Average Cost of Capital for Sectors 

that Purchase Commercial Clothes Washers ..................................................... 8-71 

Table 8.2.91 Weighted Average Cost of Capital for Sectors that Purchase Commercial 

Clothes Washers................................................................................................. 8-71 

Table 8.2.100 Commercial Clothes Washers: Base Case Market Shares ................................. 8-81 

Table 8.4.1 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: LCC and PBP Results ........................................ 8-86 

Table 8.4.2 Dehumidifiers, 0-35.00 pints/day: LCC and PBP Results................................. 8-92 

Table 8.4.3 Dehumidifiers, 35.01-45.00 pints/day: LCC and PBP Results.......................... 8-92 

Table 8.4.4 Dehumidifiers, 54.01-74.99 pints/day: LCC and PBP Results.......................... 8-92 

Table 8.4.5 Electric Coil Cooktops: LCC and PBP Results ............................................... 8-100 

Table 8.4.6 Electric Smooth Cooktops: LCC and PBP Results.......................................... 8-100 

Table 8.4.7 Gas Cooktops: LCC and PBP Results ............................................................. 8-100 

Table 8.4.8 Electric Standard Ovens: LCC and PBP Results ............................................. 8-108 

Table 8.4.9 Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens: LCC and PBP Results ..................................... 8-108 

Table 8.4.10 Gas Standard Ovens: LCC and PBP Results ................................................... 8-109 

Table 8.4.11 Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens: LCC and PBP Results ........................................... 8-109 

Table 8.4.12 Microwave Ovens: LCC and PBP Results ...................................................... 8-116 

Table 8.4.13 Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application: LCC and PBP 

Results.............................................................................................................. 8-121 

Table 8.5.2 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: Rebuttable Payback Periods............................. 8-127 

Table 8.5.3 Dehumidifiers: Rebuttable Payback Periods ................................................... 8-127 

Table 8.5.4 Cooktops: Rebuttable Payback Periods ........................................................... 8-128 

Table 8.5.5 Ovens: Rebuttable Payback Periods ................................................................ 8-128 

Table 8.5.6 Microwave Ovens: Rebuttable Payback Periods ............................................. 8-129 

Table 8.5.7 Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application: Rebuttable 

Payback Periods ............................................................................................... 8-129 

Table 8.4.14 Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat Application: LCC and PBP 

Results.............................................................................................................. 8-121 

Table 8.5.1 Annual Useful Cooking Energy Output Values: Comparison of Values 

Used for the Determination of Rebuttable PBP and Distribution PBP............ 8-125 

Table 8.5.8 Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat Application: Rebuttable 

Payback Periods ............................................................................................... 8-129 

LIST OF FIGURES 

8-vi 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Figure 8.1.1 Flow Diagram of Inputs for the Determination of LCC and PBP ....................... 8-5 

Figure 8.2.1 Electricity Price Trends...................................................................................... 8-57

Figure 8.2.2 Natural Gas Price Trends ................................................................................... 8-58 

Figure 8.2.3 Oil Price Trends ................................................................................................. 8-58 

Figure 8.2.4 Water Price Trend .............................................................................................. 8-59 

Figure 8.2.5 Microwave Ovens: Product Lifetime Probability Distribution......................... 8-63 

Figure 8.2.6 Gas Cooktops: Percent of Shipments with Pilots .............................................. 8-76 

Figure 8.2.7 Gas Standard Ovens: Percent of Shipments with Pilots .................................... 8-78 

Figure 8.4.1 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: Base Case LCC Distribution .............................. 8-83 

Figure 8.4.2 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: Distribution of LCC Impacts for Standard 

Level 3 ............................................................................................................... 8-84 

Figure 8.4.3 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: Distribution of PBPs for Standard Level 3 ........ 8-85 

Figure 8.4.4 Range of LCC Savings for Standard-Sized Dishwashers .................................. 8-87 

Figure 8.4.5 Range of Payback Periods in Years for Standard-Sized Dishwashers .............. 8-87 

Figure 8.4.6 Dehumidifiers, 25.01-35.00 pints/day: Base Case LCC Distribution................ 8-88 

Figure 8.4.7 Dehumidifiers, 35.01-45.00 pints/day: Base Case LCC Distribution................ 8-88 

Figure 8.4.8 Dehumidifiers, 54.01-74.99 pints/day: Base Case LCC Distribution................ 8-89 

Figure 8.4.9 Dehumidifiers, 35.01-45.00 pints/day: Distribution of LCC Impacts for 

Standard Level 3 ................................................................................................ 8-90 

Figure 8.4.10 Dehumidifiers, 35.01-45.00 pints/day: Distribution of PBPs for Standard 

Level 3 ............................................................................................................... 8-91 

Figure 8.4.11 Range of LCC Savings for Dehumidifiers, 0-35.00 pints/day........................... 8-93 

Figure 8.4.12 Range of LCC Savings for Dehumidifiers, 35.01-45.00 pints/day.................... 8-94 

Figure 8.4.13 Range of LCC Savings for Dehumidifiers, 54.01-74.99 pints/day.................... 8-94 

Figure 8.4.14 Range of Payback Periods for Dehumidifiers, 0-35.00 pints/day...................... 8-95 

Figure 8.4.15 Range of Payback Periods for Dehumidifiers, 35.01-45.00 pints/day............... 8-95 

Figure 8.4.16 Range of Payback Periods for Dehumidifiers, 54.01-74.99 pints/day............... 8-96 

Figure 8.4.17 Electric Coil Cooktops: Base Case LCC Distribution ....................................... 8-97 

Figure 8.4.18 Electric Smooth Cooktops: Base Case LCC Distribution.................................. 8-97 

Figure 8.4.19 Gas Cooktops: Base Case LCC Distribution ..................................................... 8-98 

Figure 8.4.20 Gas Cooktops: Distribution of LCC Impacts for Standard Level 2.................. 8-99 

Figure 8.4.21 Gas Cooktops: Distribution of PBPs for Standard Level 2............................... 8-99 

Figure 8.4.22 Range of LCC Savings for Electric Coil Cooktops ......................................... 8-101 

Figure 8.4.23 Range of LCC Savings for Electric Smooth Cooktops.................................... 8-102 

Figure 8.4.24 Range of LCC Savings for Gas Cooktops ....................................................... 8-102 

Figure 8.4.25 Range of Payback Periods for Electric Coil Cooktops .................................... 8-103 

Figure 8.4.26 Range of Payback Periods for Electric Smooth Cooktops............................... 8-103 

Figure 8.4.27 Range of Payback Periods for Gas Cooktops .................................................. 8-104 

Figure 8.4.28 Electric Standard Ovens: Base Case LCC Distribution ................................... 8-105 

Figure 8.4.29 Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens: Base Case LCC Distribution ........................... 8-105 

Figure 8.4.30 Gas Standard Ovens: Base Case LCC Distribution ......................................... 8-106 

Figure 8.4.31 Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens: Base Case LCC Distribution ................................. 8-106 

Figure 8.4.32 Gas Standard Ovens: Distribution of LCC Impacts for Standard Level 1....... 8-107 

Figure 8.4.33 Gas Standard Ovens: Distribution of PBPs for Standard Level ...................... 8-107 

Figure 8.4.34 Range of LCC Savings for Electric Standard Ovens ....................................... 8-110 

8-vii 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Figure 8.4.35 Range of LCC Savings for Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens ............................... 8-110 

Figure 8.4.36 Range of LCC Savings for Gas Standard Ovens ............................................. 8-111 

Figure 8.4.37 Range of LCC Savings for Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens ..................................... 8-111 

Figure 8.4.38 Range of Payback Periods for Electric Standard Ovens .................................. 8-112 

Figure 8.4.39 Range of Payback Periods for Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens.......................... 8-112 

Figure 8.4.40 Range of Payback Periods for Gas Standard Ovens ........................................ 8-113 

Figure 8.4.41 Range of Payback Periods for Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens ................................ 8-113 

Figure 8.4.42 Microwave Ovens: Base Case LCC Distribution ............................................ 8-114 

Figure 8.4.43 Microwave Ovens: Distribution of LCC Impacts for Standard Level 3.......... 8-115 

Figure 8.4.44 Microwave Ovens: Distribution of PBPs for Standard Level 3....................... 8-115 

Figure 8.4.45 Range of LCC Savings for Microwave Ovens ................................................ 8-117 

Figure 8.4.46 Range of Payback Periods for Microwave Ovens ........................................... 8-117 

Figure 8.4.47 Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application: Base Case LCC 

Distribution ...................................................................................................... 8-118 

Figure 8.4.48 Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat Application: Base Case LCC 

Distribution ...................................................................................................... 8-118 

Figure 8.4.49 Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application: Distribution of 

LCC Impacts for Standard Level 5 .................................................................. 8-119 

Figure 8.4.50 Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application: Distribution of 

PBPs for Standard Level 3 ............................................................................... 8-120 

Figure 8.4.51 Range of LCC Savings for Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family....... 8-122 

Figure 8.4.52 Range of LCC Savings for Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat......... 8-122 

Figure 8.4.53 Range of Payback Periods for Commercial Clothes Washers, MultiFamily .............................................................................................................. 8-123 

Figure 8.4.54 Range of Payback Periods for Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat ... 8-123 

8-viii 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
CHAPTER 8. LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS 

8.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes the Department of Energy (DOE)’s methodology for analyzing the 

economic impacts of possible energy efficiency standards on individual consumers. The effect 

of standards on individual consumers includes a change in operating expense (usually decreased) 

and a change in purchase price (usually increased). This chapter describes three metrics DOE 

used in the consumer analysis to determine the effect of standards on individual consumers: 

• Life-cycle cost (LCC) is the total consumer expense over the life of an appliance, 

including purchase expense and operating costs (including energy expenditures). DOE 

discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase, and sums them over the lifetime 

of the equipment. 

• Payback period (PBP) measures the amount of time it takes customers to recover the 

assumed higher purchase price of more energy-efficient equipment through lower 

operating costs. 

• Rebuttable payback period is a special case of the PBP. Where LCC and PBP are 

estimated over a range of inputs reflecting actual conditions, rebuttable payback period is 

based on laboratory conditions, specifically DOE test procedure inputs. 

Inputs to the LCC and PBP are discussed in sections 8.2 and 8.3, respectively, of this 

chapter. Results for the LCC and PBP are presented in section 8.4. The rebuttable PBP is 

discussed in section 8.5. Key variables and calculations are presented for each metric. DOE 

performed the calculations discussed here using a series of Microsoft Excel® spreadsheets which 

are accessible on the Internet (http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/). 

Details and instructions for using the spreadsheets are discussed in Appendix 8A. 

8.1.1 General Approach for LCC and PBP Analysis 

Recognizing that several inputs to the determination of consumer LCC and PBP are 

either variable or uncertain, DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analysis by modeling both the 

uncertainty and variability in the inputs using Monte Carlo simulation and probability 

distributions. A detailed explanation of Monte Carlo simulation and the use of probability 

distributions is contained in Appendix 8B. DOE developed LCC and PBP spreadsheet models 

incorporating both Monte Carlo simulation and probability distributions by using Microsoft 

Excel® spreadsheets combined with Crystal Ball® (a commercially available add-in program). 

In addition to characterizing several of the inputs to the analysis with probability 

distributions, in the case of residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and cooking products, DOE 

8-1 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
also developed a sample of individual households that use each of the appliances. The household 

sample sizes for these residential products are: 2,476 household records from dishwashers; 578 

for dehumidifiers; 2,895 for electric cooktops; 1,159 for electric standard ovens; 1,601 for 

electric self-cleaning ovens; 1,597 for gas cooktops; 959 for gas standard ovens; and 494 for gas 

self-cleaning ovens. By developing household samples, DOE was able to perform the LCC and 

PBP calculations for each household to account for the variability in energy (and water) 

consumption and/or energy price associated with each household. As described in Chapter 6, 

DOE used the DOE Energy Information Administration (EIA)’s 2001 Residential Energy 

Consumption Survey (RECS) to develop household samples for each of the above three sets of 

products.1 The 2001 RECS is a national sample survey of housing units that collects statistical 

information on the consumption of and expenditures for energy in housing units along with data 

on energy-related characteristics of the housing units and occupants. The 2001 RECS consists of 

for 4,822 housing units and was constructed by EIA to be a national representation of the 

household population in the U.S. Of the household sub-samples used in the LCC and PBP 

analysis, only two (for dehumidifiers and gas self-cleaning ovens) have a size which is less than 

20 percent of the total 2001 RECS housing unit size. Even so, the potential errors associated 

with these smaller sub-sample sizes are not anticipated to be so large as to affect the validity of 

the results. Specifically, the standard error of a sample of size ‘n’ is the sample’s standard 

deviation divided by the square root of ‘n’. For the full 2001 RECS sample the associated 

standard error is the sample’s standard deviation multiplied by 1.5 percent. For the dehumidifier 

and gas self-cleaning oven sub-samples, the associated standard error is the sub-sample’s 

standard deviation multiplied by 4.5 percent. Although the standard error of the sub-samples is 

three times the size of the entire 2001 RECS, it is still less than five percent. DOE believes a 

standard error of less than five percent is still small enough to yield meaningful results. 

Therefore, DOE believes the results generated from the household samples for dishwashers, 

dehumidifiers, and cooking products are representative of U.S. households using these 

appliances. 

For dishwashers and cooking products, DOE used RECS to establish the variability in 

annual energy use and energy pricing. DOE also established the variability of annual water use 

and water pricing for dishwashers. For dehumidifiers, DOE used RECS to establish only the 

variability in electricity pricing. By using RECS, DOE was able to assign a unique annual 

energy use and/or energy price to each household in the sample. Due to the large sample of 

households considered in the LCC and PBP analysis, the range of annual energy use and/or 

energy prices is quite large (the actual ranges of energy consumption were presented and 

discussed in Chapter 6). Thus, although the annual energy use and/or energy pricing are not 

uncertain for any particular household, their variability across all households contributes to the 

range of LCCs and PBPs calculated for any particular standard level. 

For commercial clothes washers, DOE was unable to develop a consumer sample, since 

neither RECS nor EIA’s Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) provided 

the necessary data to develop one. As a result, DOE was not able to use a consumer sample to 

establish the variability in energy use (and water use) and energy pricing (and water pricing) for 

commercial clothes washers. Instead, as described in Chapter 6, DOE established the variability 

and uncertainty in energy and water use for commercial clothes washers by defining the 

8-2 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
uncertainty and variability in the usage (in cycles per day) of the equipment. As will be 

described later in this chapter, the variability and uncertainty in energy and water pricing are 

characterized by regional differences in energy and water prices. 

DOE displays the LCC and PBP results as distributions of impacts compared to the 

baseline conditions. Results are presented at the end of this chapter and are based on 10,000 

samples per Monte Carlo simulation run. To illustrate the implications of the analysis, DOE 

generated a frequency chart depicting the variation in LCC and PBP for each standard level 

considered. 

8.1.2 Overview of LCC and PBP Inputs 

The LCC is the total consumer expense over the life of the equipment, including purchase 

expense and operating expense (including energy expenditures). DOE discounts future operating 

expenses to the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the equipment. The PBP is 

the change in purchase expense due to an increased efficiency standard divided by the change in 

annual operating expense that results from the standard. It represents the number of years it will 

take the customer to recover the increased purchase expense through decreased operating 

expenses. 

DOE categorizes inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis as follows: (1) inputs for 

establishing the purchase expense, otherwise known as the total installed cost, and (2) inputs for 

calculating the operating cost. 

The primary inputs for establishing the total installed cost are: 

• Baseline manufacturer cost: The costs incurred by the manufacturer to produce 

equipment meeting existing minimum efficiency standards. 

• Standard-level manufacturer cost increases: The change in manufacturer cost associated 

with producing equipment to meet a particular standard level. 

• Markups and sales tax: The markups and sales tax associated with converting the 

manufacturer cost to a consumer equipment price. The markups and sale tax are 

described in detail in Chapter 7, Markups for Equipment Price Determination. 

• Installation cost: The cost to the consumer of installing the equipment. The installation 

cost represents all costs required to install the equipment other than the marked-up 

consumer equipment price. The installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any 

miscellaneous materials and parts. Thus, the total installed cost equals the consumer 

equipment price plus the installation cost. 

The primary inputs for calculating the operating cost are: 

8-3 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
• Equipment energy and water consumption: The equipment energy consumption is the 

site energy use associated with operating the equipment. The water consumption, which 

is applicable to dishwashers and commercial clothes washers, is the site water use 

associated with operating the equipment. Chapter 6, Energy and Water Use 

Determination, details how DOE determined the equipment energy and water 

consumption based on various data sources. 

• Equipment efficiency: The equipment efficiency dictates the equipment energy and water 

consumption associated with standard-level equipment (i.e., equipment with efficiencies 

greater than baseline equipment). Chapter 6, Energy and Water Use Determination, 

details how energy and water consumption change with increasing equipment efficiency. 

• Energy and water prices: Energy and water prices are the prices paid by consumers for 

energy (i.e., electricity, gas, or oil) and water. DOE determined current energy prices 

based on data from the DOE- EIA. DOE determined water prices based on data from the 

American Water Works Association (AWWA). 

• Energy and water price trends: DOE used the EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2006 

(AEO2006) to forecast energy prices into the future. For the results presented in this 

chapter, DOE used the AEO2006 reference case to forecast future energy prices. DOE 

used consumer price index data specific to water and sewerage maintenance from the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics as the basis for its water price trend. 

• Repair and maintenance costs: Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing 

components that have failed. Maintenance costs are associated with maintaining the 

operation of the equipment. 

• Lifetime: The age at which the equipment is retired from service. 

• Discount rate: The rate at which DOE discounted future expenditures to establish their 

present value. 

Figure 8.1.1 graphically depicts the relationships between the installed cost and operating 

cost inputs for the calculation of the LCC and PBP. In the figure below, the yellow boxes 

indicate the inputs, the green boxes indicate intermediate outputs, and the blue boxes indicate the 

final outputs (the LCC and PBP). 

8-4 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Retailer or 

Cost 

Cost 

Energy and 

Cost 

Baseline 

Manufacturer 

Cost 

Std-Level 

Manufacturer 

Cost 

Manufacturer 

Markup 

Distributor 

Markup 

Sales Tax 

Installation 

Total Installed 

Water Prices

Water 

Consumption 

Equipment 

Price 

Lifetime 

Operating 

Expense 

Annual Energy 

and Water 

Expense 

Lifetime Repair and 

Maintenance 

Discount Rate 

Energy and 

Water Price 

Trends 

Annual 

Operating 

Expense 

Payback 

Period 

Life-Cycle 

Cost 

Energy Prices 

Figure 8.1.1 Flow Diagram of Inputs for the Determination of LCC and PBP 

Tables 8.1.1 through 8.1.6 summarize the input values that DOE used to calculate the 

LCC and PBP for cooktops, ovens, microwave ovens, dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and 

commercial clothes washers, respectively. Each table summarizes the total installed cost inputs 

and the operating cost inputs including the lifetime, discount rate, and energy and water price 

trends. DOE characterized all of the total cost inputs with single-point values, but characterized 

several of the operating cost inputs with probability distributions that capture the input’s 

uncertainty and/or variability. For those inputs characterized with probability distributions, the 

values provided in the following tables are the average or typical values. Also listed in the 

following tables is the section of the technical support document (TSD) where more detailed 

information on the inputs can be found. 

8-5 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.1.1 Dishwashers: LCC and PBP Input Summary 

TSD Section 

Input Average or Typical Value Characterization Reference 

Total Installed Cost Inputs 

Baseline Manufacturer 

Cost 0.46 EF = $229.17 Single-Point Value 8.2.1.1 

0.58 EF = $4.01 

0.62 EF = $7.38 

Standard-Level 0.65 EF = $14.00 

Manufacturer Cost 

Increase 

0.68 EF = $30.35 

0.72 EF= $71.38 

Single-Point Value 5.5.1 

0.80 EF = $129.28 

1.11 EF = $180.66 

Manufacturer Markup 1.26 Single-Point Value 7.2 

Retailer Markup Baseline = 1.45 

Incremental = 1.15 Single-Point Value 7.3 

Sales Tax 1.0683 Single-Point Value 7.5 

Installation Cost $252.90 Single-Point Value 8.2.1.1 

Operating Cost Inputs 

Variability determined from 

Usage 215 cycles/year household sample. Usage ranges 6.2.2 

from 1 to 500 cycles/year 

Annual Energy Use* Baseline use** = 485 kWh Variability based on usage 6.2.2 

Annual Water Use Baseline use** = 1.8 103

 gallon Variability based on usage 6.2.2 

Elec = 10.3 ¢/kWh 

Energy Prices Gas = 14.26 $/MMBtu Variability based on region 8.2.2.2 

Oil = 13.35 $/MMBtu 

Water Prices 2.25 $/103

 gallon Variability based on region 8.2.2.2 

Repair and Maintenance 

Costs No cost increase with efficiency No cost increase with efficiency 8.2.2.4 

Lifetime 12.3 years 

Uniform distribution = 

7 to 17.6 years 8.2.3.1 

Discount Rate 5.3% Custom distribution 8.2.4 

Energy Price Trend AEO 2007 Reference Case Two sensitivities: 

High & Low Growth Cases 8.2.2.3 

Water Price Trend Bureau of Labor Statistics: 

Water and sewerage CPI Single forecast 8.2.2.3 

* Annual use based on electric water heating. 

** Annual use provided for baseline product only. Annual use decreases with increased product efficiency. 

8-6 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.1.2 Dehumidifiers: LCC and PBP Input Summary 

TSD Section 

Input Product Class Average or Typical Value Characterization Reference 

Total Installed Cost Inputs 

Baseline 

Manufacturer Cost 

0-35.00 pt/day 

35.01-45.00 pt/day 

54.01-74.99 pt/day 

1.20 l/kWh = $70.26 

1.30 l/kWh = $80.75 

1.50 l/kWh = $96.90 

Single-Point Value 

Single-Point Value 

Single-Point Value 

8.2.1.2 

8.2.1.2 

8.2.1.2 

0-35.00 pt/day 

1.25 l/kWh = $3.12 

1.30 l/kWh = $4.92 

1.35 l/kWh = $10.41 

1.40 l/kWh = $18.80 

1.45 l/kWh = $25.61 

Single-Point Value 5.5.2 

Standard-Level 

Manufacturer Cost 

Increase 

35.01-45.00 pt/day 

1.35 l/kWh = $6.11 

1.40 l/kWh = $14.47 

1.45 l/kWh = $22.68 

1.50 l/kWh = $32.84 

1.74 l/kWh = $74.72 

Single-Point Value 5.5.2 

54.01-74.99 pt/day 

1.55 l/kWh = $4.18 

1.60 l/kWh = $8.00 

1.65 l/kWh = $12.36 

1.70 l/kWh = $23.18 

1.80 l/kWh = $33.94 

Single-Point Value 5.5.2 

Manufacturer 

Markup All 1.26 Single-Point Value 7.2 

Retailer Markup All Baseline = 1.45 

Incremental = 1.15 Single-Point Value 7.4 

Sales Tax All 1.0653 Single-Point Value 7.5 

Installation Cost All $0 Single-Point Value 8.2.1.2 

Operating Cost Inputs 

Usage All 1095 hours/year Uniform distribution = 

875 to 4320 hours/year 6.3.1 

25.01-35.00 pt/day Baseline use* = 540 kWh Variability based on usage 6.3.2; 6.3.3 

Annual Energy Use 35.01-45.00 pt/day Baseline use* = 664 kWh Variability based on usage 6.3.2; 6.3.3 

54.01-74.99 pt/day Baseline use* = 928 kWh Variability based on usage 6.3.2; 6.3.3 

Energy Prices All 10.3 ¢/kWh Variability based on region. 8.2.2.2 

Repair and 

Maintenance Costs All No cost increase with 

efficiency 

No cost increase with 

efficiency 8.2.2.4 

Lifetime All 11.0 years Uniform distribution = 

5 to 17 years 8.2.3.2 

Discount Rate All 5.5% Custom distribution 8.2.4 

Energy Price Trend All AEO 2007 Reference Case Two sensitivities: 

High & Low Growth Cases 8.2.2.3 

* Annual use provided for baseline product only. Annual use decreases with increased product efficiency. 

8-7 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.1.3 Cooktops: LCC and PBP Input Summary 

TSD Section 

Input Product Class Average or Typical Value Characterization Reference 

Total Installed Cost Inputs 

Baseline 

Manufacturer Cost 

Electric Coil 

Electric Smooth 

0.737 EF = $64.72 

0.742 EF = $83.54 

Single-Point Value 

Single-Point Value 

8.2.1.3 

8.2.1.3 

Gas 0.156 EF = $83.70 Single-Point Value 8.2.1.3 

Standard-Level 

Manufacturer Cost 

Electric Coil 

Electric Smooth 

0.769 EF = $2.14 

0.753 EF = $155.86 

Single-Point Value 

Single-Point Value 

5.5.3 

5.5.3 

Increase Gas 0.399 EF = $11.30 

0.420 EF = $30.04 Single-Point Value 5.5.3 

Manufacturer 

Markup All 1.26 Single-Point Value 7.2 

Retailer Markup All Baseline = 1.45 

Incremental = 1.15 Single-Point Value 7.3 

Sales Tax Electric 1.0670 Single-Point Value 7.5 

Gas 1.0706 Single-Point Value 7.5 

Installation Cost All $125 Single-Point Value 8.2.1.3 

Operating Cost Inputs 

Usage 

Electric 

Gas 

1.22 meals/day 

1.29 meals/day 

Variability determined from 

household sample. Usage 

ranges from 0 to 4 meals/day 

6.4.1.4 

6.4.1.4 

Annual Energy Use Electric 

Gas 

Baseline use* = 128.2 kWh 

Baseline use* = 2.74 MMBtu 

Variability based on usage 

Variability based on usage 

6.4.1.3 

6.4.1.3 

Energy Prices All Elec = 10.3 ¢/kWh 

Gas = 14.26 $/MMBtu Variability based on region 8.2.2.2 

Repair and 

Maintenance Costs All No cost increase with 

efficiency 

No cost increase with 

efficiency 8.2.2.4 

Lifetime 

Electric 19.0 years 

Uniform distribution = 

10 to 28 years 8.2.3.3 

Gas 19.0 years 

Uniform distribution = 

12 to 26 years 8.2.3.3 

Discount Rate All 5.4% Custom distribution 8.2.4 

Energy Price Trend All AEO 2007 Reference Case Two sensitivities: 

High & Low Growth Cases 8.2.2.3 

* Annual use provided for baseline product only. Annual consumption decreases with increased product efficiency. 

8-8 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
8-9 

Table 8.1.4 Ovens: LCC and PBP Input Summary 

Input Product Class Average or Typical Value Characterization 

TSD Section 

Reference 

Total Installed Cost Inputs 

Elec Standard 0.1066 EF = $136.98 Single-Point Value 8.2.1.4 

Elec Self-Clean 0.1099 EF = $173.51 Single-Point Value 8.2.1.4 

Gas Standard 0.0298 EF = $145.43 Single-Point Value 8.2.1.4 

Baseline 

Manufacturer Cost 

Gas Self-Clean 0.0540 EF = $206.93 Single-Point Value 8.2.1.4 

Elec Standard 

0.1113 EF = $1.53 

0.1163 EF = $4.54 

0.1181 EF = $8.01 

0.1206 EF = $45.20 

0.1209 EF = $48.54 

Single-Point Value 5.5.3 

Elec Self-Clean 0.1102 EF = $4.10 

0.1123 EF = $41.30 Single-Point Value 5.5.3 

Gas Standard 

0.0536 EF = $11.30 

0.0566 EF = $14.65 

0.0572 EF = $15.67 

0.0593 EF = $36.41 

0.0596 EF = $37.93 

0.0600 EF = $41.33 

0.0583 EF = $14.06 

Single-Point Value 5.5.3 

Standard-Level 

Manufacturer Cost 

Increase 

Gas Self-Clean 

0.0625 EF = $10.32 

0.0627 EF = $14.41 

0.0632 EF = $15.55 

Single-Point Value 5.5.3 

Manufacturer 

Markup All 1.26 Single-Point Value 7.2 

Retailer Markup All Baseline = 1.45 

Incremental = 1.15 Single-Point Value 7.3 

Elec Standard 1.0674 Single-Point Value 7.5 

Elec Self-Clean 1.0664 Single-Point Value 7.5 

Gas Standard 1.0707 Single-Point Value 7.5 

Sales Tax 

Gas Self-Clean 1.0698 Single-Point Value 7.5 

Installation Cost All $125 Single-Point Value 8.2.1.4 

Operating Cost Inputs 

Elec Standard 0.52 meals/day 6.4.1.4 

Elec Self-Clean 0.57 meals/day 6.4.1.4 

Gas Standard 0.49 meals/day 6.4.1.4 Usage 

Gas Self-Clean 0.56 meals/day 

Variability determined from 

household sample. Usage 

ranges from 0 to 2 meals/day 

6.4.1.4 

Elec Standard Baseline use* = 149.9 kWh Variability based on usage 6.4.1.3 

Elec Self-Clean Baseline use* = 155.3 kWh Variability based on usage 6.4.1.3 

Annual Energy Use Gas Standard Baseline use* = 1.83 MMBtu Variability based on usage 6.4.1.3 

Gas Self-Clean Baseline use* = 0.86 MMBtu 

 = 39.3 kWh Variability based on usage 6.4.1.3 

Energy Prices All Elec = 10.3 ¢/kWh Variability based on region 8.2.2.2 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Input Product Class Average or Typical Value Characterization 

TSD Section 

Reference 

Gas = 14.26 $/MMBtu 

Repair and 

Maintenance Costs All No cost increase with 

efficiency 

No cost increase with 

efficiency 8.2.2.4 

Lifetime 

Electric 19.0 years 

Uniform distribution = 

10 to 28 years 8.2.3.3 

Gas 19.0 years 

Uniform distribution = 

12 to 26 years 8.2.3.3 

Discount Rate All 5.4% - 5.5% Custom distribution 8.2.4 

Energy Price Trend All AEO 2007 Reference Case Two sensitivities: 

High & Low Growth Cases 8.2.2.3 

* Annual use provided for baseline product only. Annual use decreases with increased product efficiency. 

8-10 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.1.5 Microwave Ovens: LCC and PBP Input Summary 

TSD Section 

Input Average or Typical Value Characterization Reference 

Total Installed Cost Inputs 

Baseline Manufacturer 

Cost 0.557 EF = $112.46 Single-Point Value 8.2.1.5 

Standard-Level 

Manufacturer Cost 

Increase 

0.586 EF = $8.15 

0.588 EF = $16.86 

0.597 EF = $30.55 

0.602 EF = $47.99 

Single-Point Value 5.5.3 

Manufacturer Markup 1.26 Single-Point Value 7.2 

Retailer Markup Baseline = 1.45 

Incremental = 1.15 Single-Point Value 7.3 

Sales Tax 1.0683 Single-Point Value 7.5 

Installation Cost $373 Single-Point Value 8.2.1.5 

Operating Cost Inputs 

Variability determined from 

Usage 0.40 meals/day household sample. Usage ranges 6.4.2.2 

from 0 to 4 meals/day 

Annual Energy Use* Baseline use* = 148 kWh Variability based on usage 6.4.2.2 

Energy Prices 10.3 ¢/kWh Variability based on region 8.2.2.2 

Repair and Maintenance 

Costs No cost increase with efficiency No cost increase with efficiency 8.2.2.4 

Lifetime 9.0 years 

Custom distribution = 

7 to 10 years 8.2.3.4 

Discount Rate 5.4% Custom distribution 8.2.4 

Energy Price Trend AEO 2007 Reference Case Two sensitivities: 

High & Low Growth Cases 8.2.2.3 

* Annual use provided for baseline product only. Annual use decreases with increased product efficiency. 

8-11 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.1.6 Commercial Clothes Washers: LCC and PBP Input Summary 

TSD Section 

Input Average or Typical Value Characterization Reference 

Total Installed Cost Inputs 

Baseline Manufacturer 

Cost 1.26 MEF/9.50 WF = $359.06 Single-Point Value 8.2.1.6 

Standard-Level 

Manufacturer Cost 

Increase 

1.42 MEF/9.50 WF = $74.73 

1.60 MEF/8.50 WF = $316.35 

1.72 MEF/8.00 WF = $316.35 

1.80 MEF/7.50 WF = $316.35 

2.00 MEF/5.50 WF = $316.35 

2.20 MEF/5.10 WF = $316.35 

Single-Point Value 8.2.1.6 

Manufacturer Markup 1.26 Single-Point Value 7.2 

Distributor Markup Baseline = 1.43 

Incremental = 1.18 Single-Point Value 7.4 

Sales Tax 1.0684 Single-Point Value 7.5 

Installation Cost $174 Single-Point Value 8.2.1.6 

Operating Cost Inputs 

Usage Multi-Family = 3.4 cycles/day 

Laundromat = 6 cycles/day 

Uniform distribution: 

Multi-Family = 1.5 to 6.4 cyc/day 

Laundromat = 3 to 8 cyc/day 

6.5.2 

Baseline use**: 

Annual Energy Use* Multi-Family = 2769 kWh Variability based on usage 6.5.2 

Laundromat = 4866 kWh 

Annual Water Use 

Baseline use**: 

Multi-Family = 33.1 103

 gallon 

Laundromat = 58.3 103

 gallon 

Variability based on usage 6.5.2 

Energy Prices Elec = 8.7 ¢/kWh 

Gas = 11.25 $/MMBtu Single-Point Value 8.2.2.2 

Water Prices 2.21 $/103

 gallon Singe-Point Value 8.2.2.2 

Repair and Maintenance 

Costs No cost increase with efficiency No cost increase with efficiency 8.2.2.4 

Lifetime Multi-Family = 11.25 years 

Laundromat = 7.125 years Uniform distribution 8.2.3.5 

Discount Rate 5.7% Custom distribution 8.2.4 

Energy Price Trend AEO 2006 Reference Case Two sensitivities: 

High & Low Growth Cases 8.2.2.3 

Water Price Trend Bureau of Labor Statistics: 

Water and sewerage CPI Single forecast 8.2.2.3 

* Annual use based on electric water heating and electric clothes drying. 

** Annual use provided for baseline product only. Annual use decreases with increased product efficiency. 

8-12 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
8.2 LIFE-CYCLE COST INPUTS 

Life-cycle cost is the total customer expense over the life of an appliance, including 

purchase expense and operating costs (including energy expenditures). DOE discounts future 

operating costs to the time of purchase, and sums them over the lifetime of the equipment. DOE 

defines LCC by the following equation: 

N 

LCC = IC +∑ OCt 

t (1 + r )

where: 

t =1 

LCC = Life-cycle cost in dollars, 

IC = Total installed cost in dollars, 

∑ = Sum over the lifetime, from year 1 to year N, 

N = Lifetime of appliance in years, 

OC = Operating cost in dollars, 

r = Discount rate, and 

t = Year for which operating cost is being determined. 

Because DOE gathered most of its data for the LCC and PBP analysis in 2006, DOE expresses 

dollar values in 2006$. 

The following sections discuss total installed cost, operating cost, lifetime, and discount 

rate. 

8.2.1 Total Installed Cost Inputs 

DOE defines the total installed cost using the following equation: 

IC = EQP + INST 

where: 

EQP = Equipment price (i.e., customer price for the equipment only), expressed in 

dollars, and 

INST = Installation cost or the customer price to install equipment (i.e., the cost for 

labor and materials), also in dollars. 

The equipment price is based on how the consumer purchases the equipment. As 

discussed in Chapter 7, Markups for Equipment Price Determination, DOE defined markups and 

sales taxes for converting manufacturing costs into consumer equipment prices. 

Table 8.2.1 summarizes the inputs for the determination of total installed cost. 

8-13 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.1 Inputs for Total Installed Cost 

Baseline Manufacturer Cost 

Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost 

Manufacturer Markup 

Retailer or Distributor Markup 

Sales Tax 

Installation Cost 

The baseline manufacturer cost is the cost incurred by the manufacturer to produce 

equipment meeting existing minimum efficiency standards. Standard-level manufacturer cost 

increases are the change in manufacturer cost associated with producing equipment at a standard 

level. Markups and sales tax convert the manufacturer cost to a consumer equipment price. The 

installation cost is the cost to the consumer of installing the equipment and represents all costs 

required to install the equipment other than the marked-up consumer equipment price. The 

installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts. Thus, the 

total installed cost equals the consumer equipment price plus the installation cost. DOE 

calculated the total installed cost for baseline products based on the following equation: 

IC BASE = EQPBASE + INSTBASE 

= COSTMFG × MU OVERALL BASE _ + INSTBASE 

where: 

ICBASE = Baseline total installed cost, 

EQPBASE = Consumer equipment price for baseline models, 

INSTBASE = Baseline installation cost, 

COSTMFG = Manufacturer cost for baseline models, and 

MUOVERALL_BASE = Baseline overall markup (product of manufacturer markup, baseline 

retailer or distributor markup, and sales tax). 

DOE calculated the total installed cost for standard-level products based on the following 

equation: 

IC STD = EQP STD + INSTSTD

= (EQP + ∆EQP )+ (INST + ∆INSTSTD ) BASE STD BASE 

= (EQP + INSTBASE )+ (∆EQP + ∆INSTSTD ) BASE STD 

= ICBASE + (∆COSTMFG × MU OVERALL INCR _ + ∆INSTSTD ) 

where: 

8-14 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
ICSTD = Standard-level total installed cost, 

EQPSTD = Consumer equipment price for standard-level models, 

INSTSTD = Standard-level installation cost, 

EQPBASE = Consumer equipment price for baseline models, 

∆EQPSTD = Change in equipment price for standard-level models, 

INSTBASE = Baseline installation cost, 

∆INSTSTD = Change in installation cost for standard-level models, 

ICBASE = Baseline total installed cost, 

∆COSTMFG = Change in manufacturer cost for standard-level models, and 

MUOVERALL_INCR = Incremental overall markup (product of manufacturer markup, 

incremental retailer or distributor markup, and sales tax). 

The remainder of this section provides information about each of the above input 

variables that DOE used to calculate the total installed cost for cooking products, dishwashers, 

dehumidifiers, and commercial clothes washers. 

8.2.1.1 Dishwashers 

Baseline Manufacturer Cost 

DOE used data from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers’ (AHAM) 2005 

Fact Book to develop the baseline manufacturer costs for dishwashers.2 According to the 

AHAM 2005 Fact Book, in the year 2005, total dishwasher sales equaled $2,106,245 million 

while total industry shipments of built-in dishwashers equaled 7,294 million. DOE divided total 

sales by total shipments to arrive at an average manufacturer price of $288.76. Based on a 

manufacturer markup of 1.26, as determined in section 7.2 of Chapter 7, Markups for Equipment 

Price Determination, DOE arrived at a baseline manufacturer cost of $229.17 for the standardsized dishwasher product class. Table 8.2.2 presents the baseline manufacturer cost as well as 

the associated baseline energy factor. 

Table 8.2.2 Dishwashers: Baseline Manufacturer Costs 

Product Class (cycles/kWh) 

Standard 0.46 

Baseline Energy Factor Baseline Manufacturer Cost 

(2006$) 

$229.17 

Source: AHAM 2005 Fact Book. 

Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases 

DOE used a combination of cost data submitted by AHAM and a reverse engineering 

analysis to develop dishwasher manufacturer cost increases associated with increases in product 

standard levels. Refer to Chapter 5, Engineering Analysis, for details. DOE developed 

manufacturer cost increases for only the standard-sized dishwasher product class. Table 8.2.3 

presents the standard-level manufacturer cost increases as well as their associated energy factors. 

8-15 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.3 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases 

Level 

Energy Factor 

(cycle/kWh) 

Standard-Level 

Manufacturer Cost Increase (2006$) 

Baseline 0.46 -

1 0.58 $4.01 

2 0.62 $7.38 

3 0.65 $14.00 

4 0.68 $30.35 

5 0.72 $71.38 

6 0.80 $129.28 

7 1.11 $180.66 

Overall Markup 

The overall markup is the value determined by multiplying the manufacturer and retailer 

markups and the sales tax together to arrive at a single markup value. Table 8.2.4 shows the 

overall baseline and incremental markups for dishwashers. Refer to Chapter 7, Markups for 

Equipment Price Determination, for details. 

Table 8.2.4 Dishwashers: Overall Markups 

Markup Baseline Incremental 

Manufacturer 1.26 

Retailer 1.45 1.15 

Sales Tax 1.0683 

Overall 1.95 1.55 

Installation Cost 

DOE derived baseline installation costs for dishwashers from data in the RS Means 

Plumbing Cost Data, 2005.

3

 This book provides estimates on the labor required to install 

residential dishwashers. Table 8.2.5 summarizes the nationally representative average costs 

associated with the installation of a four-or-more-cycle dishwasher as presented in RS Means 

Plumbing Cost Data. Table 8.2.5 provides both bare costs (i.e., costs before O&P) and 

installation costs including O&P. DOE used the consumer price index (CPI) for all urban 

consumers to convert the costs from 2005$ to 2006$.4 DOE determined that installation costs 

would not be impacted with increased standard levels. 

8-16 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.5 Dishwashers: Baseline Installation Costs 

Bare Costs (2005$) Including Overhead & Profit (2005$) 

Installation Type Material Labor Total Total Material* Labor** 

Average $350 $163 $513 $630 $385 $245 

Average (2005$) $245 

Average (2006$)*** $252.90 

* Material costs including O&P equal bare costs plus 10% profit. 

** DOE derived labor costs including O&P by subtracting material with O&P from total with O&P. 

*** Converted to 2006$ by multiplying costs in 2005$ by the ratio of 2006 CPI (201.6) to 2005 CPI (195.3). 

Source: RS Means, Plumbing Cost Data, 2005. 

Total Installed Cost 

The total installed cost is the sum of the consumer equipment price and the installation 

cost. Refer back to section 8.2.1 to see the equations that DOE used to calculate the total 

installed cost for baseline and standard-level products. 

Table 8.2.6 presents the consumer equipment price, installation costs, and total installed 

costs for standard-sized dishwashers. Prices and costs are presented at the baseline level and 

each standard level. 

Table 8.2.6 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation 

Costs, and Total Installed Costs 

Level 

Energy 

Factor 

Equipment Price 

(2006$) 

Installation Cost 

(2006$) 

Total Installed Cost 

(2006$) 

Baseline 0.46 $447.28 $252.90 $700.18 

1 0.58 $453.49 $252.90 $706.39 

2 0.62 $458.70 $252.90 $711.61 

3 0.65 $468.95 $252.90 $721.85 

4 0.68 $494.26 $252.90 $747.16 

5 0.72 $557.77 $252.90 $810.67 

6 0.80 $647.39 $252.90 $900.29 

7 1.11 $726.92 $252.90 $979.82 

8.2.1.2 Dehumidifiers 

Baseline Manufacturer Price 

DOE used data from AHAM’s 2005 Fact Book to develop the baseline manufacturer 

costs for dehumidifiers.2

 According to the AHAM 2005 Fact Book, in the year 2005, total 

dehumidifier sales equaled $199,130 million while total industry shipments equaled 1,957 

million. DOE divided total sales by total shipments to arrive at an average manufacturer price of 

$101.75. Based on a manufacturer markup of 1.26, as determined in section 7.2 of Chapter 7, 

Markups for Equipment Price Determination, DOE arrived at a baseline manufacturer cost of 

8-17 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
$80.75 for an averaged sized dehumidifier. DOE considered the average baseline manufacturer 

cost of $80.75 to be representative of the 35.01-45.00 pints/day product class. Based on limited 

retail price data, DOE determined that retail price increases with dehumidifier capacity. DOE 

multiplied the average baseline manufacturer cost of $80.75 by scalars of 0.87 and 1.2 to arrive 

at baseline manufacturer costs of $70.26 and $96.90 for the 0-35.00 pints/day and 54.01-74.99 

pints/day product classes, respectively. Note that the 0-35.00 pints/day product class represents 

two classes: 0-25.00 pints/day and 25.01-35.00 pints/day. Table 8.2.7 presents the baseline 

manufacturer cost as well as the associated baseline energy factor. 

Table 8.2.7 Dehumidifiers: Baseline Manufacturer Costs 

Product Class 

(pints/day) 

Baseline Energy Factor 

(cycles/kWh) 

Baseline Manufacturer Cost 

(2006$) 

0-35.00 1.20 $70.26 

35.01-45.00 1.30 $80.75* 

54.01-74.99 1.50 $96.90 

*Source: AHAM 2005 Fact Book. 

Standard-Level Manufacturer Price Increases 

DOE used cost data submitted by AHAM to develop dehumidifier manufacturer cost 

increases associated with increases in product standard levels.a Refer to Chapter 5, Engineering 

Analysis, for details. DOE developed manufacturer cost increases for the following product 

classes: 0-35.00 pints/day, 35.01-45.00 pints/day, and 54.01-74.99 pints/day. Note that the 0-

35.00 pints/day product class represents two classes: 0-25.00 pints/day and 25.01-35.00 

pints/day. Tables 8.2.8 through 8.2.10 present the standard-level manufacturer cost increases for 

these three product classes. Also included in the tables below are the associated baseline energy 

factors. 

Table 8.2.8 Dehumidifiers, 0-35.00 pints/day: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost 

Increases 

Level 

Energy Factor 

(cycle/kWh) 

Standard-Level 

Manufacturer Cost Increase (2006$) 

Baseline 1.20 -

1 1.25 $3.12 

2 1.30 $4.92 

3 1.35 $10.41 

4 1.40 $18.80 

5 1.45 $25.61 

a

 AHAM did not provide data for efficiency level 5 for dehumidifiers, 35.01-45.00 pints/day. DOE derived the cost 

for efficiency level 5 by extrapolating off the linear trend from the previous four efficiency levels. 

8-18 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.9 Dehumidifiers, 35.01-45.00 pints/day: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost 

Increases 

Level 

Energy Factor 

(cycle/kWh) 

Standard-Level 

Manufacturer Cost Increase (2006$) 

Baseline 1.30 -

1 1.35 $6.11 

2 1.40 $14.47 

3 1.45 $22.68 

4 1.50 $32.84 

5 1.74 $74.72 

Table 8.2.10 Dehumidifiers, 54.01-74.99 pints/day: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost 

Increases 

Level 

Energy Factor 

(cycle/kWh) 

Standard-Level 

Manufacturer Cost Increase (2006$) 

Baseline 1.50 -

1 1.55 $4.18 

2 1.60 $8.00 

3 1.65 $12.36 

4 1.70 $23.18 

5 1.80 $33.94 

Overall Markup 

The overall markup is the value determined by multiplying the manufacturer and retailer 

markups and the sales tax together to arrive at a single markup value. Table 8.2.11 shows the 

overall baseline and incremental markups for dehumidifiers. Refer to Chapter 7, Markups for 

Equipment Price Determination, for details. 

Table 8.2.11 Dehumidifiers: Overall Markups 

Markup Baseline Incremental 

Manufacturer 1.26 

Retailer 1.45 1.15 

Sales Tax 1.0653 

Overall 1.95 1.54 

Installation Cost 

Based on data in the RS Means Plumbing Cost Data, 2005, DOE determined that there 

are no installation costs for dehumidifiers.3 

8-19

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Total Installed Cost 

The total installed cost is the sum of the consumer equipment price and the installation 

cost. Refer back to section 8.2.1 to see the equations that DOE used to calculate the total 

installed cost for baseline and standard-level products. 

Tables 8.2.12, 8.2.13, and 8.2.14 present the consumer equipment price, installation 

costs, and total installed costs for 0-35.00 pints/day, 35.01-45.00 pints/day, and 54.01-74.99 

pints/day dehumidifiers, respectively. Prices and costs are presented at the baseline level and 

each standard level. For purposes of conducting the national impact analysis, DOE believes that 

the results from the product classes analyzed can be extended to the two omitted product classes. 

This approach is believed to be valid due to chassis and component similarities among the 

product classes, with primary differences due to scaling. Refer to Chapter 10, National Impact 

Analysis, for details on how DOE extended the results to the omitted product classes. 

Table 8.2.12 Dehumidifiers, 0-35.00 pints/day: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation 

Costs, and Total Installed Costs 

Level 

Energy 

Factor 

Equipment Price 

(2006$) 

Installation Cost 

(2006$) 

Total Installed 

Cost 

(2006$) 

Baseline 1.20 $136.74 $0 $136.74 

1 1.25 $141.56 $0 $141.56 

2 1.30 $144.33 $0 $144.33 

3 1.35 $152.81 $0 $152.81 

4 1.40 $165.76 $0 $165.76 

5 1.45 $176.27 $0 $176.27 

Table 8.2.13 Dehumidifiers, 35.01-45.00 pints/day: Consumer Equipment Prices, 

Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs 

Level 

Energy 

Factor 

Equipment Price 

(2006$) 

Installation Cost 

(2006$) 

Total Installed 

Cost 

(2006$) 

Baseline 1.30 $157.17 $0 $157.17 

1 1.35 $166.60 $0 $166.60 

2 1.40 $179.51 $0 $179.51 

3 1.45 $192.18 $0 $192.18 

4 1.50 $207.86 $0 $207.86 

5 1.74 $234.35 $0 $272.51 

8-20 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.14 Dehumidifiers, 54.01-74.99 pints/day: Consumer Equipment Prices, 

Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs 

Level 

Energy 

Factor 

Equipment Price 

(2006$) 

Installation Cost 

(2006$) 

Total Installed 

Cost 

(2006$) 

Baseline 1.50 $188.61 $0 $188.61 

1 1.55 $195.06 $0 $195.06 

2 1.60 $200.96 $0 $200.96 

3 1.65 $207.69 $0 $207.69 

4 1.70 $224.39 $0 $224.39 

5 1.80 $241.00 $0 $241.00 

8.2.1.3 Cooking Products – Cooktops 

Baseline Manufacturer Cost 

DOE used its 1996 Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking Products to 

develop the baseline manufacturer costs for cooktops.5 As shown in Table 8.2.15, DOE 

developed baseline manufacturer costs for the three cooktop product classes: electric coil, 

electric smooth, and gas. Also included in Table 8.2.15 are the associated baseline energy 

factors and cooking efficiencies. 

Table 8.2.15 Cooktops: Baseline Manufacturer Costs 

Product Class 

Baseline 

Energy Factor 

Baseline 

Cooking Efficiency

Baseline Manufacturer Cost 

 (1990$)* (2006$) 

Electric, Coil 0.737 73.7% $69.06 $64.72 

Electric, Smooth 0.742 74.2% $89.14 $83.54 

Gas 0.156 39.9% $89.09 $83.70 

* Source: U.S. DOE, Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking Products, 1996. 

The manufacturer cost data reported in DOE’s 1996 Technical Support Document for 

Residential Cooking Products are in 1990$. Because DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analysis 

in 2006$, it needs to convert all cost data into 2006$. The last column in Table 8.2.15 shows the 

baseline manufacturer costs in 2006$. To perform the necessary monetary conversion for 

cooking products, DOE used producer price indexes (PPIs) for household cooking appliance 

manufacturers.6

 The PPI is a family of indexes that measure changes in price for inputs into 

production processes, such as labor, raw materials, and purchased parts. Because the PPI 

measures the price change from the perspective of the manufacturer, DOE used the PPI to 

convert the manufacturer price (the manufacturer costs multiplied by the manufacturer markup) 

from 1990$ into 2006$. Specifically, DOE determined the ratio of the 2006 PPI to the 1990 PPI 

and used it as a multiplicative factor to convert the manufacturer price into 2006$. Table 8.2.16 

shows the 1990 and 2006 PPIs for electric and gas cooking appliance manufacturers. Included in 

the table is the ratio of the two PPI values. 

8-21 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.16 Cooking Products: Producer Price Indexes 

Industry: Household cooking appliance manufacturers 

Year 

Product: Electric and microwave 

household cooking units and parts 

Series Id: PCU3352213352211 

Product: Gas household units and 

related parts and accessories 

Series Id: PCU3352213352213 

1990 101.8 119.0 

2006 95.4 111.8 

Ratio 0.937 0.939 

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Household Cooking Appliance Manufacturers, 

2006. 

Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases 

DOE used its 1996 Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking Products to 

develop manufacturer cost increases associated with increases in product standard levels. Refer 

to Chapter 5, Engineering Analysis, for details. Tables 8.2.17, 8.2,18, and 8.2.19 summarize the 

standard-level manufacturer cost increases for electric coil, electric smooth, and gas cooktops, 

respectively. Also included in each of the tables are the associated baseline energy factors and 

cooking efficiencies. 

Table 8.2.17 Electric Coil Cooktops: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases 

Energy Cooking Standard-Level 

Level Factor Efficiency Manufacturer Cost Increase (2006$) 

Baseline 0.737 73.7% -

1 0.769 76.9% $2.14 

Table 8.2.18 Electric Smooth Cooktops: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases 

Energy Cooking Standard-Level 

Level Factor Efficiency Manufacturer Cost Increase (2006$) 

Baseline 0.742 74.2% -

1 0.753 75.3% $155.86 

Table 8.2.19 Gas Cooktops: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases 

Level 

Energy 

Factor 

Cooking 

Efficiency 

Standard-Level 

Manufacturer Cost Increase (2006$) 

Baseline 0.156 39.9% -

1 0.399 39.9% $11.30 

2 0.420 42.0% $30.04 

Overall Markup 

The overall markup is the value determined by multiplying the manufacturer and retailer 

markups and the sales tax together to arrive at a single markup value. In turn, DOE multiplied 

the overall markup by the baseline or standard-level manufacturer cost to arrive at the price paid 

by the consumer for the product. DOE divided the overall markup into a baseline markup (i.e., a 

8-22 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
markup used to convert the baseline manufacturer cost into a consumer price) and an incremental 

markup (i.e., a markup used to convert an incremental manufacturer cost due to a standard level 

into an incremental consumer price). Table 8.2.20 shows the overall markups for electric and 

gas cooktops. Refer to Chapter 7, Markups for Equipment Price Determination, for details. 

Table 8.2.20 Cooktops: Overall Markups 

Electric Coil and Smooth Cooktops Gas Cooktops 

Markup Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental 

Manufacturer 1.26 1.26 

Retailer 1.45 1.15 1.45 1.15 

Sales Tax 1.0670 1.0706 

Overall 1.95 1.55 1.96 1.55 

Installation Cost 

DOE derived baseline installation costs for cooktops from data in the RS Means 

Plumbing Cost Data, 2005.

3

 This reference provides estimates on the labor required to install 

residential cooking range equipment. Table 8.2.21 summarizes the nationally representative 

costs associated with the installation of a 30-inch, free-standing cooking range as presented in RS 

Means Plumbing Cost Data. DOE decided that the costs of installing a range are representative 

of the costs of installing a cooktop. Table 8.2.21 provides both bare costs (i.e., costs before 

overhead and profit (O&P)) and installation costs including O&P. RS Means provides minimum 

and maximum costs. DOE used the average of the minimum and maximum labor costs as its 

estimate of installation costs for cooktops. DOE used the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to convert 

the costs from 2005$ to 2006$.4 

Table 8.2.21 Cooking Range: Baseline Installation Costs 

Bare Costs (2005$) Including Overhead & Profit (2005$) 

Installation Type Material Labor Total Total Material* Labor** 

Minimum $241 $42.50 $283.50 $330 $265.10 $64.90 

Maximum $1475 $107 $1582 $1800 $1622.50 $177.50 

Average (2005$) $121.20 

Average (2006$)*** $125.09 

* Material costs including O&P equal bare costs plus 10% profit. 

** DOE derived labor costs including O&P by subtracting material with O&P from total with O&P. 

*** Converted to 2006$ by multiplying costs in 2005$ by the ratio of 2006 CPI (201.6) to 2005 CPI (195.3). 

Source: RS Means, Plumbing Cost Data, 2005. 

DOE based its installation costs for cooktop standard levels on a supplemental analysis to 

the 1996 Technical Support Document on Residential Cooking Products. In the supplemental 

analysis, DOE determined that only gas cooktops with electronic ignition devices would incur 

added installation costs. For gas cooktops, DOE estimated as an upper bound that 20 percent of 

households using gas cooktops that do not require electricity to operate would require the 

8-23 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
installation of an electrical outlet in the kitchen in order to bring electrical service to a gas 

cooktop that needed electricity.7

 DOE used data from the RS Means Plumbing Cost Data to 

estimate the installation cost of an electrical outlet. Table 8.2.22 provides both the bare costs and 

the total costs including O&P for the installation of three types of 15-amp receptacles. DOE 

used the average of the three total installed costs to represent the installation cost of an electrical 

outlet. DOE used the CPI to convert the costs from 2005$ to 2006$. Using an installation cost 

of $76.39 coupled with the assumption that 20 percent of households would need an electrical 

outlet, DOE estimated the average installation cost for gas cooktops requiring electricity to be 

$15.28. 

Table 8.2.22 Installation Costs for an Electrical Outlet 

Indiv. 

Line # Description Crew 

Daily 

Output 

PersonHours Unit 

2005 Bare Costs Total 

incl. 

Mat. Labor Equip. Total O&P

4015 Type NM cable 1 Elect 14.55 0.550 Ea. $6.45 $22.50 $0 $28.95 $40.50 

4020 Type MC cable 1 Elect 12.31 0.650 Ea. $19.00 $26.50 $0 $45.50 $60.50 

4030 EMT & wire 1 Elect 5.33 1.501 Ea. $27.00 $61.00 $0 $88.00 $121.00 

Average (2005$) $74.00 

Average (2006$)* $76.39 

* Converted to 2006$ by multiplying costs in 2005$ by the ratio of 2006 CPI (201.6) to 2005 CPI (195.3). 

Source: RS Means, Plumbing Cost Data, 2005. 

Total Installed Cost 

The total installed cost is the sum of the consumer equipment price and the installation 

cost. Refer back to section 8.2.1 to see the equations DOE used to calculate the total installed 

cost for baseline and standard-level products. 

Tables 8.2.23, 8.2.24, and 8.2.25 present the consumer equipment prices, installation 

costs, and total installed costs for the electric coil, electric smooth, and gas cooktop product 

classes, respectively. Prices and costs are presented at the baseline level and each standard level. 

Table 8.2.23 Electric Coil Cooktops: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and 

Total Installed Costs 

Level 

Energy 

Factor 

Equipment Price 

(2006$) 

Installation Cost 

(2006$) 

Total Installed 

Cost 

(2006$) 

Baseline 0.737 $126.16 $125.09 $251.25 

1 0.769 $129.47 $125.09 $254.56 

8-24 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.24 Electric Smooth Cooktops: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, 

and Total Installed Costs 

Level 

Energy 

Factor 

Equipment Price 

(2006$) 

Installation Cost 

(2006$) 

Total Installed 

Cost 

(2006$) 

Baseline 0.742 $162.85 $125.09 $287.94 

1 0.753 $403.33 $125.09 $528.43 

Table 8.2.25 Gas Cooktops: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and Total 

Installed Costs 

Level 

Energy 

Factor 

Equipment Price 

(2006$) 

Installation Cost 

(2006$) 

Total Installed 

Cost 

(2006$) 

Baseline 0.156 $163.71 $125.09 $288.80 

1 0.399 $181.28 $140.37 $321.65 

2 0.420 $210.43 $140.37 $350.80 

8.2.1.4 Cooking Products – Ovens 

Baseline Manufacturer Cost 

DOE used its 1996 Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking Products to 

develop the baseline manufacturer costs for ovens.5 As shown in Table 8.2.26, DOE developed 

baseline manufacturer costs for the four oven product classes: electric standard (non-selfcleaning), electric self-cleaning, gas standard, and gas self-cleaning. Also included in Table 

8.2.26 are the associated baseline energy factors and cooking efficiencies. 

Table 8.2.26 Ovens: Baseline Manufacturer Costs 

Product Class 

Baseline 

Energy Factor 

Baseline 

Cooking Efficiency

Baseline Manufacturer Cost 

 (1990$)* (2006$) 

Electric, Standard 0.1066 12.2% $146.17 $136.98 

Electric, Self-Cleaning 0.1099 13.8% $185.15 $173.51 

Gas, Standard 0.0298 5.9% $154.80 $145.43 

Gas, Self-Cleaning 0.0540 7.1% $220.26 $206.93 

*Source: U.S. DOE, Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking Products, 1996. 

The manufacturer cost data reported in DOE’s 1996 Technical Support Document for 

Residential Cooking Products are in 1990$. Because DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analysis 

in 2006$, it needs to convert all cost data into 2006$. The last column in Table 8.2.26 shows the 

baseline manufacturer costs in 2006$. To perform the necessary monetary conversion for 

cooking products, DOE used PPIs for household cooking appliance manufacturers.6 Refer back 

to Table 8.2.16 to review the PPIs that DOE used to perform the conversions. 

8-25 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases 

DOE developed manufacturer cost increases associated with increases in product 

standard levels through the use of its 1996 Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking 

Products. Refer to Chapter 5, Engineering Analysis, for details. Tables 8.2.27 through 8.2.30 

summarize the standard-level manufacturer cost increases for electric standard, electric selfcleaning, gas standard, and gas self-cleaning ovens, respectively. Also included in each of the 

tables are the associated baseline energy factors and cooking efficiencies. 

Table 8.2.27 Electric Standard Ovens: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases 

Level 

Energy 

Factor 

Cooking 

Efficiency 

Standard-Level 

Manufacturer Cost Increase (2006$) 

Baseline 0.1066 12.2% -

1 0.1113 12.8% $1.53 

2 0.1163 13.4% $4.54 

3 0.1181 13.7% $8.01 

4 0.1206 14.0% $45.20 

5 0.1209 14.1% $48.54 

Table 8.2.28 Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases 

Level 

Energy 

Factor 

Cooking 

Efficiency 

Standard-Level 

Manufacturer Cost Increase (2006$) 

Baseline 0.1099 13.8% -

1 0.1102 13.8% $4.10 

2 0.1123 14.2% $41.30 

Table 8.2.29 Gas Standard Ovens: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases 

Level 

Energy 

Factor 

Cooking 

Efficiency 

Standard-Level 

Manufacturer Cost Increase (2006$) 

Baseline 0.0298 5.9% -

1* 0.0536 5.8% $11.30 

2 0.0566 6.1% $14.65 

3 0.0572 6.2% $15.67 

4 0.0593 6.5% $36.41 

5 0.0596 6.5% $37.93 

6 0.0600 6.6% $41.33 

1a* 0.0583 5.8% $14.06 

* Levels 1 and 1a correspond to designs that are utilized for the same purpose—eliminate the need for a standing 

pilot—but the technologies for each design are different. Level 1 is a hot surface ignition device while level 1a 

is a spark ignition device. 

8-26 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.30 Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases 

Level 

Energy 

Factor 

Cooking 

Efficiency 

Standard-Level 

Manufacturer Cost Increase (2006$) 

Baseline 0.0540 7.1% -

1 0.0625 8.8% $10.32 

2 0.0627 8.8% $14.41 

3 0.0632 8.9% $15.55 

Overall Markup 

As described earlier for cooktops, the overall markup is the value determined by 

multiplying the manufacturer and retailer markups and the sales tax together to arrive at a single 

markup value. Table 8.2.31 shows the overall baseline and incremental markups for electric and 

gas ovens. Refer to Chapter 7, Markups for Equipment Price Determination, for details. 

Table 8.2.31 Ovens: Overall Markups 

Electric Ovens Gas Ovens 

Standard Self-Clean Standard Self-Clean 

Markup Baseline Incr. Baseline Incr. Baseline Incr. Baseline Incr. 

Manufacturer 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 

Retailer 1.45 1.15 1.45 1.15 1.45 1.15 1.45 1.15 

Sales Tax 1.0674 1.0664 1.0707 1.0698 

Overall 1.95 1.55 1.95 1.55 1.96 1.55 1.95 1.55 

Installation Cost 

Using the same methodology and data as described earlier for cooktops, DOE derived 

baseline installation costs for ovens based on data in the RS Means Plumbing Cost Data, 2005. 

Refer back to Table 8.2.21 to review the installation costs DOE used for cooking ranges. DOE 

used the cooking range installation cost data to estimate its installation costs for ovens. 

As it did for cooktops, DOE based its installation costs for oven standard levels on a 

supplemental analysis to the 1996 Technical Support Document on Residential Cooking 

Products. In the supplemental analysis, DOE determined that only gas ovens with electric or 

electronic ignition devices would incur added installation costs. DOE used the same 

methodology and data as described earlier for gas cooktops to estimate the increased installation 

costs for gas ovens. The resulting increased installation costs that DOE determined are for gas 

ovens that do not require electricity to operate but would require the installation of an electrical 

outlet in the kitchen in order to bring electrical service to a gas oven that needed electricity. 

Refer back to Table 8.2.22 to review the added installation cost of providing electrical service to 

gas ovens. 

8-27 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Total Installed Cost 

The total installed cost is the sum of the consumer equipment price and the installation 

cost. Refer back to section 8.2.1 to review the equations that DOE used to calculate the total 

installed cost for baseline and standard-level products. 

Tables 8.2.32 through 8.2.35 present the consumer equipment price, installation costs, 

and total installed costs for the electric standard, electric self-cleaning, gas standard, and gas selfcleaning oven product classes. Prices and costs are presented at the baseline level and each 

standard level. 

Table 8.2.32 Electric Standard Ovens: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, 

and Total Installed Costs 

Level 

Energy 

Factor 

Equipment Price 

(2006$) 

Installation Cost 

(2006$) 

Total Installed 

Cost 

(2006$) 

Baseline 0.1066 $267.14 $125.09 $392.23 

1 0.1113 $269.50 $125.09 $394.59 

2 0.1163 $274.15 $125.09 $399.24 

3 0.1181 $279.50 $125.09 $404.59 

4 0.1206 $336.91 $125.09 $462.00 

5 0.1209 $342.06 $125.09 $467.15 

Table 8.2.33 Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation 

Costs, and Total Installed Costs 

Level 

Energy 

Factor 

Equipment Price 

(2006$) 

Installation Cost 

(2006$) 

Total Installed 

Cost 

(2006$) 

Baseline 0.1099 $338.06 $125.09 $463.15 

1 0.1102 $344.38 $125.09 $469.48 

2 0.1123 $401.74 $125.09 $526.83 

8-28 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.34 Gas Standard Ovens: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and 

Total Installed Costs 

Level 

Energy 

Factor 

Equipment Price 

(2006$) 

Installation Cost 

(2006$) 

Total Installed 

Cost 

(2006$) 

Baseline 0.0298 $283.79 $125.09 $408.88 

1* 0.0536 $301.37 $140.37 $441.73 

2 0.0566 $306.58 $140.37 $446.95 

3 0.0572 $308.16 $140.37 $448.53 

4 0.0593 $340.43 $140.37 $480.80 

5 0.0596 $342.79 $140.37 $483.16 

6 0.0600 $348.08 $140.37 $488.45 

1a* 0.0583 $305.65 $140.37 $446.02 

* Levels 1 and 1a correspond to designs that are utilized for the same purpose—eliminate the need for a standing 

pilot—but the technologies for each design are different. Level 1 is a hot surface ignition device while level 1a 

is a spark ignition device. 

Table 8.2.35 Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, 

and Total Installed Costs 

Level 

Energy 

Factor 

Equipment Price 

(2006$) 

Installation Cost 

(2006$) 

Total Installed 

Cost 

(2006$) 

Baseline 0.0540 $403.42 $125.09 $528.51 

1 0.0625 $419.45 $125.09 $544.55 

2 0.0627 $425.82 $125.09 $550.91 

3 0.0632 $427.59 $125.09 $552.69 

8.2.1.5 Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens 

Baseline Manufacturer Cost 

DOE used its 1996 Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking Products to 

develop the baseline manufacturer costs for microwave ovens.5 Table 8.2.36 provides this 

baseline manufacturer cost for microwave ovens. Also included in Table 8.2.36 is the associated 

baseline energy factor and cooking efficiency. 

Table 8.2.36 Microwave Ovens: Baseline Manufacturer Costs 

Product Class 

Baseline 

Energy Factor 

Baseline 

Cooking Efficiency

Baseline Manufacturer Cost 

 (1990$)* (2006$) 

Microwave Ovens 0.557 55.7% $120.00 $112.46 

* Source: U.S. DOE, Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking Products, 1996. Table 1.17. 

8-29 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
The manufacturer cost data reported in DOE’s 1996 Technical Support Document for 

Residential Cooking Products are in 1990$. Because DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analysis 

in 2006$, it needs to convert all cost data into 2006$. The last column in Table 8.2.36 shows the 

baseline manufacturer costs in 2006$. To perform the necessary monetary conversion for 

cooking products, DOE used PPIs for household cooking appliance manufacturers.6 Refer back 

to Table 8.2.16 to review the PPIs that DOE used to perform the conversions. 

Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases 

DOE developed manufacturer cost increases associated with increases in product 

standard levels through the use of its 1996 Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking 

Products. Refer to Chapter 5, Engineering Analysis, for details. Table 8.2.37 summarizes the 

standard-level manufacturer cost increases for microwave ovens. Also included in each of the 

tables are the associated energy factors and cooking efficiencies. 

Table 8.2.37 Microwave Ovens: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases 

Level 

Energy 

Factor 

Cooking 

Efficiency 

Standard-Level 

Manufacturer Cost Increase (2006$) 

Baseline 0.557 55.7% -

1 0.586 58.6% $8.15 

2 0.588 58.8% $16.86 

3 0.597 59.7% $30.55 

4 0.602 60.2% $47.99 

Overall Markup 

As described earlier for cooktops, the overall markup is the value determined by 

multiplying the manufacturer and retailer markups and the sales tax together to arrive at a single 

markup value. Table 8.2.38 shows the overall baseline and incremental markups for microwave 

ovens. Refer to Chapter 7, Markups for Equipment Price Determination, for details. 

Table 8.2.38 Microwave Ovens: Overall Markups 

Markup Baseline Incremental 

Manufacturer 1.26 

Retailer 1.45 1.15 

Sales Tax 1.0683 

Overall 1.95 1.55 

As described earlier for cooktops, the manufacturer cost data reported in DOE’s 1996 

Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking Products are in 1990$. Because DOE 

conducted the LCC and PBP analysis in 2006$, it needs to covert all cost data into 2006$. To 

perform the necessary monetary conversion for cooking products, DOE used PPIs that are 

applicable to household cooking appliance manufacturers. Refer back to Table 8.2.20 to review 

the 1990 and 2006 PPIs for electric cooking appliance manufacturers that DOE used to convert 

manufacturer microwave oven prices from 1990$ to 2006$. 

8-30 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Installation Cost 

Based on its 1996 Technical Support Document on Residential Cooking Products, DOE 

did not allocate any installation costs for baseline and standard-level microwave ovens. 

Total Installed Cost 

The total installed cost is the sum of the consumer equipment price and the installation 

cost. Refer back to section 8.2.1 to see the equations that DOE used to calculate the total 

installed cost for baseline and standard-level products. 

Table 8.2.39 presents the consumer equipment prices, installation costs, and total 

installed costs for microwave ovens. Prices and costs are presented at the baseline level and each 

standard level. 

Table 8.2.39 Microwave Ovens: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and 

Total Installed Costs 

Level 

Energy 

Factor 

Equipment Price 

(2006$) 

Installation Cost 

(2006$) 

Total Installed 

Cost 

(2006$) 

Baseline 0.557 $219.49 $0 $219.49 

1 0.586 $232.08 $0 $232.08 

2 0.588 $245.52 $0 $245.52 

3 0.597 $266.67 $0 $266.67 

4 0.602 $293.63 $0 $293.63 

8.2.1.6 Commercial Clothes Washers 

Baseline Manufacturer Cost 

DOE used residential clothes washer data from AHAM’s 2005 Fact Book to develop the 

baseline manufacturer costs for commercial clothes washers.2 According to the AHAM 2005 

Fact Book, in the year 2005, total dehumidifier sales equaled $3,373,042 million while total 

industry shipments equaled 9,394 million. DOE divided total sales by total shipments to arrive 

at an average manufacturer price of $359.06. Based on a manufacturer markup of 1.26, as 

determined in section 7.2 of Chapter 7, Markups for Equipment Price Determination, DOE 

arrived at a baseline manufacturer cost of $284.97. Table 8.2.40 presents the baseline 

manufacturer cost as well as the associated baseline modified energy factor and water factor. 

Table 8.2.40 Commercial Clothes Washers: Baseline Manufacturer Costs 

Product Class 

Baseline Modified 

Energy Factor 

(cu.ft./kWh/cyc) 

Baseline 

Water Factor 

(gal/cu.ft.) 

Baseline Manufacturer 

Cost 

Clothes Washers 1.26 9.50 

(2006$) 

$284.97 

Source: AHAM 2005 Fact Book. 

8-31 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases 

DOE used a combination of cost data submitted by AHAM and a reverse engineering 

analysis to develop commercial clothes washer manufacturer cost increases associated with 

increases in product standard levels. Refer to Chapter 5, Engineering Analysis, for details. 

Table 8.2.41 presents the standard-level manufacturer cost increases as well as the associated 

modified energy factors and water factors. 

Table 8.2.41 Commercial Clothes Washers: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases 

Level 

Modified 

Energy Factor 

(cu.ft./kWh/cyc) 

Water 

Factor 

(gal/cu.ft.) 

Standard-Level 

Manufacturer Cost Increase 

(2006$) 

Baseline 1.26 9.50 -

1 1.42 9.50 $74.73 

2 1.60 8.50 $316.35 

3 1.72 8.00 $316.35 

4 1.80 7.50 $316.35 

5 2.00 5.50 $316.35 

6 2.20 5.10 $316.35 

Overall Markup 

The overall markup is the value determined by multiplying the manufacturer and retailer 

markups and the sales tax together to arrive at a single markup value. Table 8.2.42 shows the 

overall baseline and incremental markups for commercial clothes washers. Refer to Chapter 7, 

Markups for Equipment Price Determination, for details. 

Table 8.2.42 Commercial Clothes Washers: Overall Markups 

Markup Baseline Incremental 

Manufacturer 1.26 

Distributor 1.43 1.18 

Sales Tax 1.0684 

Overall 1.93 1.59 

Installation Cost 

DOE derived baseline installation costs for commercial clothes washers from data in the 

RS Means Plumbing Cost Data, 2005.

3

 This book provides estimates on the labor required to 

install commercial clothes washers. Table 8.2.43 summarizes the nationally representative 

average costs associated with the installation of a four-cycle, coin operating, commercial clothes 

washer as presented in RS Means Plumbing Cost Data. Table 8.2.43 provides both bare costs 

(i.e., costs before O&P) and installation costs including O&P. DOE used Gross domestic 

product (GDP) price deflators to convert the costs from 2005$ to 2006$.8 DOE determined that 

installation costs would not be impacted with increased standard levels. 

8-32 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.43 Commercial Clothes Washers: Baseline Installation Costs 

Bare Costs (2005$) Including Overhead & Profit (2005$) 

Installation Type Material Labor Total Total Material* Labor** 

Average $1,050 $109 $1,159 $1,325 $1,155 $170 

Average (2005$) $170 

Average (2006$)*** $175.48 

* Material costs including O&P equal bare costs plus 10% profit. 

** DOE derived labor cost including O&P by subtracting material with O&P from total with O&P. 

*** Converted to 2006$ by multiplying costs in 2005$ by the ratio of 2006 GDP (1.1475) to 2005 GDP (1.1193). 

Source: RS Means, Plumbing Cost Data, 2005. 

Total Installed Cost 

The total installed cost is the sum of the consumer equipment price and the installation 

cost. Refer back to section 8.2.1 to see the equations that DOE used to calculate the total 

installed cost for baseline and standard-level products. 

Table 8.2.44 presents the consumer equipment price, installation costs, and total installed 

costs for standard-sized dishwashers. Prices and costs are presented at the baseline level and 

each standard level. 

Table 8.2.44 Commercial Clothes Washers: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation 

Costs, and Total Installed Costs 

Level 

Modified 

Energy Factor 

(cu.ft./kWh/cyc) 

Water 

Factor 

(gal/cu.ft.) 

Equipment 

Price 

(2006$) 

Installation 

Cost 

2006$) 

Total Installed 

Cost 

(2006$) 

Baseline 1.26 9.50 $548.64 $174.28 $722.92 

1 1.42 9.50 $667.35 $174.28 $841.63 

2 1.60 8.50 $1,051.17 $174.28 $1,225.45 

3 1.72 8.00 $1,051.17 $174.28 $1,225.45 

4 1.80 7.50 $1,051.17 $174.28 $1,225.45 

5 2.00 5.50 $1,051.17 $174.28 $1,225.45 

6 2.20 5.10 $1,051.17 $174.28 $1,225.45 

8.2.2 Operating Cost Inputs 

DOE defines the operating cost by the following equation: 

OC = EC + WC + RC + MC 

where: 

EC = Energy expenditure associated with operating the equipment, 

8-33 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
WC = For dishwashers and commercial clothes washers, the water expenditure 

associated with operating the equipment, 

RC = Repair cost associated with component failure, and 

MC = Service cost for maintaining equipment operation. 

Table 8.2.45 shows the inputs for determining the operating costs. The inputs listed in 

Table 8.2.45 are also necessary for determining lifetime operating expenses, which include the 

energy price trends (and water price trends), product lifetime, discount rate, and effective date of 

the standard. 

Table 8.2.45 Inputs for Operating Cost 

Annual Energy (and Water) Consumption 

Energy and Water Prices 

Repair and Maintenance Costs 

Energy and Water Price Trends 

Product Lifetime 

Discount Rate 

Effective Date of Standard 

The annual energy consumption is the site energy use associated with operating the 

equipment. The annual water consumption, which is applicable to dishwashers and commercial 

clothes washers, is the site water use associated with operating the equipment. The annual 

energy (and water) consumption vary with the product efficiency. That is, the energy and water 

consumption associated with standard-level equipment (i.e., equipment with efficiencies greater 

than baseline equipment) are less than the consumptions associated with baseline equipment. 

Energy and water prices are the prices paid by consumers for energy (i.e., electricity, gas, or oil) 

and water. Multiplying the annual energy and water consumption by the energy and water prices 

yields the annual energy cost and water cost, respectively. Repair costs are associated with 

repairing or replacing components that have failed. Maintenance costs are associated with 

maintaining the operation of the equipment. DOE used energy and water price trends to forecast 

energy and water prices into the future and, along with the product lifetime and discount rate, to 

establish the lifetime energy and water costs. The product lifetime is the age at which the 

equipment is retired from service. The discount rate is the rate at which DOE discounted future 

expenditures to establish their present value. DOE calculated the operating cost for baseline 

products based on the following equation: 

OC BASE = ECBASE + WCBASE + RCBASE + MCBASE 

= AECBASE × PRICEENERGY + AWCBASE × PRICEWATER + RCBASE + MCBASE 

where: 

8-34 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
OCBASE = Baseline operating cost, 

ECBASE = Energy expenditure associated with operating the baseline equipment, 

WCBASE = For dishwashers and commercial clothes washers, the water expenditure 

associated with operating the baseline equipment, 

RCBASE = Repair cost associated with component failure for the baseline 

equipment, 

MCBASE = Service cost for maintaining baseline equipment operation, 

AECBASE = Annual energy consumption for baseline equipment, 

PRICEENERGY = Energy price, 

AWCBASE = Annual water consumption for baseline equipment, and 

PRICEWATER = Water price. 

DOE calculated the operating cost for standard-level products based on the following equation: 

OC STD = ECSTD + WCSTD + RC STD + MCSTD 

= AECSTD × PRICEENERGY + AWCSTD × PRICEWATER + RCSTD + MCSTD 

= (AEC __ ∆AEC STD )× PRICE + (AWC __ ∆AWCSTD BASE ENERGY BASE )× PRICEWATER 

+ (RC + ∆RCSTD )+ (MC + ∆MCSTD ) BASE BASE 

where: 

OCSTD = Standard-level operating cost, 

ECSTD = Energy expenditure associated with operating standard-level equipment, 

WCSTD = For dishwashers and commercial clothes washers, the water expenditure 

associated with operating standard-level equipment, 

RCSTD = Repair cost associated with component failure for standard-level 

equipment, 

MCSTD = Service cost for maintaining standard-level equipment operation, 

AECSTD = Annual energy consumption for standard-level equipment, 

PRICEENERGY = Energy price, 

AWCSTD = Annual water consumption for standard-level equipment, 

PRICEWATER = Water price, 

∆AECSTD = Change in annual energy consumption caused by standard-level 

equipment, 

∆AWCSTD = Change in annual water consumption caused by standard-level 

equipment, 

∆RCSTD = Change in repair cost caused by standard-level equipment, and 

∆MCSTD = Change in maintenance cost caused by standard-level equipment. 

The remainder of this section provides information about each of the above input 

variables that DOE used to calculate the operating costs for cooking products, dishwashers, 

dehumidifiers, and commercial clothes washers. 

8-35 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
8.2.2.1 Annual Energy and Water Consumption 

Chapter 6, Energy and Water Use Determination, details how DOE determined the 

annual energy and water consumption for baseline and standard-level products. 

As described in Chapter 6 and the beginning of this chapter in section 8.1.1, in the case of 

cooking products and dishwashers, DOE developed a sample of individual households that use 

each of the appliances. By developing household samples, DOE was able to perform the LCC 

and PBP calculations for each household to account for the variability in both energy use and 

energy price associated with each household. DOE used EIA’s 2001 RECS to develop the 

household samples and, in turn, to establish the variability in both annual energy consumption 

and energy pricing. (DOE also established the variability of annual water use and water pricing 

for dishwashers.) Refer back to Chapter 6, sections 6.2.1.4, 6.2.2.3, and 6.3.3 to review the 

variability of annual energy consumption for cooktops and ovens, microwave ovens, and 

dishwashers, respectively. 

For dehumidifiers, DOE also used RECS to develop a household sample. However, 

RECS had the necessary data to establish only the variability in electricity pricing, not annual 

energy consumption. Because there was no means to establish the variability of annual energy 

consumption through RECS, DOE characterized the variability of dehumidifier usage based on 

several studies. In conducting the LCC and PBP analysis, DOE established the variability of 

usage based on data provided by AHAM only. Refer back to Chapter 6, section 6.4.4 to review 

how DOE characterized dehumidifier usage variability. 

For commercial clothes washers, DOE was unable to develop a consumer sample since 

neither RECS nor EIA’s CBECS provided the necessary data to develop one. As a result, DOE 

was not able to use a consumer sample to establish the variability in energy use (and water use) 

and energy pricing (and water pricing) for commercial clothes washers. Similar to 

dehumidifiers, DOE characterized the variability of commercial clothes washer usage based on 

several studies. For multi-family product applications, DOE equally weighted each study to 

establish the variability. For laundromat applications, DOE used a range of values varying from 

three to eight cycles per day. Refer back to Chapter 6, section 6.5.3 to review how DOE 

characterized commercial clothes washer usage variability. 

The tables presented below are based on the energy and water use determination analysis 

described in Chapter 6. Keep in mind that the annual energy and water consumption values in 

the tables below are averages. DOE captured the variability in energy (and water) consumption 

was captured by DOE when it conducted its LCC and PBP analysis. 

Dishwashers 

Table 8.2.46 provides the average annual energy and water consumption by efficiency 

level for standard-sized dishwashers. The table below is similar to Table 6.2.2 in section 6.2.2 

from Chapter 6 with the exception that, in Table 8.2.46, the electric, gas, and oil water-heating 

consumption takes into account the percentage of households in the U.S. that use electric, gas, 

and oil water heaters, respectively. In others words, the electric, gas, and oil water heating 

8-36 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
consumption in Table 8.2.46 is weighted by the share of households that use electric, gas, and oil 

water heaters. Based on data from the 2001 RECS, 37.2 percent of households use electric water 

heaters, 58.9 percent use gas, and 3.9 percent use oil. Note that DOE was able to establish the 

consumption of standard-sized dishwashers only. 

Table 8.2.46 Standard Dishwashers: Annual Energy and Water Use by Efficiency Level 

Energy 

Annual Energy Use Annual 

Water Heating* Machine + Drying Water

Level 

Factor Electric Gas Oil + Standby** Use 

cycle/kWh kWh/year MMBtu/year MMBtu/year kWh/year 1000 gal/year 

Baseline 0.46 109 0.79 0.05 190 1.8 

1 0.58 82 0.59 0.04 168 1.3 

2 0.62 75 0.54 0.03 163 1.2 

3 0.65 70 0.50 0.03 160 1.1 

4 0.68 66 0.47 0.03 156 1.1 

5 0.72 60 0.44 0.03 153 1.0 

6 0.80 52 0.37 0.02 146 0.8 

7 1.11 31 0.22 0.01 129 0.5 

* Electric, gas, and oil water heating based on water heater efficiencies of 100% for electric, 75% for gas, 81% for 

oil. Water heater consumption for each fuel weighted by the share of U.S. households with electric (39.2%), gas 

(58.9%), and oil (3.9%) water heaters. 

** Standby annual energy use based on an assumed dishwasher cycle of one hour. 

Standby hours = 8766 hours – 215 * 1 hour = 8551 hours. 

Dehumidifiers 

Tables 8.2.47, 8.2.48, and 8.2.49 provide the average annual energy consumption by 

efficiency level for only three of the six product classes: 25.01-35.00 pints/day, 35.01-45.00 

pints/day, and 54.01-74.99 pints/day. The annual energy consumption presented in the tables 

below is based on AHAM’s mid-estimate of operational use—1,095 hours. Refer back to section 

6.3.3 from Chapter 6 for more details on how DOE determined the annual energy and water 

consumption for dehumidifiers. Note that DOE presents the annual energy consumption of only 

the 0-35.00 pints/day, 35.01-45.00 pints/day, and 54.01-74.99 pints/day product classes, since it 

did not establish manufacturing costs for the other three product classes. 

8-37 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.47 0-35 Pints/Day Dehumidifiers: Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level 

Efficiency* Annual Energy Use** 

Level liters/kWh kWh/year 

Baseline 1.20 540 

1 1.25 518 

2 1.30 498 

3 1.35 480 

4 1.40 463 

5 1.45 447 

* Efficiency levels are representative of the 25.01-35.00 pints/day product class. 

** Capacity = 30 pints/day; Annual Usage = 1095 hours (AHAM mid-estimate). 

Table 8.2.48 35.01-45 Pints/Day Dehumidifiers: Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level 

Efficiency Annual Energy Use* 

Level liters/kWh kWh/year 

Baseline 1.30 664 

1 1.35 640 

2 1.40 617 

3 1.45 596 

4 1.50 576 

5 1.74 496 

* Capacity = 40 pints/day; Annual Usage = 1095 hours (AHAM mid-estimate). 

Table 8.2.49 54.01-74.99 Pints/Day Dehumidifiers: Annual Energy Use by Efficiency 

Level 

Efficiency Annual Energy Use* 

Level liters/kWh kWh/year 

Baseline 1.50 928 

1 1.55 898 

2 1.60 870 

3 1.65 844 

4 1.70 819 

5 1.80 774 

* Capacity = 64.5 pints/day; Annual Usage = 1095 hours (AHAM mid-estimate). 

Cooking Products – Cooktops 

Tables 8.2.50, 8.2.51, and 8.2.52 provide the average annual energy consumption by 

efficiency level for electric coil, electric smooth, and gas cooktops. Refer back to section 6.4.1.3 

from Chapter 6 for more details on how DOE determined the annual energy consumption for 

cooktops. 

8-38 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Table 8.2.50 Electric Coil Cooktops: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level 

Level Energy Factor 

Annual Energy Consumption 

kWh/year 

Baseline 0.737 128.2 

1 0.769 122.9 

Table 8.2.51 Electric Smooth Cooktops: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level 

Level Energy Factor 

Annual Energy Consumption 

kWh/year 

Baseline 0.742 128.2 

1 0.753 126.3 

Table 8.2.52 Gas Cooktops: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level 

Level 

Energy 

Factor 

Cooking 

Efficiency 

Cooking Pilot* Total 

MMBtu/year MMBtu/year MMBtu/year 

Baseline 0.156 39.9% 0.72 2.01 2.74 

1 0.399 39.9% 0.72 - 0.72 

2 0.420 42.0% 0.69 - 0.69 

* Pilot light consumption based on the use of two pilot lights that each use 115 Btu/hr. 

Cooking Products – Ovens 

Tables 8.2.53, 8.2.54, 8.2.55, and 8.2.56 provide the average annual energy consumption 

by efficiency level for electric standard, electric self-cleaning, gas standard, and gas self-cleaning 

ovens. Refer back to section 6.4.1.3 from Chapter 6 for more details on how DOE determined 

the annual energy consumption for ovens. 

Table 8.2.53 Electric Standard Ovens: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level 

Level 

Energy 

Factor 

Cooking 

Efficiency 

Cooking Clock†

 Total 

kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year 

Baseline 0.1066 12.2% 132.4 34.2 166.5 

0.1113 12.8% 125.9 34.2 160.1 

0.1163 13.4% 119.7 34.2 153.9 

0.1181 13.7% 117.6 34.2 151.8 

0.1206 14.0% 70.7 34.2 149.0 

0.1209 14.1% 70.6 34.2 148.6 

†

 Clock energy consumption based on clock power of 3.9 Watts. 

8-39 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.54 Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency 

Level 

Level 

Energy 

Factor 

Cooking 

Efficiency 

Cooking Self-Clean* Clock†

 Total 

kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year 

Baseline 0.1099 13.8% 116.6 21.1 33.3 171.0 

1 0.1102 13.8% 116.2 21.1 33.3 170.6 

2 0.1123 14.2% 113.5 21.1 33.3 167.9 

* Self-cleaning energy consumption based on 5.286 kWh/cycle and 4 self-cleaning cycles per year. 

† Clock energy consumption based on clock power of 3.8 Watts. 

Table 8.2.55 Gas Standard Ovens: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level 

Level 

Energy 

Factor 

Cooking 

Efficiency 

Cooking* Ignition** Total 

MMBtu/yr kWh/yr MMBtu/yr kWh/yr MMBtu/yr kWh/yr 

Baseline 0.0298 5.9% 0.82 - 1.01 - 1.83 0.0 

1*** 0.0536 5.8% 0.84 - - 21.1 0.84 21.1 

2 0.0566 6.1% 0.80 - - 21.1 0.80 21.1 

3 0.0572 6.2% 0.79 - - 21.1 0.79 21.1 

4 0.0593 6.5% 0.75 1.8 - 21.1 0.75 22.9 

5 0.0596 6.5% 0.75 1.8 - 21.1 0.75 22.9 

6 0.0600 6.6% 0.74 1.8 - 21.1 0.74 22.9 

1a*** 0.0583 5.8% 0.84 - - - 0.84 0.0 

* Electrical energy consumption for cooking due to forced convection fan. Measured test energy use of 15 W-hr. 

** Gas energy consumption for ignition based on use of one pilot light that uses 115 Btu/hr. 

 Electrical energy consumption due to hot surface ignition device. Measured test energy use of 176 W-hr. 

*** Levels 1 and 1a correspond to designs that are utilized for the same purpose—eliminate the need for a standing 

pilot—but the technologies for each design are different. Level 1 is a hot surface ignition device while level 1a 

is a spark ignition device. 

Table 8.2.56 Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level 

Level 

Energy 

Factor 

Cooking 

Effcy 

Cooking* Self-Clean** Ignition*** Clock†

 Total 

MMBtu/yr kWh/yr MMBtu/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr MMBtu/yr kWh/yr 

Baseline 0.0540 7.1% 0.68 - 0.17 0.7 21.1 31.5 0.86 53.3 

1 0.0625 8.8% 0.56 1.8 0.17 0.7 21.1 31.5 0.73 55.1 

2 0.0627 8.8% 0.55 1.8 0.17 0.7 21.1 31.5 0.73 55.1 

3 0.0632 8.9% 0.55 1.8 0.17 0.7 21.1 31.5 0.72 55.1 

* Electrical energy consumption for cooking due to forced convection fan. Measured test energy use of 15 W-hr. 

** Self-cleaning energy consumption based on gas use of 43,158 Btu/cycle, electrical use of 0.171 kWh/cycle, 

 and 4 self-cleaning cycles per year. 

*** Electrical energy consumption due to hot surface ignition device. Measured test energy use of 176 W-hr. 

† Clock energy consumption based on clock power of 3.6 Watts. 

8-40 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens 

Table 8.2.57 provides the average annual energy consumption by efficiency level for 

microwave ovens. Refer back to section 6.4.2.2 from Chapter 6 for more details on how DOE 

determined the annual energy consumption for microwave ovens. 

Table 8.2.57 Microwave Ovens: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level 

Level 

Energy 

Factor 

Cooking 

Efficiency 

Total 

kWh/year 

Baseline 0.557 55.7% 131.0 

1 0.586 58.6% 124.5 

2 0.588 58.8% 124.1 

3 0.597 59.7% 122.2 

4 0.602 60.2% 121.2 

Commercial Clothes Washers 

Tables 8.2.58 and 8.2.59 provide the average annual energy and water consumption by 

efficiency level for commercial clothes washers. Although commercial clothes washers are 

characterized under a single product class, DOE presents annual consumption based on two 

applications: multi-family housing and laundromats. The tables below are similar to Tables 6.5.4 

and 6.5.5 in section 6.5.2 from Chapter 6 with the exception that, in the tables below, the electric 

and gas water heating and drying consumptions take into account the percentage of buildings in 

the U.S. that use electric and gas water heaters and dryers. In others words, the electric and gas 

water heating and drying consumption in Tables 8.2.58 and 8.2.59 are weighted by the share of 

buildings that use electric and gas water heaters and dryers. Based on data from the Consortium 

for Energy Efficiency (CEE), the shares of electric and gas water heating and drying in multifamily applications are: 20 percent and 80 percent electric and gas water heating, respectively, 

and 40 percent and 60 percent electric and gas drying, respectively. Also based on CEE data, 

100 percent of laundromats use gas water heating and drying. 

8-41 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.58 Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application: Annual Energy 

and Water Use by Efficiency Level 

Level 

MEF WF 

Annual Energy Use* 

Annual 

Water Use 

Water Heating** Drying*** 

Electric Gas Electric Gas Machine

cu.ft./kWh/cyc gal/cu.ft. kWh/yr MMBtu/yr kWh/yr MMBtu/yr kWh/yr 1000 gal/year 

Baseline 1.26 9.50 204 3.71 633 3.63 166 33.1 

1 1.42 9.50 158 2.87 601 3.45 166 33.1 

2 1.60 8.50 125 2.27 566 3.24 142 29.7 

3 1.72 8.00 106 1.94 542 3.11 142 27.9 

4 1.80 7.50 96 1.75 526 3.01 142 26.2 

5 2.00 5.50 77 1.41 486 2.79 142 19.2 

6 2.20 5.10 66 1.19 446 2.56 142 17.8 

* Annual usage based on 3.4 cycles per day (1241 cycles per year). 

** Electric and gas water heating based on water heater efficiencies of 100% for electric and 75% for gas. Water 

heater consumption is weighted by the share of buildings with electric (20%) and gas (80%) water heaters. 

*** Dryer consumption is weighted by the share of buildings with electric (40%) and gas (60%) dryers. 

Table 8.2.59 Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat Application: Annual Energy 

and Water Use by Efficiency Level 

Level 

MEF WF 

Annual Energy Use* 

Annual 

Water Use 

Water Heating** Drying*** 

Electric Gas Electric Gas Machine

cu.ft./kWh/cyc gal/cu.ft. kWh/yr MMBtu/yr kWh/yr MMBtu/yr kWh/yr 1000 gal/year 

Baseline 1.26 9.50 0 8.16 0 10.63 291 58.3 

1 1.42 9.50 0 6.30 0 10.10 291 58.3 

2 1.60 8.50 0 4.99 0 9.50 250 52.1 

3 1.72 8.00 0 4.25 0 9.10 250 49.1 

4 1.80 7.50 0 3.85 0 8.83 250 46.0 

5 2.00 5.50 0 3.10 0 8.16 250 33.7 

6 2.20 5.10 0 2.62 0 7.49 250 31.3 

* Annual usage based on 6 cycles per day (2190 cycles per year). 

** Electric and gas water heating based on water heater efficiencies of 100% for electric and 75% for gas. Water 

heater consumption is weighted by the share of buildings with electric (0%) and gas (100%) water heaters. 

*** Dryer consumption is weighted by the share of buildings with electric (0%) and gas (100%) dryers. 

8.2.2.2 Energy and Water Prices 

DOE derived energy prices for 13 geographic areas in the U.S. and derived water prices 

for the four Census regions. Using these data, DOE analyzed the variability of energy and water 

8-42 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
prices at the regional level for each of the four sets of products (i.e., cooking products, 

dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and commercial clothes washers). 

For cooking products, dishwashers, and dehumidifiers, DOE used RECS to develop a 

sample of individual households that use each of the appliances. By developing household 

samples, DOE was able to perform the LCC and PBP calculations for each household to account 

for the regional variability in energy and water prices associated with each household. 

For commercial clothes washers, DOE was unable to develop a consumer sample, since 

neither RECS nor EIA’s CBECS provided the necessary data to develop one. Thus, DOE 

characterized energy and water price regional variability with probability distributions. It based 

the probability associated with each regional energy and water price on the population weight of 

each region. 

The methodology that DOE used for deriving the energy and water prices is presented 

below. Included are tables that summarize the regional energy and water prices for each product. 

Energy Prices 

DOE derived average energy prices from data from EIA. DOE calculated prices for each 

of 13 geographic areas: the nine U.S. Census divisions, with four large States (New York, 

Florida, Texas, and California) treated separately. For Census divisions containing one of these 

large States, DOE calculated the regional average values leaving out data for the large State—for 

example, the Pacific region average does not include California, and the West South Central does 

not include Texas. 

Residential Electricity Prices 

DOE estimated electricity prices for residential consumers in each of the above 

geographic areas using EIA Form 861 data.9 These data are published annually and include 

annual electricity sales in kilowatt hours (kWh), revenues from electricity sales, and number of 

consumers, for the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, for every utility serving final 

consumers. The calculation of an average residential electricity price proceeds in two steps: 

1. For each utility, estimate an average residential price by dividing the residential revenues 

by residential sales. 

2. Calculate a regional average price, weighting each utility with customers in a region by 

the number of residential consumers served in that region. 

The calculation uses the most recent available EIA data at the time the analysis was conducted, 

from 2004. Table 8.2.60 shows the results for each geographic region. 

8-43 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.60 Average Residential Electricity Prices in 2004 

Geographic Area Average Price (2004$/kWh) 

New England $0.114 

Middle Atlantic (excludes NY) $0.100 

East North Central $0.082 

West North Central $0.077 

South Atlantic (excludes FL) $0.080 

East South Central $0.071 

West South Central (excludes TX) $0.078 

Mountain $0.083 

Pacific (excludes CA) $0.081 

New York $0.150 

Florida $0.090 

Texas $0.097 

California $0.102 

Source: EIA Form 861. 

Table 8.2.61 shows the national average residential electricity prices for cooking products 

based on the relative residential consumer weight of each geographic area. Table 8.2.62 shows 

the national average residential electricity prices for dishwashers and dehumidifiers. DOE 

determined the weighting of each geographic area based on the saturation of each appliance in 

the U.S. DOE used saturation data from the 2001 RECS to determine how the national 

saturation of each cooking appliance was distributed over the 13 geographic areas. Because 

DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analysis in 2006$, it needed to convert all electricity prices 

into 2006$. To perform the necessary monetary conversion, DOE used the CPI for all urban 

consumers to convert the electricity prices from 2004$ to 2006$.4

 As will be described in the 

following section on energy and water price trends (section 8.2.2.3), DOE normalized energy 

prices to the year 2005. Therefore, to forecast energy prices for any given future year, DOE 

established energy prices for the year 2005. In Tables 8.2.61 and 8.2.62, DOE estimated the 

electricity prices for the year 2005 using data from the 2007 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO).10 

DOE multiplied the electricity price in 2004 by the ratio of the AEO-estimated residential prices 

for the years 2005 and 2004. 

8-44 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.61 Average Residential Electricity Prices for Cooking Products in 2005 

Saturations* 

Geographic Area 

Average Price 

(2006$/kWh)** 

Elec 

Cooktops 

Gas 

Cooktops 

Elec Std 

Ovens 

Elec SC 

Ovens 

Gas Std 

Ovens 

Gas SC 

Ovens 

MW 

Ovens 

New England $0.124 5.2% 4.2% 3.4% 6.7% 4.4% 4.2% 4.3% 

Middle Atlantic 

(excludes NY) $0.109 6.5% 9.0% 6.1% 7.3% 7.9% 11.9% 6.6% 

East North Central $0.089 14.4% 19.2% 13.3% 16.4% 18.1% 23.1% 16.7% 

West North Central $0.084 7.3% 5.6% 6.8% 7.5% 5.7% 6.9% 7.5% 

South Atlantic 

(excludes FL) $0.087 14.7% 10.4% 16.7% 13.4% 10.9% 9.1% 13.6% 

East South Central $0.077 8.1% 3.0% 9.5% 6.7% 3.0% 2.3% 6.7% 

West South Central 

(excludes TX) $0.085 3.5% 4.5% 3.7% 2.6% 5.5% 2.9% 4.3% 

Mountain $0.090 7.5% 4.4% 6.6% 8.2% 5.0% 3.3% 6.7% 

Pacific (excludes 

CA) $0.088 5.9% 0.6% 7.5% 4.9% 0.3% 0.5% 4.1% 

New York $0.163 3.8% 11.1% 3.0% 4.3% 10.7% 13.0% 5.6% 

Florida $0.098 8.7% 1.2% 6.3% 10.3% 1.4% 1.4% 5.9% 

Texas $0.105 7.3% 7.6% 9.0% 5.4% 7.8% 3.5% 7.2% 

California $0.111 7.0% 19.2% 8.3% 6.3% 19.2% 18.0% 10.9% 

National Average 

Price (2006$/kWh) - $0.097 $0.105 $0.095 $0.098 $0.105 $0.106 $0.098 

* Saturations based on 2001 RECS. 

** Converted to 2006$ by multiplying costs in 2005$ by the ratio of 2006 CPI (201.6) to 2005 CPI (195.3). 

Converted the price for year 2004 to the price in 2005 by multiplying the 2004 price by the ratio of the average 

AEO electricity price in 2005 (28.48 $/MMBtu) to average AEO electricity price in 2004 (27.97 $/MMBtu). 

8-45 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.62 Average Residential Electricity Prices for Dishwashers and Dehumidifiers in 

2005 

Geographic Area 

Average Price 

(2006$/kWh)** 

Saturations* 

Dishwashers Dehumidifiers 

New England $0.124 4.7% 8.3% 

Middle Atlantic (excludes NY) $0.109 6.6% 14.4% 

East North Central $0.089 14.0% 33.6% 

West North Central $0.084 7.4% 16.6% 

South Atlantic (excludes FL) $0.087 14.3% 10.2% 

East South Central $0.077 6.1% 4.7% 

West South Central (excludes TX) $0.085 4.0% 0.4% 

Mountain $0.090 7.4% 0.7% 

Pacific (excludes CA) $0.088 3.9% 0.7% 

New York $0.163 4.9% 8.0% 

Florida $0.098 6.3% 0.3% 

Texas $0.105 8.2% 1.5% 

California $0.111 12.1% 0.6% 

National Average Price (2006$/kWh) - $0.099 $0.099 

* Saturations based on 2001 RECS. 

** Converted to 2006$ by multiplying costs in 2004$ by the ratio of 2006 CPI (201.6) to 2004 CPI (188.9). 

Converted the price for year 2004 to the price in 2005 by multiplying the 2004 price by the ratio of the average 

AEO electricity price in 2005 (28.48 $/MMBtu) to average AEO electricity price in 2004 (27.97 $/MMBtu). 

Commercial Electricity Prices 

DOE also estimated electricity prices for commercial consumers using EIA’s Form 861 

data. The calculation is identical to that for residential consumers, except that DOE used 

commercial sector data. Table 8.2.63 shows the results. 

8-46 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.63 Average Commercial Electricity Prices in 2004 

Geographic Area Average Price (2004$/kWh) 

New England $0.093 

Middle Atlantic (excludes NY) $0.081 

East North Central $0.068 

West North Central $0.065 

South Atlantic (excludes FL) $0.068 

East South Central $0.071 

West South Central (excludes TX) $0.070 

Mountain $0.073 

Pacific (excludes CA) $0.079 

New York $0.095 

Florida $0.077 

Texas $0.091 

California $0.094 

Source: EIA Form 861. 

Table 8.2.64 shows the national average commercial electricity prices for commercial 

clothes washers based on the relative residential consumer weight of each geographic area. DOE 

used 2005 population estimates from the U.S. Census as a proxy to estimate how the national 

saturation of commercial clothes washers was distributed over the 13 geographic areas.11 

Because DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analysis in 2006$, it needed to convert all electricity 

prices into 2006$. To perform the necessary monetary conversion, DOE used the GDP to 

convert the electricity prices from 2004$ to 2006$.8

 DOE then estimated the electricity prices 

for the year 2005 using data from the 2007 AEO. DOE multiplied the electricity price in 2004 by 

the ratio of the AEO-estimated commercial prices for the years 2005 and 2004. 

8-47 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.64 Average Commercial Electricity Prices for Commercial Clothes Washers in 

2005 

Geographic Area 

Average Price 

(2006$/kWh)** Saturations* 

New England $0.100 4.8% 

Middle Atlantic (excludes NY) $0.088 7.1% 

East North Central $0.074 15.6% 

West North Central $0.071 6.7% 

South Atlantic (excludes FL) $0.073 13.0% 

East South Central $0.076 5.9% 

West South Central (excludes TX) $0.076 3.7% 

Mountain $0.079 6.8% 

Pacific (excludes CA) $0.085 4.0% 

New York $0.102 6.5% 

Florida $0.083 6.0% 

Texas $0.099 7.7% 

California $0.101 12.2% 

National Average Price (2006$/kWh) $0.084 -

* Saturations based on 2005 population estimates from Census. 

** Converted to 2006$ by multiplying costs in 2004$ by the ratio of 2006 GDP (1.1475) to 2004 GDP (1.0893). 

Converted the price for year 2004 to the price in 2005 by multiplying the 2004 price by the ratio of the average 

AEO electricity price in 2005 (26.07 $/MMBtu) to average AEO electricity price in 2004 (25.38 $/MMBtu). 

Residential Natural Gas Prices 

DOE obtained the data for the natural gas price calculation from the EIA publication 

Natural Gas Monthly.

12 This publication includes a compilation of monthly natural gas delivery 

volumes and average consumer prices by State, for residential, commercial, and industrial 

customers. The Department used the complete annual data for 2005 to calculate an average 

summer and winter price for each area. The Department calculated seasonal prices because, for 

some end uses, seasonal variation in energy consumption is significant. Summer is defined as 

the months May through September, with all other months defined as winter. The calculation of 

average prices proceeds in two steps: 

1. Calculate the summer and winter prices for each State using a simple average over the 

appropriate months. 

2. Calculate a regional price, weighting each State in a region by its population. 

This method differs from the method used to calculate electricity prices because EIA does not 

provide consumer- or utility-level data on gas consumption and prices. The residential price 

units in Table 8.2.65 are in dollars per thousand cubic feet ($/tcf). 

8-48 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.65 Average Residential Natural Gas Prices in 2005 

Geographic Area 

Summer Winter Annual 

2005$/tcf 2005$/tcf 2005$/tcf 

New England $16.89 $16.12 $16.44 

Middle Atlantic (excludes NY) $16.04 $13.72 $14.69 

East North Central $14.31 $12.11 $13.03 

West North Central $15.33 $12.37 $13.60 

South Atlantic (excludes FL) $19.87 $15.62 $17.39 

East South Central $16.08 $14.81 $15.34 

West South Central (excludes TX) $16.46 $13.45 $14.70 

Mountain $13.75 $11.49 $12.43 

Pacific (excludes CA) $14.79 $13.89 $14.27 

New York $17.38 $15.80 $16.46 

Florida $22.87 $21.39 $22.01 

Texas $16.15 $13.80 $14.78 

California $11.62 $12.44 $12.10 

Source: EIA Natural Gas Monthly. 

Table 8.2.66 shows the national average residential natural gas prices for gas cooking 

products and dishwashers based on the relative residential consumer weight of each geographic 

area. Note that because electric cooking products and dehumidifiers use only electricity, DOE 

did not use natural gas prices to determine operating costs for these products. As it did for 

residential electricity prices, DOE determined the weighting of each geographic area based on 

the saturation of each appliance in the U.S. using data from 2001 RECS. Because DOE 

conducted the LCC and PBP analysis in 2006$, it needed to convert all natural gas prices into 

2006$. To perform the necessary monetary conversion, DOE used the CPI for all urban 

consumers to convert the natural gas prices from 2005$ to 2006$.4 

8-49 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.66 Average Residential Natural Gas Prices for Cooking Products and 

Dishwashers in 2005 

Saturations* 

Average Price Gas Gas Std Gas SC 

Geographic Area (2006$/MMBtu)** Cooktops Ovens Ovens Dishwashers 

New England $16.48 4.2% 4.4% 4.2% 4.7% 

Middle Atlantic 

(excludes NY) $14.72 9.0% 7.9% 11.9% 6.6% 

East North Central $13.06 19.2% 18.1% 23.1% 14.0% 

West North Central $13.63 5.6% 5.7% 6.9% 7.4% 

South Atlantic 

(excludes FL) $17.43 10.4% 10.9% 9.1% 14.3% 

East South Central $15.37 3.0% 3.0% 2.3% 6.1% 

West South Central 

(excludes TX) $14.74 4.5% 5.5% 2.9% 4.0% 

Mountain $12.46 4.4% 5.0% 3.3% 7.4% 

Pacific (excludes CA) $14.30 0.6% 0.3% 0.5% 3.9% 

New York $16.49 11.1% 10.7% 13.0% 4.9% 

Florida $22.05 1.2% 1.4% 1.4% 6.3% 

Texas $14.81 7.6% 7.8% 3.5% 8.2% 

California $12.12 19.2% 19.2% 18.0% 12.1% 

National Average 

Price - $14.41 $14.43 $14.38 $14.98 

(2006$/MMBtu) 

* Saturations based on 2001 RECS. 

**Converted to 2006$ by multiplying costs in 2005$ by the ratio of 2006 CPI (201.6) to 2005 CPI (195.3). 

1 tcf gas = 1.03 MMBtu. 

Commercial Natural Gas Prices 

DOE also estimated natural gas prices for commercial consumers using data from EIA’s 

Natural Gas Monthly. The calculation is identical to that for residential consumers, except that 

DOE used commercial sector data. Table 8.2.67 shows the results. 

8-50 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.67 Average Commercial Natural Gas Prices in 2005 

Geographic Area 

Summer Winter Annual 

2005$/tcf 2005$/tcf 2005$/tcf 

New England 12.84 14.33 $13.71 

Middle Atlantic (excludes NY) 12.34 13.68 $13.13 

East North Central 11.39 11.24 $11.30 

West North Central 11.38 11.24 $11.30 

South Atlantic (excludes FL) 12.95 13.43 $13.23 

East South Central 11.58 13.11 $12.47 

West South Central (excludes TX) 11.49 11.42 $11.45 

Mountain 9.49 9.67 $9.59 

Pacific (excludes CA) 11.52 11.96 $11.78 

New York 12.44 14.02 $13.36 

Florida 12.48 14.50 $10.74 

Texas 9.94 11.45 $10.82 

California 9.70 11.49 $13.66 

Source: EIA Natural Gas Monthly. 

Table 8.2.68 shows the national average commercial natural gas prices for commercial 

clothes washers based on the relative commercial consumer weight of each geographic area. 

DOE used 2005 population estimates from the U.S. Census as a proxy to estimate how the 

national saturation of commercial clothes washers was distributed over the 13 geographic areas. 

Because DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analysis in 2006$, it needed to convert all natural gas 

prices into 2006$. To perform the necessary monetary conversion, DOE used the GDP to 

convert the electricity prices from 2005$ to 2006$. 

8-51 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.68 Average Commercial Natural Gas Prices for Commercial Clothes Washers 

in 2005 

Geographic Area 

Average Price 

(2006$/MMBtu)** Saturations* 

New England $13.65 4.8% 

Middle Atlantic (excludes NY) $13.07 7.1% 

East North Central $11.25 15.6% 

West North Central $11.25 6.7% 

South Atlantic (excludes FL) $13.17 13.0% 

East South Central $12.41 5.9% 

West South Central (excludes TX) $11.40 3.7% 

Mountain $9.55 6.8% 

Pacific (excludes CA) $11.73 4.0% 

New York $13.30 6.5% 

Florida $13.60 6.0% 

Texas $10.77 7.7% 

California $10.69 12.2% 

National Average Price (2006$/MMBtu) $11.89 -

* Saturations based on 2005 population estimates from U.S. Census. 

** Converted to 2006$ by multiplying costs in 2005$ by the ratio of 2006 GDP (1.1475) to 2005 GDP (1.1193). 

1 tcf gas = 1.03 MMBtu. 

Oil Prices 

DOE obtained the data for the oil price calculation from the EIA’s Petroleum 

Navigator.

13 From this website, available data include a compilation of monthly oil delivery 

volumes and average consumer prices by State, for residential, commercial, and industrial 

customers. The Department used the complete annual data for 2005 to calculate an average 

price. The calculation of average prices proceeds in two steps: 

1. Calculate the prices for each State using simple averages. 

2. Calculate a regional price, weighting each State in a region by its population. 

Table 8.2.69 presents results for residential consumers. The price units in the table are in both 

dollars per gallon and dollars per million BTU (MMBtu). 

8-52

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.69 Average Residential Oil Prices in 2005 

 Average Price 

Geographic Area* (2005$/gal) (2005$/MMBtu )** 

New England 2.174 11.76 

Middle Atlantic (excludes NY) 2.198 11.88 

East North Central 2.186 11.82 

West North Central 2.081 11.25 

South Atlantic (includes FL) 2.163 11.70 

East South Central NA NA 

West South Central (includes TX) NA NA 

Mountain 2.165 11.71 

Pacific (includes CA) 2.297 12.42 

New York 2.261 12.22 

* The first four regions follow the census divisions. However, EIA used Petroleum Administration for Defense 

District (PADD) divisions for the Mountain and Pacific divisions so Arizona is included in the Pacific division. 

The national population weight does not add up to one because New Mexico was not included in any EIA 

PADD division. 

** 1 gallon = 0.03175 barrel; 1 barrel = 5.825 MMBtu. 

Table 8.2.70 shows the national average residential oil prices for dishwashers based on 

the relative residential consumer weight of each geographic area. Note that dishwashers are the 

only product for which DOE determined oil prices because they are the only appliance of the 

four products being considered that uses oil (for purposes of water heating). As it did for 

residential electricity and natural gas prices, DOE determined the weighting of each geographic 

area based on the saturation of each appliance in the U.S. using data from 2001 RECS. Because 

DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analysis in 2006$, it needed to convert all oil prices into 

2006$. To perform the necessary monetary conversion, DOE used the CPI for all urban 

consumers to convert the oil prices from 2005$ to 2006$.4 

8-53 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.70 Average Residential Oil Prices for Dishwashers in 2005 

Geographic Area 

Average Price 

(2006$/MMBtu)** Saturations* 

New England $12.13 4.7% 

Middle Atlantic (excludes NY) $12.27 6.6% 

East North Central $12.20 14.0% 

West North Central $11.61 7.4% 

South Atlantic (excludes FL) $12.07 14.3% 

East South Central*** $12.08 6.1% 

West South Central (excludes TX)*** $12.08 4.0% 

Mountain $12.09 7.4% 

Pacific (excludes CA) $12.82 3.9% 

New York $12.62 4.9% 

Florida $12.07 6.3% 

Texas*** $12.08 8.2% 

California $12.82 12.1% 

National Average Price (2006$/MMBtu) $12.22 -

* Saturations based on 2001 RECS. 

** Converted to 2006$ by multiplying costs in 2005$ by the ratio of 2006 CPI (201.6) to 2005 CPI (195.3). 

*** DOE assumed prices to be the average of the South Atlantic and Mountain geographic areas. 

Water Prices 

DOE obtained water price data from the year 2004 from the Water and Wastewater Rate 

Survey conducted by Raftelis Financial Consultants and the American Water Works 

Association.14 The survey covers approximately 300 water utilities and 200 wastewater utilities, 

with each industry analyzed separately. The water survey includes, for each utility, the cost to 

consumers of purchasing a given volume of water. In this case, the data include a division of the 

total consumer cost into fixed and volumetric charges. The calculations use only the volumetric 

charge to calculate water prices, since only this charge would be affected by a change in water 

consumption. Including the fixed charge in the average would lead to a slightly higher water 

price. 

The Water and Wastewater Rate Survey provides prices separately for residential and 

non-residential customers. For wastewater utilities, the format is similar, but the cost refers to 

the cost of treating a given volume of wastewater. In both surveys, the non-residential sector is 

divided into four sub-sectors based on the average monthly volume of water delivered or, 

equivalently, the size of the delivery pipe. The sub-sectors are named non-manufacturing, 

commercial, industrial 1, and industrial 2. DOE’s analysis uses the commercial category to 

estimate prices for commercial consumers. 

A sample of 200–300 utilities is not large enough to calculate regional prices for all U.S. 

Census divisions and large States (for comparison, the EIA Form 861 data include more than 

8-54 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
3000 utilities). For this reason, DOE calculated regional values at the Census region level 

(Northeast, South, Midwest, and West). The calculation of average per-unit-volume prices 

proceeds in three steps: 

1. For each utility, calculate the per-unit-volume price by dividing the total volumetric cost 

by the volume delivered. 

2. Calculate a State-level average price by weighting each utility in a given State by the 

number of consumers it serves (either residential or commercial). 

3. Calculate a regional average by combining the State-level averages, weighting each by 

the population of that State. This third step helps reduce any bias in the sample that may 

occur due to relative under-sampling of large States. 

The results of the calculation are presented in Table 8.2.71. The table includes the relative 

weight for each region. The price units in the table are dollars per thousand gallons ($/tg). 

Table 8.2.71 Average Per-Unit-Volume Water Prices in 2004 

Residential Commercial 

Region 2003$/tg Water 2003$/tg Wastewater 2003$/tg Water 2003$/tg Wastewater 

Northeast 2.60 2.34 2.28 2.18 

Midwest 1.46 1.36 1.30 1.11 

South 1.80 1.78 1.98 2.00 

West 1.71 1.51 1.87 1.68 

Table 8.2.72 shows the national average residential water and wastewater prices for 

dishwashers based on the relative residential consumer weight of each region. DOE determined 

the weighting of each region based on the saturation of each appliance in the U.S. using data 

from 2001 RECS. Because DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analysis in 2006$, it needed to 

convert all water prices into 2006$. To perform the necessary monetary conversion, DOE used 

the CPI to convert the water and wastewater prices from 2004$ to 2006$. DOE then estimated 

the water prices for the year 2006 using water CPI data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

DOE multiplied the water and wastewater prices in 2004 by the ratio of the water CPI for the 

years 2006 and 2004. 

8-55 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.72 Average Per-Unit-Volume Water Prices for Dishwashers in 2006 

Region 2006$/tg Water** 2006$/tg Wastewater** Saturations* 

Northeast $3.16 $2.84 16.3% 

Midwest $1.77 $1.65 21.4% 

South $2.19 $2.16 39.0% 

West $2.08 $1.83 23.3% 

National $2.23 $2.09 -

* Saturations based on 2001 RECS. 

** Converted to 2006$ by multiplying costs in 2004$ by the ratio of 2006 CPI (201.6) to 2004 CPI (184.0). 

Converted the price for year 2004 to the price in 2006 by multiplying the 2004 price by the ratio of the average 

water CPI in 2006 (297.24) to average water CPI in 2004 (268.10). 

Table 8.2.73 shows the national average commercial water and wastewater prices for 

commercial clothes washers based on the relative commercial consumer weight of each region. 

DOE used 2005 population estimates from the U.S. Census as a proxy to estimate how the 

national saturation of commercial clothes washers was distributed over the four regions. 

Because DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analysis in 2006$, it needed to convert all water 

prices into 2006$. To perform the necessary monetary conversion, DOE used the GDP to 

convert the water and wastewater prices from 2004$ to 2006$. DOE then estimated the water 

prices for the year 2006 using water CPI data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. DOE 

multiplied the water and wastewater prices in 2004 by the ratio of the water CPI for the years 

2006 and 2004. 

Table 8.2.73 Average Per-Unit-Volume Water Prices for Commercial Clothes Washers in 

2006 

Region 2006$/tg Water** 2006$/tg Wastewater** Saturations* 

Northeast $2.73 $2.61 18.4% 

Midwest $1.55 $1.33 22.3% 

South $2.37 $2.39 36.3% 

West $2.24 $2.01 23.0% 

National $2.22 $2.11 -

* Saturations based on 2005 population estimates from Census. 

** Converted to 2006$ by multiplying costs in 2004$ by the ratio of 2006 GDP (1.1475) to 2004 GDP (1.0638). 

Converted the price for year 2004 to the price in 2006 by multiplying the 2004 price by the ratio of the average 

water CPI in 2006 (295.8) to average water CPI in 2004 (268.1). 

8.2.2.3 Energy and Water Price Trends 

DOE used price forecasts by the EIA to estimate the trends in natural gas, oil, and 

electricity prices. To arrive at prices in future years, it multiplied the average prices described in 

the preceding section (section 8.2.2.2) by the forecast of annual average price changes in EIA’s 

AEO 2007.

9

 To estimate the trend after 2030, DOE followed past guidelines provided to the 

Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) by EIA and used the average rate of change 

8-56 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
during 2020–2030 for electricity and the average rate of change during 2015–2020 for natural 

gas and oil. More recent guidelines to FEMP suggest that a 10-year rather than a 15-year 

historical time period be used to extrapolate natural gas and oil prices. Therefore, for any 

updates to the LCC analysis, DOE will use the more recent guidelines to extrapolate gas and oil 

prices. 

The Department calculated LCC and PBP using three separate projections from AEO 

2007: Reference, Low Economic Growth, and High Economic Growth. These three cases 

reflect the uncertainty of economic growth in the forecast period. The high and low growth 

cases show the projected effects of alternative growth assumptions on energy markets. Figures 

8.2.1, 8.2.2, and 8.2.3 show the residential and commercial electricity, natural gas, and oil price 

trends, respectively, based on the three AEO 2007 projections. For the LCC results presented in 

section 8.4, DOE used only the energy price forecasts from the AEO reference case. ( ) 

Hi

Hi

0.88 

0.90 

0.92 

0.94 

0.96 

0.98 

1.00 

1.02 

1.04 

1.06 

1.08 

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 

Year 

Price Trend 2005=1

gh Growth - Res 

gh Growth - Comm 

Reference - Res 

Reference - Comm 

Low Growth - Res 

Low Growth - Comm 

Figure 8.2.1 Electricity Price Trends 

8-57 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
8-58 

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.05

1.10

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

Year

Price Trend (2005=1)

High Growth - Res

Reference - Res

Low Growth - Res

High Growth - Comm

Reference - Comm

Low Growth - Comm

Figure 8.2.2 Natural Gas Price Trends 

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.05

1.10

1.15

1.20

1.25

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

Year

Price Trend (2005=1)

High Growth - Comm

High Growth - Res

Reference - Comm

Reference - Res

Low Growth - Comm

Low Growth - Res

Figure 8.2.3 Oil Price Trends 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
To estimate the future trend for water and wastewater prices, DOE used data on the 

historic trend in the national water price index (U.S. city average) from 1970 through 2005.15 It 

extrapolated a future trend based on the linear growth over the 1970–2005 time period. Figure 

8.2.4 shows the historical and projected water price trend data. DOE used the forecasted data to 

estimate water and wastewater prices for both residential dishwashers and commercial clothes 

washers. Water CPI 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Water CPI 

Linear Extrapolation 

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 

Year 

Figure 8.2.4 Water Price Trend 

8.2.2.4 Repair and Maintenance Costs 

Typically, small incremental changes in product efficiency incur no, or only very small, 

changes in repair and maintenance costs over baseline products. However, equipment with 

efficiencies that are significantly higher than the baseline are more likely to incur higher repair 

and maintenance costs because its higher complexity and higher part count typically increases 

the cumulative probability of failure. DOE requested that manufacturers and other stakeholders 

assist in developing appropriate repair and maintenance costs if stakeholders believed such 

estimates are necessary. It did not receive any input, and thus did not include any changes in 

repair and maintenance costs for products more efficient than baseline products. 

8.2.3 Product Lifetime 

DOE used only primary sources of data to estimate product lifetimes. For example, the 

Federal government’s Energy Star web site provides lifetime estimates for dishwashers and 

dehumidifiers, but the estimates are actually based on data from Appliance Magazine. Because, 

8-59 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
in this case, Appliance Magazine is the primary source of data, DOE did not use the Energy Star 

web site to estimate product lifetimes. The sources DOE used to estimate product lifetimes for 

cooking products, dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and commercial clothes washers are presented 

below. 

8.2.3.1 Dishwashers 

For dishwashers, DOE considered the sources listed in Table 8.2.74 to estimate product 

lifetime. 

Table 8.2.74 Dishwashers: Product Lifetime Estimates and Sources 

Lifetime (years) Source 

13 DOE FEMP 16 

12.6 DOE TSD (1990) 17 

Mean* = 9; Low* = 7; High* = 10 Appliance Magazine (2005) 18 

9 to 12 CEE 19 

13 Southern California Edison 20 

* Estimates are first-ownership length, not full product lifetime. 

As discussed above for cooking products, the estimates from Appliance Magazine are 

“based on first-owner use of the product and does not necessarily mean the appliance is worn 

out.” In other words, Appliance Magazine’s lifetime estimates underestimate the actual lifetime 

of the products in those cases where the product is used by two or more users. As a result, DOE 

excluded Appliance Magazine as a source for determining the average product lifetime. To 

determine the average product lifetime, DOE calculated the average value from estimates 

provided by the other sources listed in the table above. The resulting average lifetime estimate is 

12.3 years. DOE used the low estimate from Appliance Magazine to establish the minimum 

product lifetime. To establish the maximum product lifetime, DOE took the difference between 

the minimum and average values (5.3 years) and added it to the average product lifetime. DOE 

then characterized the product lifetime with a uniform probability distribution that ranged from 

the minimum to maximum lifetime estimates shown in Table 8.2.75. 

Table 8.2.75 Dishwashers: Average, Minimum, and Maximum Product Lifetimes Used in 

LCC Analysis 

Product 

Minimum 

years 

Average 

years years 

Dishwashers 7.0 12.3 17.6 

Maximum 

8.2.3.2 Dehumidifiers 

For dehumidifiers, DOE considered the sources listed in Table 8.2.76 to estimate product 

lifetime. 

8-60 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.76 Dehumidifiers: Product Lifetime Estimates and Sources 

Lifetime (years) Source 

Mean* = 8; Low* = 5; High* = 10 Appliance Magazine (2005) 17 

10 ACEEE (2001) 21 

12 Northeast Energy Star Lighting and Appliance 22 

* Estimates are first-ownership length, not full product lifetime. 

As discussed above for cooking products and dishwashers, the estimates from Appliance 

Magazine are “based on first-owner use of the product and does not necessarily mean the 

appliance is worn out.” In other words, Appliance Magazine’s lifetime estimates underestimate 

the actual lifetime of the products in those cases where the product is used by two or more users. 

As a result, DOE excluded Appliance Magazine as a source for determining the average product 

lifetime. To determine the average product lifetime, DOE calculated the average value from 

estimates provided by the two remaining sources listed in the table above. The resulting average 

lifetime estimate is 11 years. DOE used the low estimate from Appliance Magazine to establish 

the minimum product lifetime. To establish the maximum product lifetime, DOE took the 

difference between the minimum and average values (6 years) and added it to the average 

product lifetime. DOE then characterized the product lifetime with a uniform probability 

distribution that ranged from the minimum to maximum lifetime estimates shown in Table 

8.2.77. 

Table 8.2.77 Dehumidifiers: Average, Minimum, and Maximum Product Lifetimes Used 

in LCC Analysis 

Product 

Minimum 

years 

Average 

years years 

5.0 11.0 17.0 

Maximum 

Dehumidifiers 

8.2.3.3 Cooking Products – Cooktops and Ovens 

For cooktops and ovens, DOE considered the sources listed in Table 8.2.78 to estimate 

product lifetimes. 

Table 8.2.78 Cooktops and Ovens: Product Lifetime Estimates and Sources 

Lifetime (years) Source 

Gas Ranges*: Mean = 15; Low = 12; High = 18 

Electric Ranges*: Mean = 13; Low = 10; High = 16 Appliance Magazine (2005) 17 

Gas & Electric Cooking Products: 19 DOE TSD (1996) 3 

Gas Ranges: 20** CALMAC (2000) 23 

* Estimates are first-ownership length, not full product lifetime. 

** Based on engineering judgment. 

The estimates from Appliance Magazine are “based on first-owner use of the product and 

does not necessarily mean the appliance is worn out.” In other words, Appliance Magazine’s 

8-61 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
lifetime estimates underestimate the actual lifetime of the products in those cases where the 

product is used by two or more users. As a result, DOE used the 19-year estimate from its 1996 

Technical Support Document (TSD) for Cooking Products to estimate the average product 

lifetime for both electric and gas cooktops and ovens. DOE used the low estimates from 

Appliance Magazine to establish the minimum product lifetime. To establish the maximum 

product lifetime, DOE took the difference between the minimum and average values (nine years 

for electric products and seven years for gas products) and added them to the average product 

lifetime. DOE then characterized the product lifetimes with uniform probability distributions 

that ranged from the minimum to maximum lifetime estimates shown in Table 8.2.79. 

Table 8.2.79 Cooktops and Ovens: Average, Minimum, and Maximum Product Lifetimes 

Used in LCC Analysis 

Product 

Minimum 

years 

Average 

years 

Maximum 

years 

Cooktops 

Electric 10.0 19.0 28.0 

Gas 12.0 19.0 26.0 

Ovens 

Electric 10.0 19.0 28.0 

Gas 12.0 19.0 26.0 

8.2.3.4 Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens 

For microwave ovens, DOE considered the sources listed in Table 8.2.80 to estimate 

product lifetime. 

Table 8.2.80 Microwave Ovens: Product Lifetime Estimates and Sources 

Source 

Appliance Magazine (2005) 17 

10 DOE TSD (1996) 3 

Lifetime (years) 

Mean* = 9; Low* = 7; High* = 10 

* Estimates are first-ownership length, not full product lifetime. 

As discussed above for ovens and cooktops, the estimates from Appliance Magazine are 

“based on first-owner use of the product and does not necessarily mean the appliance is worn 

out.” In other words, Appliance Magazine’s lifetime estimates underestimate the actual lifetime 

of the products in those cases where the product is used by two or more users. As a result, DOE 

considered using the 10-year estimate from its 1996 TSD for Cooking Products to estimate the 

average product lifetime. However, because the 10-year lifetime estimate from DOE’s 1996 

TSD is the same as the high estimate from Appliance Magazine, DOE decided to use only the 

estimates from Appliance Magazine to establish the distribution of product lifetimes. DOE used 

the low, average, and high estimates from Appliance Magazine to establish the minimum, 

average, and maximum product lifetimes as shown in Table 8.2.81. 

8-62 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.81 Microwave Ovens: Average, Minimum, and Maximum Product Lifetimes 

Used in LCC Analysis 

Product 

Minimum 

years 

Average 

years years 

Microwave Ovens 7.0 9.0 10.0 

Maximum 

Rather than using a uniform probability distribution to characterize microwave product 

lifetime, DOE used a triangular distribution because of the unequal span in time periods between 

the average and minimum values and the average and maximum values. The probability 

distribution is shown in Figure 8.2.5. 

0% 

5% 

0 2 4 6 8 

Li ) 

10% 

15% 

20% 

25% 

30% 

35% 

40% 

45% 

10 12 14 

fetime (years

Probability 

Figure 8.2.5 Microwave Ovens: Product Lifetime Probability Distribution 

8.2.3.5 Commercial Clothes Washers 

For commercial clothes washers, DOE considered the sources listed in Table 8.2.82 to 

estimate product lifetime. 

8-63 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.82 Commercial Clothes Washers: Product Lifetime Estimates and Sources 

Lifetime (years) Source 

7 to 10 CEE (1998) 24 

Top-Loading (12 to 14 lbs.): 5 to 8* 

Front-Loading (18 to 50 lbs.): 10 to 15** CLA 25 

8 to 9*** ACEEE (2001) 20 

5 (high-use)* to 13 (low-use)** Southern California Edison (2000) 26 

15** † CALMAC (2000) 22 

* Used to establish laundromat lifetime only. 

** Used to establish multi-family lifetime only. 

*** Depending on the usage rate, the life can be shorter. 

†

 Based on engineering judgment. 

Because DOE conducted the LCC analysis based on analyzing two product 

applications—multi-family and laundromats—it established separate lifetimes for each product 

application. Because clothes washers in multi-family applications are used less frequently than 

in laundromats, DOE decided to use only those sources that indicated lifetimes of seven years or 

greater for multi-family applications. For laundromats applications, where clothes washers 

receive heavier use, DOE decided to use only those sources that indicated lifetimes of 10 years 

or less. DOE then took an average of the lifetime estimates that met the above criteria. For 

multi-family applications the average lifetime turned out to be 11.3 years, while the average 

lifetime for laundromats was 7.1 years. DOE used the low estimate for the above applicable 

sources to establish the minimum product lifetime for each product application. For multi-family 

applications the minimum estimate is 7 years and for laundromats it is 5 years. To establish the 

maximum product lifetime, DOE took the difference between the minimum and average values 

(4.3 years for multi-family and 2.1 years for laundromats) and added it to the average product 

lifetime. DOE then characterized the product lifetimes with uniform probability distributions 

that ranged from the minimum to maximum lifetime estimates shown in Table 8.2.83. 

Table 8.2.83 Commercial Clothes Washers: Average, Minimum, and Maximum Product 

Lifetimes Used in LCC Analysis 

Minimum Average Maximum 

Product years years years 

Multi-Family 7.0 11.3 15.5 

Laundromats 5.0 7.1 9.3 

8.2.4 Discount Rates 

DOE derived the discount rates for the LCC and PBP analysis from estimates of the 

finance cost of purchasing the considered products. Following financial theory, the finance cost 

of raising funds to purchase appliances can be interpreted as: (1) the financial cost of any debt 

incurred to purchase equipment, or (2) the opportunity cost of any equity used to purchase 

equipment. For the residential products, the purchase of equipment for new homes entails 

8-64 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
different finance costs for consumers than the purchase of replacement equipment. Thus, DOE 

used different discount rates for new construction and replacement installations. 

8.2.4.1 Discount Rate for New Housing Equipment 

New-housing equipment is purchased as part of the home, which is almost always 

financed with a mortgage loan. The Department estimated discount rates for new-housing 

equipment using the effective real (after-inflation) mortgage rate for homebuyers. This rate 

corresponds to the interest rate after deduction of mortgage interest for income tax purposes and 

after adjusting for inflation (using the Fisher formula).b

 For example, a six-percent nominal 

mortgage rate has an effective nominal rate of 4.5 percent for a household at the 25-percent 

marginal tax rate. When adjusted for inflation of two percent, the effective real rate becomes 

2.45 percent. 

The data source DOE used for mortgage interest rates is the Federal Reserve Board’s 

Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) in 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2004.27 Using the 

appropriate SCF data for each year, DOE adjusted the mortgage interest rate for each relevant 

household in the SCF for mortgage tax deduction and inflation (see Table 8.2.84). In cases 

where the effective interest rate is equal to or below the inflation rate (resulting in a negative real 

interest rate), DOE set the real effective interest rate to zero. 

The average nominal mortgage rate carried by homeowners in these six years was 8.1 

percent. Since the mortgage rates carried by households in these years were established over a 

range of time, DOE believes they are representative of rates that may be in effect in 2012 (the 

assumed effective date of new efficiency standards – see Section 8.2.5). After adjusting for 

inflation and interest tax deduction, effective real interest rates on mortgages across the six 

surveys averaged 3.2 percent. 

Table 8.2.84 Data Used to Calculate Real Effective Mortgage Rates 

Year 

Average 

Nominal Interest 

Rate (%) 

Inflation Rate28 

(%) 

Marginal Tax Rate 

applicable to Mortgage 

Interest29 (%)* 

Average Real 

Effective Interest 

Rate (%) 

1989 9.7 4.82 23.7 2.5 

1992 9.1 3.01 22.9 3.9 

1995 8.2 2.83 23.8 3.4 

1998 7.9 1.56 23.7 4.4 

2001 7.6 2.85 22.6 3.0 

2004 6.2 2.66 19.6 2.3 

Average 8.1 3.2 

* The values given are the inverse of the marginal tax rate on mortgage interest. 

b

 Fisher formula is given by: Real Interest Rate = [(1 + Nominal Interest Rate) / (1 + Inflation Rate)] – 1. 

8-65 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
To account for variation among new households, DOE sampled a rate for each household 

from a distribution of rates. DOE developed a probability distribution of interest rates based on 

the SCF data. Appendix 8C presents the probability distribution of interest rates that DOE used 

in the LCC and PBP analysis. 

8.2.4.2 Discount Rate for Residential Replacement Equipment 

Households use a variety of methods to finance replacement equipment. In principle, one 

could estimate the interest rates on the actual financing vehicles used to purchase replacement 

equipment. The shares of different financing vehicles in total replacement equipment purchases 

are unknown, however. 

DOE’s approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used 

to purchase replacement equipment, including household assets that might be affected 

indirectly.c

 DOE did not include debt from primary mortgages and equity of assets considered 

non-liquid (such as retirement accounts), since these would likely not be affected by replacement 

equipment purchases. DOE estimated the average shares of the various debt and equity classes 

in the average U.S. household equity and debt portfolios using SCF data for 1989, 1992, 1995, 

1998, 2001, and 2004. Table 8.2.85 shows the average shares of each considered class. DOE 

used the mean share of each class across the six years as a basis for estimating the effective 

financing of replacement equipment. 

Table 8.2.85 Average Shares of Considered Household Debt and Equity Types 

Type 

1989 

SCF 

1992 

SCF 

1995 

SCF 

1998 

SCF 

2001 

SCF 

2004 

SCF 

Mean 

(%) 

Home equity loans 4.3 4.5 2.7 2.8 2.8 4.4 3.6 

Credit cards 1.6 2.1 2.6 2.2 1.7 2.0 2.0 

Other installment loans 2.8 1.7 1.4 1.7 1.1 1.3 1.7 

Other residential loans 4.4 6.9 5.2 4.3 3.1 5.8 4.9 

Other line of credit 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.5 

Checking accounts 5.8 4.7 4.9 3.9 3.6 4.2 4.5 

Savings & money market 19.2 18.8 14.0 12.8 14.2 15.1 15.7 

Certificate of deposit (CD) 14.5 11.7 9.4 7.0 5.4 5.9 9.0 

Savings bond 2.2 1.7 2.2 1.1 1.2 0.9 1.5 

Bonds 13.8 12.3 10.5 7.0 7.9 8.4 10.0 

Stocks 22.4 24.0 25.9 36.9 37.5 28.0 29.1 

Mutual funds 8.0 11.1 20.9 20.1 21.3 23.4 17.5 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

An indirect effect would arise if a household sold some assets in order to pay off a loan or credit card debt that 

might have been used to finance the actual appliance purchase. 

8-66 

c 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
DOE estimated interest or return rates associated with each type of equity and debt. The 

data source for the interest rates for loans, credit cards, and lines of credit is the Federal Reserve 

Board’s SCF in 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2004. Table 8.2.86 shows the average 

nominal rates in each year, and the inflation rates used to calculate real rates. For home equity 

loans, DOE calculated effective interest rates in a similar manner as for mortgage rates, since 

interest on such loans is tax deductible. Table 8.2.87 shows the average effective real rates in 

each year and the mean rate across the years. Since the interest rates for each debt carried by 

households in these years were established over a range of time, DOE believes they are 

representative of rates that may be in effect in 2012. 

Table 8.2.86 Average Nominal Interest Rates for Household Debt Classes (percent) 

Type 

1989 

SCF 

1992 

SCF 

1995 

SCF 

1998 

SCF 

2001 

SCF 

2004 

SCF 

Mean 

(%) 

Home equity loans 11.5 9.6 9.6 9.8 8.7 5.7 9.2 

Credit cards* - - 14.2 14.5 14.2 11.7 13.6 

Other installment loans 9.0 7.8 9.3 7.8 8.7 7.4 8.3 

Other residential loans 8.8 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.5 6.0 7.5 

Other line of credit 14.8 12.7 12.4 11.9 14.7 8.8 12.5 

Inflation rate 4.82 3.01 2.83 1.56 2.85 2.66 

* No interest rate data available for credit cards in 1989 or 1992. 

Table 8.2.87 Average Real Effective Interest Rates for Household Debt Classes (percent) 

Type 

1989 

SCF 

1992 

SCF 

1995 

SCF 

1998 

SCF 

2001 

SCF 

2004 

SCF 

Mean 

(%) 

Home equity loans 3.8 4.3 4.4 5.8 3.8 1.9 4.0 

Credit cards* - - 11.0 12.7 11.1 9.1 11.0 

Other installment loans 4.9 5.8 7.0 6.6 6.1 5.4 6.0 

Other residential loans 4.0 4.7 4.8 6.0 4.6 3.3 4.6 

Other line of credit 9.6 9.4 9.3 10.2 7.3 6.0 8.7 

* No interest rate data available for credit cards in 1989 or 1992. 

To account for variation among new households, DOE sampled a rate for each household 

from a distribution of rates for each of the above debt classes. DOE developed a probability 

distribution of interest rates for each debt class based on the SCF data. Appendix 8C presents the 

probability distribution of interest rates for each debt class that DOE used in the LCC and PBP 

analysis. 

Similar rate data are not available from the SCF for the asset classes, so the Department 

derived data for these classes from national-level historical data. The interest rates associated 

with certificates of deposit (CDs), 30 savings bonds,31 and bonds (AAA corporate bonds) 32 are 

from Federal Reserve Board time-series data covering 1977–2005. DOE assumed rates on 

checking accounts to be zero. Rates on savings and money market accounts are from Cost of 

Savings Index data covering 1984–2005. 33 The rates for stocks are the annual returns on the 

8-67 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Standard and Poor’s (S&P) 500 in the 1977–2005 period. 34 The mutual fund rates are a 

weighted average of the stock rates (two-thirds weight) and the bond rates (one-third weight) in 

each year of the 1977–2005 period. DOE adjusted the nominal rates to real rates using the 

annual inflation rate in each year. Average nominal and real interest rates for the classes of 

assets are shown in Table 8.2.88. Since the interest and return rates for each asset type cover a 

range of time, DOE believes they are representative of rates that may be in effect in 2012. 

Table 8.2.88 Average Nominal and Real Interest Rates for Household Equity Types 

Type Average Nominal Rate (%) Average Real Rate (%) 

Checking accounts - 0.0 

Savings and money market 5.5 2.3 

CDs 6.9 2.4 

Savings bonds 8.0 3.5 

Bonds 8.8 4.2 

Stocks 13.3 8.8 

Mutual funds 11.6 7.0 

To account for variation among new households, DOE sampled a rate for each household 

from a distribution of rates for each of the above asset types. DOE developed a normal 

probability distribution of interest rates for each asset type by using the mean value and standard 

deviation from the distribution. Appendix 8C presents the probability distribution of interest 

rates for each asset type that DOE used in the LCC and PBP analysis. 

Table 8.2.89 summarizes the mean real effective rates of each type of equity or debt. 

DOE determined the average share of each debt and asset using SCF data for 1989, 1992, 1995, 

1998, 2001, and 2004. Each year of SCF data provides the debt and asset shares for U.S. 

households. DOE averaged the debt and asset shares over the six years of survey data to arrive 

at the shares shown in Table 8.2.89 below. The average rate across all types of household debt 

and equity, weighted by the shares of each class, is 5.6 percent. 

8-68 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.89 Shares and Interest or Return Rates Used for Household Debt and Equity 

Types 

Type 

Average Share of Household 

Debt plus Equity (%)* 

Mean Effective Real Rate 

(%)** 

Home equity loans 3.6 4.0 

Credit cards 2.0 11.0 

Other installment loans 1.7 6.0 

Other residential loans 4.9 4.6 

Other line of credit 0.5 8.7 

Checking accounts 4.5 0.0 

Savings and money market accounts 15.7 2.3 

CDs 9.0 2.4 

Savings bonds 1.5 3.5 

Bonds 10.0 4.2 

Stocks 29.1 8.8 

Mutual funds 17.5 7.0 

Total/Weighted-average discount rate 100 5.6 

* Not including primary mortgage or retirement accounts. 

** Adjusted for inflation and, for home equity loans, loan interest tax deduction. 

8.2.4.3 Discount Rates for Commercial Clothes Washers 

For commercial clothes washers, DOE derived the discount rate from the cost of capital 

of publicly traded firms in the sectors that purchase commercial clothes washers.35 These 

companies typically finance equipment purchases through debt and equity capital. DOE 

estimated the cost of capital of these firms as the weighted average of the cost of equity 

financing and the cost of debt financing. 

The costs of debt and equity financing are usually obtainable from publicly available data 

about the following types of companies in the sectors that purchase commercial clothes washers: 

• personal services (including laundromats), 

• educational services (which buy washers for dormitories), 

• hotels, and 

• real estate investment trusts (REITs) (i.e., building owners, including owners of 

apartment complexes). 

Damodaran Online is a widely used source of information about company debt and 

equity financing for most types of firms, and was the source of data for this analysis on 

educational services, hotels, and REITs.36 Since Damodaran Online does not include data for 

firms in the personal services sector (SIC 7200), DOE used data from Ibbotson’s Associates for 

8-69 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
this sector.37 Ibbotson Associates is a leading authority on asset allocation with expertise in 

capital market expectations and portfolio implementation. 

DOE estimated the cost of equity using the capital asset pricing model (CAPM).38 The 

CAPM assumes that the cost of equity (ke) for a particular company is proportional to the 

systematic risk faced by that company, where high risk is associated with a high cost of equity 

and low risk is associated with a low cost of equity. The systematic risk facing a firm is 

determined by several variables: the risk coefficient of the firm (β), the expected return on riskfree assets (Rf), and the equity risk premium (ERP). The risk coefficient of the firm indicates the 

risk associated with that firm relative to the price variability in the stock market. The expected 

return on risk-free assets is defined by the yield on long-term government bonds. The ERP 

represents the difference between the expected stock market return and the risk-free rate. The 

cost of equity financing is estimated using the following equation, where the variables are 

defined as above: 

ke = Rf + (β× ERP ) 

where: 

ke = Cost of equity, 

Rf = Expected return on risk-free assets, 

β = Risk coefficient of the firm, and 

ERP = Equity risk premium. 

The cost of debt financing (kd) is the interest rate paid on money borrowed by a company. 

The cost of debt is estimated by adding a risk adjustment factor (Ra) to the risk-free rate. This 

risk adjustment factor depends on the variability of stock returns represented by standard 

deviations in stock prices. So for firm i, the cost of debt financing is: 

kdi = Rf + Rai 

where: 

kd = Cost of debt financing for firm, i, 

Rf = Expected return on risk-free assets, and 

Rai = Risk adjustment factor to risk-free rate for firm, i. 

DOE estimates the weighted-average cost of capital (WACC) using the following 

equation: 

WACC = ke × we + kd × wd 

where: 

w

WACC = Weighted average cost of capital, 

e = Proportion of equity financing, and 

8-70 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
wd = Proportion of debt financing. 

The values of the parameters used in the calculations are shown in Table 8.2.90 below. 

Table 8.2.90 Data for the Calculation of Weighted-Average Cost of Capital for Sectors 

that Purchase Commercial Clothes Washers 

Sector β Rf ERP Ra we wd 

Personal Services 0.53 5.2% 5.1% 0.8% 67.4% 32.6% 

Educational Services 1.09 5.2% 5.1% 2.0% 97.5% 2.5% 

Hotels 0.82 5.2% 5.1% 2.0% 73.7% 26.3% 

REIT 0.67 5.2% 5.1% 0.5% 92.6% 7.4% 

Based on the procedure described above and the data in Table 8.2.90, Table 8.2.91 shows 

the WACC for each of the four sectors that purchase commercial washers. 

Table 8.2.91 Weighted Average Cost of Capital for Sectors that Purchase Commercial 

Clothes Washers 

Sector Weighted-Average Cost of Capital 

Personal Services 6.9% 

Educational Services 10.6% 

Hotels 8.5% 

REIT 8.4% 

The WACC provides an estimate of the nominal cost of capital for firms that purchase 

commercial clothes washers. The real WACC is calculated by adjusting the cost of capital by 

the expected rate of inflation using the following formula: 

+ 1 WACC

WACCr = _ 1

+ 1 r 

where: 

WACCr = Real weighted-average cost of capital, 

WACC = Weighted-average cost of capital, and 

r = Inflation rate. 

DOE applied this formula to the costs of capital shown in Table 8.2.91 which yielded the 

discount rates for each of the sectors given in Table 8.2.92. For the calculation of the discount 

rates, DOE assumed an inflation rate of 2.5 percent (the average of inflation rates over the 2001– 

2005 time period).39 Because DOE performed the discount rate calculation on companies or 

firms that typically purchase commercial clothes washers, a distribution of discount rates were 

generated within each sector. The standard deviation of the distribution for each sector is 

provided in Table 8.2.92. To obtain an average discount rate value for the entire commercial 

8-71 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
clothe washer industry, DOE analyzed additional data from the CEE. The CEE estimates that 

there are up to 3,000,000 commercial clothes washers in use in the United States, 2,000,000 of 

these in multi-family housing and 420,000 in laundromats.23 DOE assumed that the remaining 

580,000 washers are used in universities and educational institutions. Using these proportions, 

DOE derived weights of 14 percent, 19.4 percent, and 66.6 percent for personal services, 

educational services, and REIT, respectively. In the absence of any data regarding hotels, DOE 

assumed the weight for educational services was applicable to hotels as well. Weighting each 

sector by its market share, DOE estimated the average discount rate for companies that purchase 

commercial washers to be 5.7 percent, assuming an inflation rate of 2.5 percent (the average of 

inflation rates over the 2001–2005 time period).38 

Table 8.2.92 Discount Rates for Commercial Clothes Washers 

 Discount Rate 

Sector Average Std Deviation Share 

Personal Services 4.3% 1.8% 14.0% 

Educational Services 7.9% 5.7% 9.7% 

Hotels 5.8% 2.0% 9.7% 

REIT 5.7% 2.2% 66.6% 

Average 5.7% - 100% 

To account for variation in the discount rates within each of the sectors, DOE used the 

average values and standard deviations in the table above to characterize the discount rates for 

each sector with a normal probability distribution. Because the use of the above standard 

deviations yield distributions with negative values, DOE truncated the lower end of the normal 

distribution at a discount rate of zero. DOE also truncated the higher end of the normal 

distribution in equal proportion to the truncation at the lower end to maintain the average 

discount rates shown above in Table 8.2.92. 

8.2.5 Effective Date of Standard 

The effective date is the future date when a new standard becomes operative. Based on 

DOE’s implementation report for energy conservation standards activities submitted pursuant to 

Section 141 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a final rule for the home appliances being 

considered for this standards rulemaking is scheduled for completion in March 2009.40 

Therefore, the effective date of any new energy efficiency standards for these products will be 

three years after the final rule is published, which is March 2012. The Department calculated the 

LCC for all consumers as if they each would purchase a new piece of equipment in the year the 

standard takes effect. 

8.2.6 Equipment Assignment for the Base Case 

For purposes of conducting the LCC analysis, DOE analyzed standard levels relative to a 

baseline efficiency level. However, some consumers already purchase products with efficiencies 

8-72 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
greater than the baseline levels. Thus, to accurately estimate the percentage of consumers that 

would be affected by a particular standard level, DOE took into account the distribution of 

product efficiencies currently in the marketplace. In other words, rather than analyzing the 

impacts of a particular standard level assuming that all consumers are currently purchasing 

products at the baseline level, DOE conducted the analysis by taking into account the full breadth 

of product efficiencies that consumers purchase under the base case (i.e., the case without new 

energy efficiency standards). 

As noted in section 8.1.1, DOE’s approach for conducting the LCC analysis for 

residential products (i.e., cooking products, dishwashers, and dehumidifiers) relied on 

developing samples of households that use each of the products. DOE used a Monte Carlo 

simulation technique to perform the LCC calculations on the households in the sample. Using 

the current distribution of product efficiencies, DOE assigned each household in the sample a 

unique product efficiency. Because it performed the LCC calculations on a household-byhousehold basis, DOE based the LCC for a particular standard-level on the efficiency of the 

product in the given household. For example, if a household was assigned a product efficiency 

that is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the standard level under consideration, the LCC 

calculation would reveal that this household is not impacted by an increase in product efficiency 

that is equal to the standard level. 

For commercial clothes washers, DOE was unable to develop a consumer sample. 

However, it took into account the mix of commercial clothes washer efficiencies by 

characterizing the current mix of product efficiencies as a probability distribution. In other 

words, as DOE performed the Monte Carlo simulation, each standard level analyzed was 

evaluated against the distribution of product efficiencies in the base case. 

The product efficiency distributions that DOE used for cooking products, dishwashers, 

dehumidifiers, and commercial clothes washers in the LCC analysis are discussed in detail 

below. 

8.2.6.1 Dishwashers 

DOE based its base case market share data for dishwashers on data that AHAM provided 

that show the distribution of standard dishwashers efficiencies sold in 2005.41 Table 8.2.93 

presents the market shares of the efficiency levels in the base case for standard-sized 

dishwashers. Note that AHAM also provided market share data for three additional intermediate 

efficiency levels. DOE took the additional data provided by AHAM into account when 

conducting the LCC analysis. The market shares in Table 8.2.93 represent the equipment that 

households would have purchased in the year 2012 in the absence of new standards. 

8-73 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.93 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: Base Case Market Shares 

Level EF Market Share 

Baseline 0.46 3.0% 

* 0.50 2.0% 

* 0.54 2.0% 

1 0.58 43.0% 

* 0.60 17.0% 

2 0.62 22.0% 

3 0.65 8.0% 

4 0.68 2.5% 

5 0.72 0.2% 

6 0.80 0.2% 

7 1.11 0.2% 

* Intermediate efficiency level provided by AHAM. 

8.2.6.2 Dehumidifiers 

DOE based its base case market share data for dehumidifiers on data that AHAM 

provided.42 AHAM provided data that show the distribution of dehumidifier efficiencies in 2005 

for two of the six product classes; 35.01-45.00 pints/day and 54.01-74.99 pints/day. Because 

DOE conducted the engineering and LCC and PBP analyses on the combined product class of 0-

35.00 pints/day as well as these two classes, DOE had to estimate that the market share data for 

the 0-35.00 pints/day combined product class were equivalent to the market shares for the closest 

product class—the 35.01-45.00 pint/day product class. Table 8.2.94 presents the market shares 

of the efficiency levels in the base case for the three classes of dehumidifiers that DOE used to 

conduct the LCC analysis. The market shares in Table 8.2.94 represent the equipment that 

households would have purchased in the year 2012 in the absence of new standards. For 

purposes of conducting the national impact analysis (refer to Chapter 10), DOE estimated that 

the market share data for the 35.01–45.00 pints/day and 54.01–74.99 pints/day classes could be 

used to characterize the base case market shares for the 45.01–54.00 pints/day and 75 pints/day 

and greater product classes, respectively. 

Table 8.2.94 Dehumidifiers: Base Case Market Shares 

0-35.00 pints/day 35.01-45.00 pints/day 54.01-74.99 pints/day 

Level EF Market 

Share* Level EF Market Share Level EF Market Share 

Baseline 1.20 27% Baseline 1.30 27% Baseline 1.50 31% 

1 1.25 35% 1 1.35 35% 1 1.55 0% 

2 1.30 0% 2 1.40 0% 2 1.60 57% 

3 1.35 0% 3 1.45 0% 3 1.65 12% 

4 1.40 38% 4 1.50 38% 4 1.70 0% 

5 1.45 0% 5 1.74 0% 5 1.80 0% 

* Market share data unavailable. DOE used the same market shares as for the 35.01-45.00 product class. 

8-74 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
8.2.6.3 Cooking Products – Cooktops 

Because DOE currently does not regulate cooktop efficiency with an energy efficiency 

descriptor, very little is known regarding the distribution of product efficiencies that consumers 

in the United States currently purchase. 

As discussed in Section 3.14.3 of Chapter 3, Market and Technology Assessment, 

Natural Resources Canada (NRCanada) does publish the efficiency of electric cooking products 

sold in Canada. Although the range in electric cooktop efficiency is relatively wide, the 

distribution is based on the number of models being sold rather than the percent of shipments 

being sold. Thus, because it is unknown how representative NRCanada’s electric cooktop 

efficiency distribution is of actual shipments sold in the U.S., DOE did not use NRCanada’s data 

for the LCC analysis. Instead, DOE conducted the LCC analysis for electric cooktops assuming 

that 100 percent of consumers currently purchase products at the baseline efficiency level. 

For gas cooktops, even less is known about model efficiency, since neither NRCanada 

nor AHAM publish any data on gas cooktop efficiencies. However, data are available that 

establish the percent of gas cooktops that are shipped with standing pilots. Based on shipments 

data submitted by AHAM for the years 2003–2005, gas standard (i.e., non-self-cleaning) ranges 

are the only product type that are still shipped with standing pilots.43 In other words, all 

shipments of built-in gas cooktops, built-in ovens, and gas self-cleaning ranges use pilotless 

ignition systems. Table 8.2.95 shows the historical percentage of gas standard range and gas 

built-in cooktop shipments with pilots. The historical percentages from 1988 to 1996 are based 

on data from DOE’s supplemental analysis to its 1996 TSD on Cooking Products.6

 Data for the 

years 1997, 2000, and 2004 are based on information from the Appliance Recycling Information 

Center (ARIC).44 The ARIC states that approximately 690,000, 620,000, and 250,000 gas ranges 

were shipped with standing pilot ignition systems for the years 1997, 2000, and 2004, 

respectively. Figure 8.2.6 plots the data in Table 8.2.95 to graphically depict the decreasing 

percentage in gas cooktops with pilots. 

8-75 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.95 Gas Cooktops: Percent of Shipments with Pilots 

Year 

Percent Shipments with Gas Pilots* 

Built-In 

Cooktops 

Standard 

Ranges 

All Cooktops 

(Built-In and Ranges) 

1988 16.5% 48.1% 32.4% 

1989 15.4% 44.1% 30.8% 

1990 9.7% 38.2% 26.4% 

1991 8.1% 36.5% 24.5% 

1992 10.4% 37.6% 25.1% 

1993 8.3% 34.3% 21.7% 

1994 12.6% 39.9% 26.4% 

1995 3.3% 38.5% 23.2% 

1996 NA 36.4% NA 

1997 0.0% 47.0% 25.8% 

2000 0.0% 42.8% 20.0% 

2004 0.0% 18.2% 6.8% 

* Source: 1988-1996: U.S. Department of Energy, Supplemental Analysis for Ranges and Ovens, Supplemental 

Chapter 4, 1998. 1997, 2000, 2004, Standard Ranges: Appliance Recycling Information Center, 2005. 2004, 

Cooktops: AHAM data submittal, 2006. 

0% 

All

il

10% 

20% 

30% 

40% 

50% 

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 

Year 

Percent Shipments with Pilots 

Gas Standard Ranges 

 Gas Cooktops 

Gas Bu t-In Cooktops 

Figure 8.2.6 Gas Cooktops: Percent of Shipments with Pilots 

Based on the data presented in Table 8.2.95, DOE conducted the LCC analysis for gas 

cooktops assuming that only 6.8 percent of consumers currently purchase products at the 

8-76 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
baseline efficiency level. DOE assumed that the remaining 93.2 percent of consumers purchased 

gas cooktops with pilotless ignition systems. 

Table 8.2.96 presents the market shares of the efficiency levels in the base case for each 

of the cooktop product classes. The market shares represent the equipment that households 

would have purchased in the year 2012 in the absence of new standards. 

Table 8.2.96 Cooktops: Base Case Market Shares 

Level 

Baseline 

1 

EF 

Electric Coil 

0.737 

0.769 

Market 

Share 

100% 

0% 

Level 

Baseline 

1 

EF 

Electric Smooth 

0.742 

0.753 

Market 

Share 

100% 

0% 

Level 

Baseline 

1 

2 

EF 

Gas 

0.156 

0.399 

0.420 

Market 

Share 

6.8% 

93.2%

0% 

8.2.6.4 Cooking Products – Ovens 

Like cooktops, because DOE does not currently regulate oven efficiency with an energy 

efficiency descriptor, very little is known regarding the distribution of product efficiencies that 

consumers currently purchase. 

As discussed in Section 3.14.3 of Chapter 3, Market and Technology Assessment, 

NRCanada does publish the efficiency of electric oven products sold in Canada. Although the 

range in electric oven efficiency is relatively wide, the distribution is based on the number of 

models being sold rather than the percent of shipments being sold. Thus, because it is unknown 

how representative NRCanada’s electric oven efficiency distribution is of actual shipments sold 

in the U.S., DOE did not use NRCanada’s data for this analysis. Instead, DOE conducted the 

LCC analysis for electric ovens assuming that 100 percent of consumers currently purchase 

products at the baseline efficiency level. 

As discussed above for gas cooktops, little is known about gas oven model efficiency, 

since neither NRCanada nor AHAM publish any data on gas oven efficiencies. However, data 

are available that establish the percent of gas ovens that are shipped with standing pilots. Based 

on shipments data that AHAM submitted for the years 2003–2005, gas standard (i.e., non-selfcleaning) ranges are the only product type that are still shipped with standing pilots.42 Table 

8.2.97 shows the historical percentage of gas standard range and gas built-in oven shipments 

with pilots. DOE based the historical percentages from 1988 to 1996 on data from DOE’s 

supplemental analysis to its 1996 TSD on Cooking Products.6 Data for the years 1997, 2000, 

and 2004 are based on information from ARIC.43 Figure 8.2.7 plots the data in Table 8.2.97 to 

graphically depict the decreasing percentage in gas ovens with pilots. 

8-77 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.97 Gas Standard Ovens: Percent of Shipments with Pilots 

Year 

Percent Shipments with Gas Pilots* 

Built-In Standard 

Ovens 

Standard 

Ranges 

All Standard Ovens 

(Built-In and Ranges) 

1988 1.7% 48.1% 44.6% 

1989 3.1% 44.1% 41.6% 

1990 5.6% 38.2% 36.5% 

1991 0.0% 36.5% 34.8% 

1992 0.0% 37.6% 35.9% 

1993 0.0% 34.3% 32.9% 

1994 0.0% 39.9% 38.4% 

1995 0.0% 38.5% 37.0% 

1996 NA 36.4% 34.9% 

1997 0.0% 47.0% 45.4% 

2000 0.0% 42.8% 41.3% 

2004 0.0% 18.2% 17.6% 

* Source: 1988-1996: U.S. Department of Energy, Supplemental Analysis for Ranges and Ovens, Supplemental 

Chapter 4, 1998. 1997, 2000, 2004, Standard Ranges: Appliance Recycling Information Center, 2005. 2004, 

Ovens: AHAM data submittal, 2006. 

0% 

1987 1991 2001 2005 

All

il

10% 

20% 

30% 

40% 

50% 

1989 1993 1995 1997 1999 2003 

Year 

Percent Shipments with Pilots 

Gas Standard Ranges 

 Gas Ovens 

Gas Bu t-In Ovens 

Figure 8.2.7 Gas Standard Ovens: Percent of Shipments with Pilots 

8-78 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Based on the data presented in Table 8.2.97, DOE conducted the LCC analysis for gas 

ovens assuming that only 17.6 percent of consumers currently purchase products at the baseline 

efficiency level. DOE assumed that the remaining 82.4 percent of consumers purchase gas ovens 

with pilotless ignition systems (i.e., products at efficiency level 1—globar ignition systems). 

All gas self-cleaning ovens already have pilotless ignition systems (i.e., the baseline 

efficiency level uses pilotless ignition). Because virtually nothing is known about the 

distribution of gas self-cleaning oven product efficiencies, DOE conducted the LCC analysis for 

gas self-cleaning ovens assuming that 100 percent of consumers currently purchase products at 

the baseline efficiency level. 

Table 8.2.98 presents the market shares of the efficiency levels in the base case for each 

of the oven product classes. The market shares represent the equipment that households would 

have purchased in the year 2012 in the absence of new standards. 

Table 8.2.98 Ovens: Base Case Market Shares 

Electric Standard Electric Self-Clean Gas Standard Gas Self-Clean 

Market Market Market Market 

Level EF Share Level EF Share Level EF Share Level EF Share 

Baseline 0.1066 100% Baseline 0.1099 100% Baseline 0.0298 17.6% Baseline 0.0540 100% 

1 0.1113 0% 1 0.1102 0% 1* 0.0536 82.4% 1 0.0625 0% 

2 0.1163 0% 2 0.1123 0% 2 0.0566 0% 2 0.0627 0% 

3 0.1181 0% 3 0.0572 0% 3 0.0632 0% 

4 0.1206 0% 4 0.0593 0% 

5 0.1209 0% 5 0.0596 0%

 6 0.0600 0%

 1a* 0.0583 0% 

* For gas standard ovens, levels 1 and 1a correspond to designs that are utilized for the same purpose—eliminate 

the need for a standing pilot—but the technologies for each design are different. Level 1 is a hot surface ignition 

device while level 1a is a spark ignition device. 

8.2.6.5 Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens 

Because DOE does not currently regulate microwave oven efficiency with an energy 

efficiency descriptor, very little is known regarding the distribution of product efficiencies that 

consumers currently purchase. 

As discussed in Section 3.14.3 of Chapter 3, Market and Technology Assessment, 

AHAM did provide limited data on microwave oven efficiency. Oven efficiencies that AHAM 

provided ranged from 55 percent to 62 percent. It is unknown how representative this range of 

microwave oven efficiencies is of products currently being sold. Because the actual range of 

efficiencies is unknown, DOE conducted the LCC analysis for microwave ovens assuming that 

100 percent of consumers currently purchase products at the baseline efficiency level. 

8-79 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.99 presents the market shares of the efficiency levels in the base case for 

microwave ovens. The market shares represent the equipment that households would have 

purchased in the year 2012 in the absence of new standards. 

Table 8.2.99 Microwave Ovens: Base Case Market Shares 

Level EF Market Share 

Baseline 0.557 100% 

1 0.586 0% 

2 0.588 0% 

3 0.597 0% 

4 0.602 0% 

8.2.6.6 Commercial Clothes Washers 

DOE based its base case market share data for commercial clothes washers on data that 

AHAM provided.45 However, rather than providing market share data by efficiency level, 

AHAM provided shipment-weighted efficiency data. For the year 2005, the shipment-weighted 

efficiencies of commercial clothes washers are 1.41 modified energy factor (MEF) and 10.91 

water factor (WF). 

As discussed in Section 3.14.3 of Chapter 3, Market and Technology Assessment, the 

California Energy Commission (CEC) does publish the MEFs and WFs of commercial clothes 

washers sold in California. Although the range in efficiencies is relatively wide, the distribution 

is based on the number of available models being sold rather than the percent of shipments being 

sold. Thus, because it is unknown how representative CEC’s efficiency distributions are of 

actual shipments sold in the U.S., DOE did not use the CEC data to establish base case market 

shares. 

Without market share data supplied by either AHAM or CEC, DOE used the shipmentweighted efficiency data that AHAM provided to derive market shares. Because the commercial 

clothes washer market consists of top-loading vertical-axis machines and front-loading 

horizontal-axis machines, DOE assumed a bi-modal market share distribution consisting of only 

vertical-axis equipment meeting current minimum efficiency standards of 1.26 MEF/9.5 WF and 

horizontal-axis equipment with an efficiency of 2.00 MEF/5.5 WF. Thus, by using a shipmentweighted efficiency of 1.41 MEF, DOE determined that the market share of 1.26 MEF/9.5 WF 

washers is 79.7 percent and the market share of 2.00 MEF/5.5 WF washers is 20.3 percent.d 

Table 8.2.100 presents the market shares of the efficiency levels in the base case for commercial 

clothes washers that DOE used to conduct the LCC analysis. The market shares in Table 8.2.100 

represent the equipment that establishments would have purchased in the year 2012 in the 

absence of new standards. 

d

 DOE did not consider the shipment-weighted average WF of 10.91 in performing the market share calculation. 

8-80 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.2.100 Commercial Clothes Washers: Base Case Market Shares 

Level MEF WF Market Share 

Baseline 1.26 9.50 79.7% 

1 1.42 9.50 0.0% 

2 1.60 8.50 0.0% 

3 1.72 8.00 0.0% 

4 1.80 7.50 0.0% 

5 2.00 5.50 20.3% 

6 2.20 5.10 0.0% 

8.3 PAYBACK PERIOD INPUTS 

The payback period is the amount of time it takes the consumer to recover the assumed 

higher purchase expense of more energy-efficient equipment as a result of lower operating costs. 

Numerically, the PBP is the ratio of the increase in purchase expense (i.e., from a less efficient 

design to a more efficient design) to the decrease in annual operating expenditures. This type of 

calculation is known as a “simple” payback period, because it does not take into account changes 

in operating expense over time or the time value of money; i.e., the calculation is done at an 

effective discount rate of zero percent. 

The equation for PBP is: 

∆IC

PBP = 

∆OC 

where: 

∆IC = Difference in the total installed cost between the more efficient standard level 

and the baseline design, and 

∆OC = difference in annual operating expenses. 

Payback periods are expressed in years. Payback periods greater than the life of the 

product mean that the increased total installed cost is not recovered in reduced operating 

expenses. 

The data inputs to PBP are the total installed cost of the equipment to the consumer for 

each efficiency level and the annual (first year) operating expenditures for each standard level. 

The inputs to the total installed cost are the equipment price and the installation cost. The inputs 

to the operating costs are the annual energy (and water) cost, the annual repair cost, and the 

annual maintenance cost. The PBP uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis as described in 

section 8.2, except that energy (and water) price trends and discount rates are not required. Since 

the PBP is a “simple” payback, the required energy price is only for the year in which a new 

8-81 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
standard is to take effect—in this case, the year 2012. The energy price DOE used in the PBP 

calculation was the price projected for that year. Discount rates are also not required for the 

simple PBP calculation. 

8.4 LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS 

This section presents the LCC and PBP results for the set of residential products (i.e., 

cooking products, dishwashers, and dehumidifiers) and commercial clothes washers. With 

regard to the residential products, as discussed in section 8.1.1, DOE’s approach for conducting 

the LCC analysis relied on developing samples of households that use each of the products. 

DOE also characterized the uncertainty of many of the inputs to the analysis with probability 

distributions. DOE used a Monte Carlo simulation technique to perform the LCC calculations on 

the households in the sample. For each set of sample households using the equipment in each 

product class, DOE calculated the average LCC and LCC savings and the median and average 

PBP for each of the standard levels. For commercial clothes washers, DOE was unable to 

develop a sample of consumers that use the equipment. However, DOE still used Monte Carlo 

simulation to perform the LCC and PBP analysis, since it characterized the uncertainty of many 

of the inputs to the analysis with probability distributions. 

DOE calculated LCC savings and PBPs relative to the base case equipment that it 

assigned to the households (in the case of residential products) and commercial consumers (in 

the case of commercial clothes washers). As discussed in section 8.2.6, for some households and 

commercial clothes washer consumers, DOE assigned base case equipment that is more efficient 

than some of the standard levels. For that reason, the average LCC impacts are not equal to the 

difference between the LCC of a specific standard level and the LCC of the baseline equipment. 

In the subsections below, DOE presents figures showing the distribution of LCCs in the 

base case for each product class. Also presented below for a specific standard level are figures 

showing the distribution of LCC impacts and the distribution of PBPs. The figures are presented 

as frequency charts that show the distribution of LCCs, LCC impacts, and PBPs with their 

corresponding probability of occurrence. DOE generated the figures for the distributions from a 

Monte Carlo simulation run based on 10,000 samples. 

In the case of residential products, LCC and PBP calculations were performed 10,000 

times on the sample of households established for each residential product. Each LCC and PBP 

calculation was performed on a single household that was selected from the sample. The 

selection of a household was based on its weight (i.e., how representative a particular household 

is of other households in the distribution). Each LCC and PBP calculation also sampled from the 

probability distributions that DOE developed to characterize many of the inputs to the analysis. 

For commercial clothes washers, because DOE did not develop a consumer sample, the LCC and 

PBP calculations were performed 10,000 times by sampling only from the probability 

distributions that DOE developed to characterize many of the inputs. 

8-82 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
8-83 

Based on the Monte Carlo simulations that DOE performed, for each standard-level, 

DOE calculated the share of households (in the case of residential products) and the share of 

commercial consumers (in the case of commercial clothes washers) with a net LCC benefit, with 

a net LCC cost, and with no impact. DOE considered a household or commercial user to receive 

no impact at a given standard level if DOE assigned it base case equipment that is the same as or 

has higher efficiency than the standard level. To illustrate the range of LCC and PBP impacts 

among the sample households and commercial clothes washer users, the sections below present 

figures that provide such information for each product class. 

8.4.1 Dishwashers 

8.4.1.1 Base Case LCC Distributions 

 Figure 8.4.1 shows the frequency chart for the base case LCC for standard-sized 

dishwashers. The figure below shows the mean LCC of the base case distribution as well as the 

full range of LCCs. 

Figure 8.4.1 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: Base Case LCC Distribution 

8.4.1.2 Standard-Level Distributions of LCC Impacts 

 Figure 8.4.2 is an example of a frequency chart showing the distribution of LCC 

differences for the case of standard level 3 for standard-sized dishwashers. In the figure, a text 

box next to a vertical line at that value on the x-axis shows the mean change in LCC (a savings 

of $17 in the example here). The note, “Certainty is 68% from $0 to +Infinity,” means that 68 

percent of households with dishwashers will either not be impacted or have LCC savings due to 

the standard level compared to the base case. The large ‘spike’ in Figure 8.4.2 represents the 

percentage of households that are not impacted by an increase in the standard level, i.e., 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
households that already use dishwashers with efficiencies greater than or equal to the standard 

level. Refer back to section 8.2.6.1 on the distribution of product efficiencies under the base 

case. DOE can generate a frequency chart like the one shown in Figure 8.4.2 for every standard 

level. 

Figure 8.4.2 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: Distribution of LCC Impacts for 

Standard Level 3 

8.4.1.3 Standard-Level PBP Distributions 

Figure 8.4.3 is an example of a frequency chart showing the distribution of payback 

periods of standard level 3 for standard-sized dishwashers. The large ‘spike’ at the PBP value of 

-2.00 indicates the percentage of households with dishwashers that are not impacted by an 

increase in the standard level, i.e., households that already use dishwashers with efficiencies 

equal to or greater than then standard level. Refer back to section 8.2.6.1 on the distribution of 

product efficiencies under the base case. DOE can generate a frequency chart like the one shown 

in Figure 8.4.3 for every standard level. 

8-84 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Figure 8.4.3 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: Distribution of PBPs for Standard Level 3 

8.4.1.4 LCC and PBP Results 

Table 8.4.1 shows the LCC and PBP results for standard-sized dishwashers. For 

example, standard level 3 (0.65 EF) shows an average LCC savings of $17. Note that for 

standard level 3, almost eleven percent of the housing units in 2012 are assumed to have already 

purchased a dishwasher in the base case at standard level 3 and thus have zero savings due to the 

standard. If one compares the LCC of the baseline at 0.46 EF to the standards case at 0.65 EF, 

then the average LCC savings are $99. But since the base case includes a significant number of 

households that are not impacted by the standard, the average savings over all of the households 

is $17. With regard to the PBPs shown below, DOE determined the median and average values 

by excluding the percentage of households not impacted by the standard. For example, in the 

case of standard level 3, almost eleven percent of the households did not factor into the 

calculation of the median and average PBP. 

8-85 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.4.1 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: LCC and PBP Results 

Level EF 

Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average 

Installed 

Price 

Average 

Operating 

Cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

Savings 

Households with 

Median Average 

Net 

Cost 

No 

Impact 

Net 

Benefit 

Baseline 0.46 $700 $424 $1,124 - - - - - -

1 0.58 $706 $339 $1,045 $4.1 0.1% 92.8% 7.1% 0.9 1.5 

2 0.62 $712 $318 $1,029 $13.4 11.3% 32.8% 56.0% 2.8 5.1 

3 0.65 $722 $303 $1,025 $16.8 32.6% 10.6% 56.8% 5.9 10.9 

4 0.68 $747 $291 $1,038 $4.8 58.6% 3.1% 38.4% 11.9 22.2 

5 0.72 $811 $275 $1,086 -$42.9 82.9% 0.6% 16.5% 22.5 42.3 

6 0.80 $900 $249 $1,149 -$105.9 90.1% 0.4% 9.5% 28.3 51.5 

7 1.11 $980 $183 $1,162 -$119.2 83.3% 0.3% 16.4% 21.9 39.3 

Figure 8.4.4 shows the range of LCC savings for all of the standard levels considered for 

standard-sized dishwashers. For each standard level, the top and the bottom of the box indicate 

the 75th and 25th percentiles, respectively. The bar at the middle of the box indicates the median; 

50 percent of the households have LCC savings above this value. The ‘whiskers’ at the bottom 

and the top of the box indicate the 5th and 95th percentiles. The small box shows the average 

LCC savings for each standard level. Figure 8.4.5 shows the range of PBPs. 

8-86 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Figure 8.4.4 Range of LCC Savings for Standard-Sized Dishwashers 

Figure 8.4.5 Range of Payback Periods in Years for Standard-Sized Dishwashers 

8-87

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
8-88 

8.4.2 Dehumidifiers 

8.4.2.1 Base Case LCC Distributions 

 Figures 8.4.6, 8.4.7, and 8.4.8 show the frequency charts for the base case LCC for the 

three dehumidifier product classes that DOE analyzed for the LCC and PBP analysis. The 

figures below show the mean LCC of the base case distribution as well as the full range of LCCs. 

Figure 8.4.6 Dehumidifiers, 25.01-35.00 pints/day: Base Case LCC Distribution 

Figure 8.4.7 Dehumidifiers, 35.01-45.00 pints/day: Base Case LCC Distribution 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
8-89 

Figure 8.4.8 Dehumidifiers, 54.01-74.99 pints/day: Base Case LCC Distribution 

8.4.2.2 Standard-Level Distributions of LCC Impacts 

 Figure 8.4.9 is an example of a frequency chart showing the distribution of LCC 

differences for the case of standard level 3 for the 35.01-45.00 pint/day product class. In the 

figure, a text box next to a vertical line at that value on the x-axis shows the mean change in 

LCC (a savings of $8 in the example here). The note, “Certainty is 83.14% from $0 to 

+Infinity,” means that 83.14 percent of households with dehumidifiers will either not be 

impacted or have LCC savings due to the standard level compared to the base case. The large 

‘spike’ in Figure 8.4.9 represents the percentage of households that are not impacted by an 

increase in the standard level, i.e., households that already use dehumidifiers with efficiencies 

greater than or equal to the standard level. Refer back to section 8.2.6.2 on the distribution of 

product efficiencies under the base case. DOE can generate a frequency chart like the one shown 

in Figure 8.4.9 for every standard level. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Figure 8.4.9 Dehumidifiers, 35.01-45.00 pints/day: Distribution of LCC Impacts for 

Standard Level 3 

8.4.2.3 Standard-Level PBP Distributions 

Figure 8.4.10 is an example of a frequency chart showing the distribution of payback 

periods for standard level 3 for the 35.01-45.00 pint/day product class of dehumidifiers. The 

large ‘spike’ at the PBP value of -2.00 indicates the percentage of households with dehumidifiers 

that are not impacted by an increase in the standard level, i.e., households that already use 

dehumidifiers with efficiencies equal to or greater than then standard level. Refer back to section 

8.2.6.2 on the distribution of product efficiencies under the base case. DOE can generate a 

frequency chart like the one shown in Figure 8.4.10 for every standard level within each product 

class. 

8-90 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Figure 8.4.10 Dehumidifiers, 35.01-45.00 pints/day: Distribution of PBPs for 

Standard Level 3 

8.4.2.4 LCC and PBP Results 

Tables 8.4.2, 8.4.3, and 8.4.4 show the LCC and PBP results for dehumidifiers. For 

example, in the case of the 35.01-45.00 pints/day class, standard level 3 (1.45 EF) as shown in 

Figure 8.4.9 shows an average LCC savings of $8. Note that for standard level 3, over 38 

percent of the housing units in 2012 are assumed to have already purchased a dehumidifier at 

standard level 3 in the base case and thus have zero savings due to the standard. If one compares 

the LCC of the base case at 1.30 EF to the standards case at 1.45 EF, then the average LCC 

savings are $19. But since the base case includes a significant number of households that are not 

impacted by the standard, the average savings over all of the households is $8. With regard to 

the PBPs shown below, DOE determined the median and average values by excluding the 

percentage of households not impacted by the standard. For example, as shown in Figure 8.4.10, 

over 38 percent of the households did not factor into the calculation of the median and average 

PBP for standard level 3 of the 35.01-45.00 pints/day class,. 

8-91 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.4.2 Dehumidifiers, 0-35.00 pints/day: LCC and PBP Results 

Level 

Efficiency 

liters/kWh 

Life-Cycle Cost* Life-Cycle Cost Savings* Payback Period 

(years)* 

Average 

Installed 

Price 

Average 

Operating 

Cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

Savings 

Households with 

Median Average 

Net 

Cost 

No 

Impact 

Net 

Benefit 

Baseline 1.20 $137 $422 $558 - - - - - -

1 1.25 $142 $405 $546 $3.2 0.0% 73.1% 26.9% 2.6 2.5 

2 1.30 $142 $389 $533 $11.1 0.0% 38.4% 61.6% 1.7 1.8 

3 1.35 $153 $375 $528 $14.7 0.2% 38.4% 61.4% 3.2 3.1 

4 1.40 $166 $361 $527 $15.0 5.5% 38.4% 56.2% 4.6 4.5 

5 1.45 $176 $349 $525 $16.9 25.9% 0.0% 74.1% 5.7 5.9 

* LCC, LCC savings, and PBP based on the annual energy consumption and operating cost associated with the 25.01-

35.00 pints/day product class. 

Table 8.4.3 Dehumidifiers, 35.01-45.00 pints/day: LCC and PBP Results 

Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average Average Households with 

Efficiency Installed Operating Average Average Net No Net 

Level liters/kWh Price Cost LCC Savings Cost Impact Benefit Median Average 

Baseline 1.30 $157 $519 $676 - - - - - -

1 1.35 $167 $500 $666 $2.6 1.5% 73.1% 25.5% 4.4 4.2 

2 1.40 $167 $482 $661 $5.7 15.2% 38.2% 46.6% 5.9 5.8 

3 1.45 $192 $465 $657 $8.1 17.5% 38.2% 44.3% 6.2 6.1 

4 1.50 $208 $450 $658 $8.0 22.7% 38.2% 39.1% 7.0 6.8 

5 1.74 $272 $388 $660 $5.4 54.1% 0.0% 45.9% 8.5 8.3 

Table 8.4.4 Dehumidifiers, 54.01-74.99 pints/day: LCC and PBP Results 

Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average Average Households with 

Efficiency Installed Operating Average Average Net No Net 

Level liters/kWh Price Cost LCC Savings Cost Impact Benefit Median Average 

Baseline 1.50 $189 $725 $914 - - - - - -

1 1.55 $195 $702 $897 $5.3 0.0% 68.5% 31.5% 2.5 2.4 

2 1.60 $195 $680 $881 $10.3 0.0% 68.5% 31.5% 2.4 2.4 

3 1.65 $208 $659 $867 $22.4 0.0% 12.3% 87.7% 2.8 2.7 

4 1.70 $224 $640 $864 $25.1 14.1% 0.0% 85.9% 4.8 4.9 

5 1.80 $241 $604 $845 $44.1 7.8% 0.0% 92.2% 4.4 4.4 

Figures 8.4.11, 8.4.12, and 8.4.13 show the range of LCC savings for the standard levels 

for the 25.01-35.00, 35.01-45.00, and 54.01-74.99 pint/day product classes, respectively. For 

each standard level, the top and the bottom of the box indicate the 75th and 25th percentiles, 

8-92 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
respectively. The bar at the middle of the box indicates the median; 50 percent of the households 

have LCC savings above this value. The ‘whiskers’ at the bottom and the top of the box indicate 

the 5th and 95th percentiles. The small box shows the average LCC savings for each standard 

level. Figures 8.4.14, 8.4.15, and 8.4.16 show the range of PBPs for the 25.01-35.00, 35.01-

45.00, and 54.01-74.99 pint/day product classes, respectively. 

Figure 8.4.11 Range of LCC Savings for Dehumidifiers, 0-35.00 pints/day 

8-93 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Figure 8.4.12 Range of LCC Savings for Dehumidifiers, 35.01-45.00 pints/day 

Figure 8.4.13 Range of LCC Savings for Dehumidifiers, 54.01-74.99 pints/day 

8-94 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Figure 8.4.14 Range of Payback Periods for Dehumidifiers, 0-35.00 pints/day 

Figure 8.4.15 Range of Payback Periods for Dehumidifiers, 35.01-45.00 pints/day 

8-95 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Figure 8.4.16 Range of Payback Periods for Dehumidifiers, 54.01-74.99 pints/day 

8.4.3 Cooking Products – Cooktops 

8.4.3.1 Base Case LCC Distributions 

Figures 8.4.17, 8.4.18, and 8.4.19 show the frequency charts for the base case LCC for 

the three cooktop product classes. The figures below show the mean LCC of the base case 

distribution, as well as the full range of LCCs. 

8-96 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
8-97 

Figure 8.4.17 Electric Coil Cooktops: Base Case LCC Distribution 

Figure 8.4.18 Electric Smooth Cooktops: Base Case LCC Distribution 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
8-98 

Figure 8.4.19 Gas Cooktops: Base Case LCC Distribution 

8.4.3.2 Standard-Level Distributions of LCC Impacts 

 Figure 8.4.20 is an example of a frequency chart showing the distribution of LCC 

differences for the case of standard level 2 for gas cooktops. In the figure, a text box next to a 

vertical line at that value on the x-axis shows the mean change in LCC (a cost of $5 in the 

example here). The note, “Certainty is 6.82% from $0 to +Infinity,” means that 6.82 percent of 

households with gas cooktops will either not be impacted or have LCC savings due to the 

standard level compared to the base case. DOE can generate a frequency chart like the one 

shown in Figure 8.4.20 for every standard level within each product class. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
8-99

Figure 8.4.20 Gas Cooktops: Distribution of LCC Impacts for Standard Level 2 

8.4.3.3 Standard-Level PBP Distributions 

 Figure 8.4.21 is an example of a frequency chart showing the distribution of payback 

periods for standard level 2 for gas cooktops. The large ‘spike’ at the PBP value of -1.00 

indicates the percentage of households with gas cooktops that do not realize any energy cost 

savings due to the standard level, i.e., households that rarely or never use their cooktop. DOE 

can generate a frequency chart like the one shown in Figure 8.4.21 for every standard level 

within each product class. 

Figure 8.4.21 Gas Cooktops: Distribution of PBPs for Standard Level 2 

Frequency Chart

Certainty is 6.82% from ($0) to +Infinity

Mean = ($5)

.000

.027

.054

.081

.108

0

270.5

541

811.5

1082

($29) $3 $35 $68 $100

10,000 Trials 9,392 Displayed

Forecast: GC: LCC Save Lev 2

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
8.4.3.4 LCC and PBP Results 

Tables 8.4.5, 8.4.6, and 8.4.7 show the LCC and PBP results for cooktops. For example, 

in the case of gas cooktops, standard level 1 (pilotless ignition with an efficiency of 0.399 EF) 

shows an average LCC savings of $19. Note that for standard level 1, over 93 percent of the 

housing units in 2012 are assumed to have already purchased a gas cooktop with pilotless 

ignition in the base case and thus have zero savings due to the standard. If one compares the 

LCC of the baseline at 0.106 EF to the standards case at 0.399 EF, then the average LCC savings 

are $281. But since the base case includes a significant number of households that are not 

impacted by the standard, the average savings over all of the households is $19. With regard to 

the PBPs shown below, DOE determined the median and average values by excluding the 

percentage of households not impacted by the standard. For example, in the case of standard 

level 1 for gas cooktops, over 93 percent of the households did not factor into the calculation of 

the median and average PBP. 

Table 8.4.5 Electric Coil Cooktops: LCC and PBP Results 

Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average Average Households with 

Installed Operating Average Average Net No Net 

Level EF Price Cost LCC Savings Cost Impact Benefit Median Average 

Baseline 0.737 $251 $150 $401 - - - - - -

1 0.769 $255 $144 $399 $2.9 35.0% 0.0% 65.0% 8.1 18.6 

Table 8.4.6 Electric Smooth Cooktops: LCC and PBP Results 

Level EF 

Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average 

Installed 

Price 

Average 

Operating 

Cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

Savings 

Households with 

Median Average 

Net 

Cost 

No 

Impact 

Net 

Benefit 

Baseline 0.742 $288 $150 $438 - - - - - -

1 0.753 $528 $148 $676 -$238.3 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1,685.2 4,266.3 

Table 8.4.7 Gas Cooktops: LCC and PBP Results 

Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average Average Households with 

Installed Operating Average Average Net No Net 

Level EF Price Cost LCC Savings Cost Impact Benefit Median Average 

Baseline 0.156 $289 $428 $716 - - - - - -

1 0.399 $322 $113 $435 $18.6 0.0% 93.4% 6.7% 1.3 1.4 

2 0.420 $351 $107 $458 -$4.9 93.2% 0.0% 6.8% 75.3 195.1 

8-100 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Figures 8.4.22, 8.4.23, and 8.4.24 show the range of LCC savings for the standard levels 

for electric coil, electric smooth, and gas cooktops, respectively. For each standard level, the top 

and the bottom of the box indicate the 75th and 25th percentiles, respectively. The bar at the 

middle of the box indicates the median; 50 percent of the households have LCC savings above 

this value. The ‘whiskers’ at the bottom and the top of the box indicate the 5th and 95th 

percentiles. The small box shows the average LCC savings for each standard level. Figures 

8.4.25, 8.4.26, and 8.4.27 show the range of PBPs for electric coil, electric smooth, and gas 

cooktops, respectively. 

Figure 8.4.22 Range of LCC Savings for Electric Coil Cooktops 

8-101 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Figure 8.4.23 Range of LCC Savings for Electric Smooth Cooktops 

Figure 8.4.24 Range of LCC Savings for Gas Cooktops 

8-102 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Figure 8.4.25 Range of Payback Periods for Electric Coil Cooktops 

Figure 8.4.26 Range of Payback Periods for Electric Smooth Cooktops 

8-103 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Figure 8.4.27 Range of Payback Periods for Gas Cooktops 

8.4.4 Cooking Products – Ovens 

8.4.4.1 Base Case LCC Distributions 

Figures 8.4.28, 8.4.29, 8.4.30, and 8.4.31 show the frequency charts for the base case 

LCC for the four oven product classes. The figures below show the mean LCC of the base case 

distribution as well as the full range of LCCs. 

8-104 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
0 

72 

Frequency Chart i l

Mean = $581 

.000 

.007 

.014 

.022 

.029 

144 

216 

288 

$405 $559 $713 $867 $1,021 

10,000 Trials 9,730 Dsp ay ed 

Forecas t: E Std: LCC Bas e 

Figure 8.4.28 Electric Standard Ovens: Base Case LCC Distribution 

0 

Frequency Chart i l

Mean = $663 

.000 

.005 

.010 

.015 

.020 

50.75 

101.5 

152.2 

203 

$485 $627 $770 $912 $1,054 

10,000 Trials 9,740 Dsp ay ed 

Forecas t: E SC: LCC Base 

Figure 8.4.29 Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens: Base Case LCC Distribution 

8-105 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
0 

95 

Frequency Chart i l

Mean = $697 

.000 

.005 

.010 

.014 

.019 

47.5 

142.5 

190 

$450 $630 $809 $989 $1,168 

10,000 Trials 9,744 Dsp ayed 

Forecas t: G Std: LCC Base 

Figure 8.4.30 Gas Standard Ovens: Base Case LCC Distribution 

0 

Frequency Chart i l

Mean = $729 

.000 

.005 

.010 

.015 

.020 

48.75 

97.5 

146.2 

195 

$555 $681 $807 $933 $1,059 

10,000 Trials 9,757 Dsp ayed 

Forecas t: G SC: LCC Base 

Figure 8.4.31 Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens: Base Case LCC Distribution 

8.4.4.2 Standard-Level Distributions of LCC Impacts 

Figure 8.4.32 is an example of a frequency chart showing the distribution of LCC 

differences for the case of standard level 2 for gas standard ovens. In the figure, a text box next 

to a vertical line at that value on the x axis shows the mean change in LCC (a savings of $18 in 

the example here). The note, “Certainty is 55.47% from $0 to +Infinity,” means that 55.47 

percent of households with gas standard ovens will have LCC savings due to the standard level 

8-106 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
compared to the base case. DOE can generate a frequency chart like the one shown in Figure 

8.4.32 for every standard level in each of the four oven product classes. 

i i ( ) ini

0 

) 

Frequency Chart i l

Certanty s 55.47% f rom $0 to +Inf ty 

Mean = $18 

.000 

.034 

.068 

.101 

.135 

337.7 

675.5 

1351 

($5 $28 $61 $95 $128 

10,000 Trials 9,593 Dsp ayed 

Forecast: Gas Std: LCC Save Lev 2 

Figure 8.4.32 Gas Standard Ovens: Distribution of LCC Impacts for 

Standard Level 1 

8.4.4.3 Standard-Level PBP Distributions 

Figure 8.4.33 is an example of a frequency chart showing the distribution of payback 

periods of standard level 2 for gas standard ovens. DOE can generate a frequency chart like the 

one shown in Figure 8.4.33 for every standard level in each of the four oven product classes. 

0 

Frequency Chart i l

.000 

.030 

.060 

.090 

.120 

301 

602 

903 

1204 

1.4 26.1 50.7 75.4 100.0 

10,000 Trials 9,182 Dsp ayed 

Forecast: Gas Std: PBP Lev 2 

Figure 8.4.33 Gas Standard Ovens: Distribution of PBPs for Standard Level 

8-107 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
8.4.4.4 LCC and PBP Results 

Tables 8.4.8, 8.4.9, 8.4.10, and 8.4.11 show the LCC and PBP results for ovens. For 

example, in the case of gas ovens, standard level 1 (pilotless ignition with an efficiency of 0.053 

EF) shows an average LCC savings of $16. Note that for standard level 1, 83 percent of the 

housing units in 2012 are assumed to have already purchased a gas standard oven with pilotless 

ignition in the base case and thus have zero savings due to the standard. If one compares the 

LCC of the base case at 0.027 EF to the standards case at 0.053 EF, then the average LCC 

savings are $94. But since the base case includes a significant number of households that are not 

impacted by the standard, the average savings over all of the households is $16. With regard to 

the PBPs shown below, DOE determined the median and average values by excluding the 

percentage of households not impacted by the standard. For example, in the case of standard 

level 1 for gas standard ovens, 83 percent of the households did not factor into the calculation of 

the median and average PBP. 

Table 8.4.8 Electric Standard Ovens: LCC and PBP Results 

Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average Average Households with 

Installed Operating Average Average Net No Net 

Level EF Price Cost LCC Savings Cost Impact Benefit Median Average 

Baseline 0.1066 $392 $189 $581 - - - - - -

1 0.1113 $395 $182 $576 $4.9 38.3% 0.0% 61.8% 6.0 45.6 

2 0.1163 $399 $175 $574 $7.3 46.5% 0.0% 53.5% 9.1 68.7 

3 0.1181 $405 $172 $577 $4.3 54.5% 0.0% 45.5% 13.8 103.9 

4 0.1206 $462 $169 $631 ($49.9) 96.4% 0.0% 3.6% 65.5 493.6 

5 0.1209 $467 $169 $636 ($54.6) 97.1% 0.0% 2.9% 68.7 517.9 

Table 8.4.9 Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens: LCC and PBP Results 

Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average Average Households with 

Installed Operating Average Average Net No Net 

Level EF Price Cost LCC Savings Cost Impact Benefit Median Average 

Baseline 0.1099 $463 $200 $663 - - - - - -

1 0.1102 $469 $199 $669 ($88) 74.6% 0.0% 25.4% 196.7 1,071.7 

2 0.1123 $527 $196 $723 ($142) 81.9% 0.0% 18.1% 266.7 1,453.0 

8-108 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.4.10 Gas Standard Ovens: LCC and PBP Results 

Level EF 

Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average 

Installed 

Price 

Average 

Operating 

Cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

Savings 

Households with 

Median Average 

Net 

Cost 

No 

Impact 

Net 

Benefit 

Baseline 0.0298 $409 $288 $697 - - - - - -

1* 0.0536 $442 $162 $603 $16 0.0% 83.0% 17.0% 3.3 3.4 

2 0.0566 $447 $154 $601 $18 46.1% 0.0% 53.9% 8.4 136.1 

3 0.0572 $448 $153 $601 $18 47.9% 0.0% 52.1% 9.4 152.3 

4 0.0593 $481 $149 $630 ($11) 77.4% 0.0% 22.6% 27.2 460.1 

5 0.0596 $483 $148 $632 ($12) 77.9% 0.0% 22.1% 27.9 1,907.4 

6 0.0600 $488 $148 $636 ($17) 79.5% 0.0% 20.5% 30.1 426.3 

1a* 0.0583 $446 $134 $580 $39 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 2.2 2.2 

* Levels 1 and 1a correspond to designs that are utilized for the same purpose—eliminate the need for a standing 

pilot—but the technologies for each design are different. Level 1 is a hot surface ignition device while level 1a is 

a spark ignition device. Level 1a is presented at the end of the table because levels 2 through 6 are derived from 

level 1. 

Table 8.4.11 Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens: LCC and PBP Results 

Level EF 

Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average 

Installed 

Price 

Average 

Operating 

Cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

Savings 

Households with 

Median Average 

Net 

Cost 

No 

Impact 

Net 

Benefit 

Baseline 0.0540 $529 $200 $729 - - - - - -

1 0.0625 $545 $183 $727 $1 58.3% 0.0% 41.7% 11.8 158.0 

2 0.0627 $551 $182 $733 ($5) 67.3% 0.0% 32.7% 16.1 235.3 

3 0.0632 $553 $182 $734 ($6) 68.4% 0.0% 31.6% 16.7 149.0 

Figures 8.4.34, 8.4.35, 8.4.36, and 8.4.37 show the range of LCC savings for the standard 

levels for electric standard, electric self-cleaning, gas standard, and gas self-cleaning ovens, 

respectively. For each standard level, the top and the bottom of the box indicate the 75th and 25th 

percentiles, respectively. The bar at the middle of the box indicates the median; 50 percent of 

the households have LCC savings above this value. The ‘whiskers’ at the bottom and the top of 

the box indicate the 5th and 95th percentiles. The small box shows the average LCC savings for 

each standard level. Figures 8.4.38, 8.4.39, 8.4.40, and 8.4.41 show the range of PBPs for 

electric standard, electric self-cleaning, gas standard, and gas self-cleaning ovens, respectively. 

8-109 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Figure 8.4.34 Range of LCC Savings for Electric Standard Ovens 

Figure 8.4.35 Range of LCC Savings for Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens 

8-110

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Figure 8.4.36 Range of LCC Savings for Gas Standard Ovens 

Figure 8.4.37 Range of LCC Savings for Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens 

8-111 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Figure 8.4.38 Range of Payback Periods for Electric Standard Ovens 

Figure 8.4.39 Range of Payback Periods for Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens 

8-112 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Figure 8.4.40 Range of Payback Periods for Gas Standard Ovens 

Figure 8.4.41 Range of Payback Periods for Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens 

8-113

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
8.4.5 Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens 

8.4.5.1 Base Case LCC Distributions 

Figure 8.4.42 shows the frequency chart for the base case LCC for microwave ovens. 

The figure shows the mean LCC of the base case distribution as well as the full range of LCCs. 

0 

Frequency Chart i l

Mean = $308 

.000 

.008 

.016 

.023 

.031 

77.75 

155.5 

233.2 

311 

$216 $310 $404 $498 $592 

10,000 Trials 9,687 Dsp ayed 

Forecas t: LCC Base 

Figure 8.4.42 Microwave Ovens: Base Case LCC Distribution 

8.4.5.2 Standard-Level Distributions of LCC Impacts 

Figure 8.4.43 is an example of a frequency chart showing the distribution of LCC 

differences for the case of standard level 4. In the figure, a text box next to a vertical line at that 

value on the x axis shows the mean change in LCC (a cost of $68 in the example here). The 

note, “Certainty is 0.06% from $0 to +Infinity,” means that 0.6 percent of households with 

microwave ovens will have LCC savings due to the standard level compared to the base case. 

DOE can generate a frequency chart like the one shown in Figure 8.4.43 for every standard level. 

8-114 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
i i ini

 = ( ) 

0 

) ) ) ) 

Frequency Chart i l

Certanty s 0.06% from $0 to +Inf ty 

Mean $68

.000 

.021 

.042 

.063 

.084 

209.7 

419.5 

629.2 

839 

($75 ($54 ($33 ($11 $10 

10,000 Trials 9,998 Dsp ayed 

Forecast: LCC Lev 4 

Figure 8.4.43 Microwave Ovens: Distribution of LCC Impacts for Standard Level 3 

8.4.5.3 Standard-Level PBP Distributions 

Figure 8.4.44 is an example of a frequency chart showing the distribution of payback 

periods of standard level 4. DOE can generate a frequency chart like the one shown in Figure 

8.4.4 for every standard level. 

0 

Frequency Chart i l

.000 

.009 

.019 

.028 

.038 

94.5 

189 

283.5 

378 

-1.0 249.3 499.5 749.8 1,000.0 

10,000 Trials 9,545 Dsp ayed 

Forecast: PBP Lev 4 

Figure 8.4.44 Microwave Ovens: Distribution of PBPs for Standard Level 3 

8-115

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
8.4.5.4 LCC and PBP Results 

Table 8.4.12 shows the LCC and PBP results for microwave ovens. For example, 

standard level 4 (0.602 EF) shows an average LCC cost increase of $68. The median and 

average PBPs for standard level 4 are 132 and 328 years, respectively. 

Table 8.4.12 Microwave Ovens: LCC and PBP Results 

Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average Average Households with 

Installed Operating Average Average Net No Net 

Level EF Price Cost LCC Savings Cost Impact Benefit Median Average 

Baseline 0.557 $219 $89 $308 

1 0.586 $232 $84 $316 -$8.2 93.0% 0.0% 7.0% 33.9 84.0 

2 0.588 $246 $84 $329 -$21.4 98.6% 0.0% 1.4% 65.8 163.1 

3 0.597 $267 $83 $349 -$41.3 99.6% 0.0% 0.4% 93.9 232.5 

4 0.602 $294 $82 $376 -$67.5 99.9% 0.0% 0.1% 132.2 327.5 

Figure 8.4.45 shows the range of LCC savings for the standard levels for microwave 

ovens. For each standard level, the top and the bottom of the box indicate the 75th and 25th 

percentiles, respectively. The bar at the middle of the box indicates the median; 50 percent of 

the households have LCC savings above this value. The ‘whiskers’ at the bottom and the top of 

the box indicate the 5th and 95th percentiles. The small box shows the average LCC savings for 

each standard level. Figure 8.4.46 shows the range of PBPs. 

8-116 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Figure 8.4.45 Range of LCC Savings for Microwave Ovens 

Figure 8.4.46 Range of Payback Periods for Microwave Ovens 

8-117

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
8.4.6 Commercial Clothes Washers 

8.4.6.1 Base Case LCC Distributions 

Figures 8.4.47 and 8.4.48 show the frequency charts for the base case LCC for both 

product applications of commercial clothes washers. The figures below show the mean LCC of 

the base case distribution as well as the full range of LCCs. 

0 

Frequency Chart i l

Mean = $3,303 

.000 

.004 

.008 

.012 

.016 

40.75 

81.5 

122.2 

163 

$1,233 $2,582 $3,930 $5, 279 $6,628 

10,000 Trials 9,765 Dsp ay ed 

Forecas t: MF: LCC Base 

Figure 8.4.47 Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application: Base 

Case LCC Distribution 

0 

79 

Frequency Chart i l

Mean = $3, 494 

.000 

.004 

.008 

.012 

.016 

39.5 

118.5 

158 

$1,497 $2,509 $3,520 $4, 531 $5,542 

10,000 Trials 9,905 Dsp ay ed 

Forecast: Laun: LCC Base 

Figure 8.4.48 Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat Application: Base 

Case LCC Distribution 

8-118

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
8.4.6.2 Standard-Level Distributions of LCC Impacts 

Figure 8.4.49 is an example of a frequency chart showing the distribution of LCC 

differences for the case of standard level 5 for the multi-family product application. In the 

figure, a text box next to a vertical line at that value on the x-axis shows the mean change in 

LCC (a savings of $404 in the example here). The note, “Certainty is 90.73% from $0 to 

+Infinity,” means that 90.73 percent of consumers using clothes washers will have LCC savings 

due to the standard level compared to the base case. The large ‘spike’ in Figure 8.4.49 represents 

the percentage of consumers that are not impacted by an increase in the standard level, i.e., 

consumers that already use commercial clothes washers with efficiencies greater than or equal to 

the standard level. Refer back to section 8.2.6.6 on the distribution of product efficiencies under 

the base case. DOE can generate a frequency chart like the one shown in Figure 8.4.49 for every 

standard level and each product application. 

i i ( ) ini

0 

) 

Frequency Chart i l

Certanty s 90.73% f rom $0 to +Inf ty 

Mean = $404 

.000 

.054 

.109 

.163 

.218 

544.7 

2179 

($301 $196 $694 $1, 191 $1,688 

10,000 Trials 9,728 Dsp ay ed 

Forecas t: MF: LCC Save Lev 5 

Figure 8.4.49 Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application:

Distribution of LCC Impacts for Standard Level 5 

8.4.6.3 Standard-Level PBP Distributions 

Figure 8.4.50 is an example of a frequency chart showing the distribution of payback 

periods of standard level 5 for the multi-family product application. The large ‘spike’ at the PBP 

value of -2.00 indicates the percentage of consumers using commercial clothes washers that are 

not impacted by an increase in the standard level, i.e., consumers that already use commercial 

clothes washers with efficiencies equal to or greater than then standard level. Refer back to 

section 8.2.6.6 on the distribution of product efficiencies under the base case. DOE can generate 

a frequency chart like the one shown in Figure 8.4.50 for every standard level and each product 

application. 

8-119 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
0 

Frequency Chart i l

.000 

.052 

.104 

.156 

.209 

521.5 

2086 

-2.00 1.69 5.37 9.06 12.75 

10,000 Trials 9,978 Dsp ayed 

Forecas t: MF: PBP Lev 5 

Figure 8.4.50 Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application:

Distribution of PBPs for Standard Level 3 

8.4.6.4 LCC and PBP Results 

Tables 8.4.13 and 8.4.14 show the LCC and PBP results for both product applications of 

commercial clothes washers For example, in the case of the multi-family application, standard 

level 5 (2.00 MEF/5.50 WF) shows an average LCC savings of $404. Note that for standard 

level 5, almost 21 percent of consumers in 2012 are assumed to already be using a commercial 

clothes washer in the base case at standard level 5 and thus have zero savings due to the 

standard. If one compares the LCC of the base case at 1.26 MEF/9.50 WF to the standards case 

at 2.00 MEF/5.50 WF, then the average LCC savings are $509. But since the base case includes 

a significant number of consumers that are not impacted by the standard, the average savings 

over all of the consumers is $404. With regard to the PBPs shown below, DOE determined the 

median and average values by excluding the percentage of households not impacted by the 

standard. For example, in the case of standard level 5, almost 21 percent of the consumers did 

not factor into the calculation of the median and average PBP. 

8-120 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Table 8.4.13 Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application: LCC and PBP 

Results 

Level MEF/WF 

Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average 

Installed 

Price 

Average 

Operating 

Cost 

Average 

LCC 

Average 

Savings 

Households with 

Median Average 

Net 

Cost 

No 

Impact 

Net 

Benefit 

Baseline 1.26/9.50 $722 $2,581 $3,303 

1 1.42/9.50 $840 $2,454 $3,294 $6.9 42.0% 20.9% 37.1% 8.4 8.9 

2 1.60/8.50 $1,224 $2,189 $3,413 -$86.1 61.5% 20.9% 17.6% 11.9 12.8 

3 1.72/8.00 $1,224 $2,053 $3,277 $21.4 43.3% 20.9% 35.9% 8.8 9.5 

4 1.80/7.50 $1,224 $1,943 $3,167 $108.9 30.4% 20.9% 48.8% 7.3 7.9 

5 2.00/5.50 $1,224 $1,571 $2,794 $404.4 9.3% 20.9% 69.9% 4.6 5.1 

6 2.20/5.10 $1,224 $1,446 $2,670 $529.1 6.3% 0.0% 93.7% 3.8 3.6 

Table 8.4.14 Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat Application: LCC and PBP 

Results 

Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period 

(years) 

Average Average Households with 

Installed Operating Average Average Net No Net 

Level MEF/WF Price Cost LCC Savings Cost Impact Benefit Median Average 

Baseline 1.26/9.50 $722 $2,772 $3,494 

1 1.42/9.50 $840 $2,647 $3,487 $5.3 35.9% 20.9% 43.2% 5.3 5.6 

2 1.60/8.50 $1,224 $2,354 $3,577 -$66.1 61.5% 20.9% 17.7% 6.9 7.3 

3 1.72/8.00 $1,224 $2,207 $3,431 $50.2 29.2% 20.9% 50.0% 5.1 5.4 

4 1.80/7.50 $1,224 $2,085 $3,308 $147.0 13.6% 20.9% 65.5% 4.3 4.5 

5 2.00/5.50 $1,224 $1,661 $2,885 $482.1 0.7% 20.9% 78.5% 2.7 2.8 

6 2.20/5.10 $1,224 $1,532 $2,755 $611.6 0.2% 0.0% 99.8% 2.2 2.0 

Figures 8.4.51 and 8.4.52 show the range of LCC savings for the standard levels for both 

product applications of commercial clothes washers. For each standard level, the top and the 

bottom of the box indicate the 75th and 25th percentiles, respectively. The bar at the middle of 

the box indicates the median; 50 percent of the households have LCC savings above this value 

The ‘whiskers’ at the bottom and the top of the box indicate the 5th and 95th percentiles. The 

small box shows the average LCC savings for each standard level. Figures 8.4.53 and 8.4.54 

show the range of PBPs. 

8-121 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Figure 8.4.51 Range of LCC Savings for Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family 

Figure 8.4.52 Range of LCC Savings for Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat 

8-122 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
Figure 8.4.53 Range of Payback Periods for Commercial Clothes Washers, MultiFamily 

Figure 8.4.54 Range of Payback Periods for Commercial Clothes Washers, 

Laundromat 

8-123

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
8.5 REBUTTABLE PAYBACK PERIOD 

DOE presents rebuttable PBPs to provide the legally established rebuttable presumption 

that an energy efficiency standard is economically justified if the additional product costs 

attributed to the standard are less than three times the value of the first-year energy cost savings. 

(42 U.S.C. §6295 (o)(2)(B)(iii)) 

8.5.1 Metric 

The basic equation for rebuttable PBP is the same as that shown in section 8.3, Payback 

Period Inputs. Unlike the analyses described in sections 8.2 and 8.3, however, the rebuttable 

PBP is not based on the use of household samples and probability distributions. Rather than 

distributions, the rebuttable PBP is based on discrete single-point values. For example, while 

DOE uses a probability distribution of regional energy prices in the distributional payback period 

analysis, it uses only the national average energy price from the probability distribution to 

determine the rebuttable PBP. 

Other than the use of single-point values, the most notable difference between the 

distribution PBP and the rebuttable PBP is the latter’s reliance on the DOE test procedure to 

determine a product’s annual energy (and water) consumption. For the four sets of products 

being considered under this standards rulemaking, the following sections identify the differences, 

if any, between the annual energy (and water) consumptions determined for the distribution PBP 

and the rebuttable PBP. 

8.5.1.1 Dishwashers 

DOE based the annual energy and water consumption values that it used to determine the 

rebuttable PBP for dishwashers on the number of cycles per year specified in the DOE test 

procedure. 46 The number of cycles from the DOE test procedure, 215 cycles per year, is equal to 

the average number of cycles that DOE used in its determination of distribution PBPs. Thus, on 

average, the rebuttable PBP for dishwashers is virtually the same as the average distribution 

PBP.e 

8.5.1.2 Dehumidifiers 

The DOE test procedure for dehumidifiers does not provide a method for determining the 

product’s annual energy consumption.47 As a result, the DOE test procedure does not offer a 

basis for determining the rebuttable PBP. Based on operational use data presented by DOE in 

section 6.4 of Chapter 6, Energy and Water Use Determination, estimates of operational use vary 

e

 As described in section 6.3 of Chapter 6, Energy and Water Use Determination, DOE actually used a range of 

dishwasher cycles in its LCC and PBP analysis. The range or variability of the dishwasher cycles is inherent to the 

household sample that DOE used to conduct the analysis. Although some households in the sample have a use cycle 

that is higher than what is specified in the DOE test procedure, on average, the use cycles from the household 

sample were the same as the use cycles from the DOE test procedure. 

8-124 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
considerably. Some of the operational use data presented in Chapter 6 were provided by 

AHAM. Because the AHAM data were developed based on the experience of manufacturers, 

DOE believes that the AHAM data are the most representative of actual usage. For purposes of 

conducting its distributional analysis of LCC and PBP, DOE characterized the variability of 

operational use with an equilateral triangular probability distribution centered on an average 

value of 1095 hours. For its determination of rebuttable PBP, DOE decided to use the same 

average operational use estimate of 1095 hours. Thus, the rebuttable PBP for dehumidifiers is 

virtually the same as the average distribution PBP. 

8.5.1.3 Cooking Products 

For the rebuttable PBP, DOE determined the annual energy consumption of cooking 

products based on the annual useful cooking energy output values in the DOE test procedure.48 

On average, the annual useful cooking energy output values that DOE used to determine the 

distribution PBPs are lower than the values in the DOE test procedure. Because the annual 

energy consumption is determined by dividing the annual useful energy cooking output value by 

the cooking product’s energy factor, the annual energy consumption values that DOE calculated 

for the determination of distribution PBP are on average lower than the annual energy 

consumption values DOE used to determine the rebuttable PBP.f

 The higher the annual energy 

consumption value, the greater the potential of energy efficiency improvements to save energy. 

Thus, the rebuttable PBPs for cooking products will be shorter than the distribution PBPs. Table 

8.5.1 shows the difference in the annual useful cooking energy output values that DOE used to 

calculate the rebuttable PBP and distribution PBP. 

Table 8.5.1 Annual Useful Cooking Energy Output Values: Comparison of Values Used 

for the Determination of Rebuttable PBP and Distribution PBP 

 Rebuttable PBP* Distribution PBP** 

 Electric Gas Electric Gas 

Product Type kWh/yr MMBtu/yr kWh/yr MMBtu/yr 

Cooktops 173.1 527.6 94.8 289.1 

Ovens 29.3 88.8 16.1 48.7 

Microwave Ovens 79.8 73.0 

* Based on DOE test procedure. 

** Based on more recent field energy consumption data (see Chapter 6, section 6.2). 

f

 As described in section 6.2 of Chapter 6, Energy and Water Use Determination, DOE actually used a range of 

annual energy use values in its LCC and PBP analysis. The range or variability of annual energy use values is 

inherent to the household sample that DOE used to conduct the analysis. Although some households in the sample 

have an annual energy use value that is higher than what is calculated from the DOE test procedure, on average, the 

annual energy consumption determined from the household sample was lower than the annual energy consumption 

determined from the DOE test procedure. 

8-125 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
8.5.1.4 Commercial Clothes Washers 

DOE based the annual energy and water consumption values that it used to determine the 

rebuttable PBP on the number of cycles per year specified in the DOE test procedure. 49 The 

commercial clothes washer test procedure cites the residential clothes washer test procedure to 

establish efficiency ratings as well as annual energy and water consumption. As a result, the 

annual number of use cycles, 392 cycles per year, for determining the annual energy and water 

consumption of commercial clothes washers is representative of residential use, not commercial 

use. Because residential use is significantly lower than the average usage for commercial 

applications—1241 cycles per year in multi-family buildings and 2190 cycles per year in 

laundromats—the average annual energy and water consumption used to determine rebuttable 

PBP will be significantly less than the consumption associated with actual usage. As a result, the 

rebuttable PBP will be significantly longer than the distribution PBPs for both multi-family and 

laundromat applications. 

8.5.2 Inputs 

Inputs for the rebuttable PBP differ from the distribution PBP in that the calculation uses 

discrete values, rather than distributions, for inputs. Note that for the calculation of distribution 

PBP, because inputs for the determination of total installed cost were based on single-point 

values, only the variability and/or uncertainty in the inputs for determining operating cost 

contributed to variability in the distribution PBPs. The following summarizes the single-point 

values that DOE used in the determination of the rebuttable PBP. 

• Manufacturing costs, markups, sales taxes, and installation costs were all based on the 

single-point values used in the distributional LCC and PBP analysis. 

• As described in section 8.5.1, annual energy and water consumption is based on the DOE 

test procedure. 

• Energy and water prices are based on national average values for the year that new 

standards are assumed to take effect. 

• An average discount rate or lifetime is not required in the rebuttable PBP calculation. 

• The effective date of the standard is assumed to be 2012. 

8.5.3 Results 

DOE calculated rebuttable PBPs for each standard level relative to the distribution of 

product efficiencies assumed for the base case (refer back to section 8.2.6 for more details on the 

base case efficiency distributions for each product). In other words, DOE did not determine the 

rebuttable PBP relative to the baseline efficiency level, but relative to the current distribution of 

product efficiencies DOE determined for the base case (i.e., the case without new standards). 

8-126 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
The following sections present the results for the sets of products being analyzed for this 

standards rulemaking. 

8.5.3.1 Dishwashers 

Table 8.5.2 presents the rebuttable PBPs for standard-sized dishwashers. 

Table 8.5.2 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: Rebuttable Payback Periods 

Level EF 

PBP 

years 

Baseline 0.46 -

1 0.58 0.7 

2 0.62 2.1 

3 0.65 4.6 

4 0.68 9.5 

5 0.72 17.9 

6 0.80 21.8 

7 1.11 16.6 

8.5.3.2 Dehumidifiers 

Table 8.5.3 presents the rebuttable PBPs for three classes of dehumidifiers that DOE 

analyzed for the LCC and PBP analysis. 

Table 8.5.3 Dehumidifiers: Rebuttable Payback Periods 

0-35.00 pints/day 35.01-45.00 pints/day 54.01-74.99 pints/day 

Level EF 

PBP* 

years Level EF 

PBP 

years Level EF 

PBP 

years 

Baseline 1.20 - Baseline 1.30 - Baseline 1.50 -

1 1.25 2.4 1 1.35 4.0 1 1.55 2.3 

2 1.30 1.7 2 1.40 5.5 2 1.60 2.2 

3 1.35 3.0 3 1.45 5.8 3 1.65 2.6 

4 1.40 4.3 4 1.50 6.5 4 1.70 4.7 

5 1.45 5.7 5 1.74 8.0 5 1.80 4.2 

* PBP based on the annual energy consumption and operating cost associated with the 25.01-35.00 pints/day 

product class. 

8-127 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
8.5.3.3 Cooking Products – Cooktops 

Table 8.5.4 presents the rebuttable PBPs for all three classes of cooktops. 

Table 8.5.4 Cooktops: Rebuttable Payback Periods 

Electric Coil Electric Smooth Gas 

Level EF 

PBP 

years Level EF 

PBP 

years Level EF 

PBP 

years 

Baseline 0.737 - Baseline 0.742 - Baseline 0.156 -

1 0.769 3.7 1 0.753 766 1 0.399 1.3 

2 0.420 34 

8.5.3.4 Cooking Products – Ovens 

Table 8.5.5 presents the rebuttable PBPs for all four classes of ovens. 

Table 8.5.5 Ovens: Rebuttable Payback Periods 

Electric Standard 

Level EF 

PBP 

years 

Baseline 0.1066 -

1 0.1113 2.2 

2 0.1163 3.3 

3 0.1181 5.1 

4 0.1206 24.0 

5 0.1209 25.2 

Electric Self-Clean 

Level EF 

PBP 

years 

Baseline 0.1099 -

1 0.1102 88.6 

2 0.1123 120.2 

Gas Standard 

Level EF 

PBP 

years 

Baseline 0.0298 -

1* 0.0536 4.2 

2 0.0566 4.8 

3 0.0572 5.2 

4 0.0593 20.0 

5 0.0596 20.3 

6 0.0600 21.4 

1a* 0.0583 1.4 

Gas Self-Clean 

Level EF 

PBP 

years 

Baseline 0.0540 -

1 0.0625 6.5 

2 0.0627 8.8 

3 0.0632 9.0 

* Levels 1 and 1a correspond to designs that are utilized for the same purpose—eliminate the need for a standing 

pilot—but the technologies for each design are different. Level 1 is a hot surface ignition device while level 1a is 

a spark ignition device. 

8.5.3.5 Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens 

Table 8.5.6 presents the rebuttable PBPs for microwave ovens. 

8-128 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Table 8.5.6 Microwave Ovens: Rebuttable Payback Periods 

Level EF 

PBP 

years 

Baseline 0.557 -

1 0.586 18.9 

2 0.588 36.8 

3 0.597 52.5 

4 0.602 73.9 

8.5.3.6 Commercial Clothes Washers 

Tables 8.5.7 and 8.5.8 present the rebuttable PBPs for the two commercial clothes washer 

product applications; multi-family buildings and laundromats. 

Table 8.5.7 Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application: Rebuttable 

Payback Periods 

Level MEF WF 

PBP 

years 

Baseline 1.26 9.50 -

1 1.42 9.50 24.0 

2 1.60 8.50 34.2 

3 1.72 8.00 25.6 

4 1.80 7.50 21.2 

5 2.00 5.50 13.6 

6 2.20 5.10 9.6 

Table 8.5.8 Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat Application: Rebuttable 

Payback Periods 

Level MEF WF 

PBP 

years 

Baseline 1.26 9.50 -

1.42 9.50 29.8 

1.60 8.50 39.1 

1.72 8.00 29.1 

1.80 7.50 24.0 

2.00 5.50 15.0 

2.20 5.10 10.7 

8-129 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
REFERENCES 

1 U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration. Residential Energy 

Consumption Survey, 2001 Public Use Data Files, 2001. Washington, DC. 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/publicuse2001.html>

2 Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. AHAM 2005 Fact Book, 2005. Washington, 

DC. 

3 RS Means. Plumbing Cost Data, 28th Annual Edition, 2005. Kingston, MA. p. 97. 

4 U.S. Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Indexes, Industry 

Data, Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers (Current Series), U.S. All items, Series 

Id: CUUR0000SA0, 2006. Washington, DC. <http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm> 

5 U.S. Department of Energy-Office of Codes and Standards. Technical Support Document for 

Residential Cooking Products, Volume 2: Potential Impact of Alternative Efficiency Levels 

for Residential Cooking Products, April, 1996. Prepared for the U.S. DOE by Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. 

<http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/cooking_products_0998_r.html> 

6 U.S. Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics. Producer Price Indexes, Industry 

Data, 335221 Household Cooking Appliance Manufacturers, 2006. Washington, DC. 

<http://www.bls.gov/ppi/home.htm> 

7 U.S. Department of Energy-Office of Codes and Standards. Supplemental Analysis for 

Ranges and Ovens, Supplemental Chapter 4 – Life Cycle Cost and Payback Periods, 1998. 

Washington, DC. 

<http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/chap4_sup.pdf> 

8 U.S. Government Printing Office. Budget of the United States Government: Historical 

Tables Fiscal Year 2007, Table 10.1—Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the 

Historical Tables: 1940-2011, 2006. Washington, DC. 

<http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/hist.html> 

9 U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration. Form EIA-861 for 2004, 

2004. Washington, DC. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html> 

10 U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 

2007 with Projections to 2030, February, 2007. Washington, DC. DOE/EIA-0383(2007). 

11 U.S. Census Bureau. Population estimates, Population, Population change and estimated 

components of population change: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005, 2005. Washington, DC. 

<http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html> 

8-130 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
12 U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration. Natural Gas Monthly, 

2005. Washington, DC. 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/natural_gas_monthly/ngm.htm> 

13 U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration. Petroleum Navigator, No. 2 

Distillate Prices by Sales Type, 2005. Washington, DC. 

<http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_dist_dcu_nus_a.htm> 

14 Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. 2004 RFC/AWWA Water and Wastewater Rate Survey, 

2004. Charlotte, NC, Kansas City, MO, and Pasadena, CA. 

<http://www.raftelis.com/ratessurvey.html> 

15 U.S. Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Indexes, Item: Water 

and sewerage maintenance, Series Id: CUUR0000SEHG01, U.S. city average (not seasonally 

adjusted), 2006. Washington, DC. <http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#data> 

16 U.S. Department of Energy-Federal Energy Management Program. Energy-Efficient 

Products, FEMP Designated Product: Residential Dishwashers, Cost-Effectiveness Example, 

2003. Washington, DC. 

<http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/procurement/eep_dishwashers.html#cost> 

17 U.S. Department of Energy-Office of Codes and Standards. Technical Support Document: 

Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products: Dishwashers, Clothes Washers, and 

Clothes Dryers, December, 1990. Washington, DC. DOE/CE-02999P. 

18 The Life Expectancy/Replacement Picture. Appliance Magazine, September, 2005. Vol. 62, 

No. 9. 

19 Consortium for Energy Efficiency. Super-Efficient Home Appliances Initiative Dishwashers, 

2006. Boston, MA. <http://www.cee1.org/resid/seha/dishw/dishw-main.php3> 

20 Southern California Edison. 2004-2005 Database for Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER) 

Update Study, Final Report, December, 2005. Prepared for Southern California Edison by 

Itron, Inc., Vancouver, WA. 

<http://www.calmac.org/publications/2004-05_DEER_Update_Final_Report-Wo.pdf> 

21 Kubo, T., S. Nadel, and H. Sachs. Opportunities for New Appliance and Equipment 

Efficiency Standards: Energy and Economic Savings Beyond Current Standards Programs, 

September, 2001. Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. 

Report Number A016. 

<http://aceee.org/pubs/a016full.pdf?CFID=405412&CFTOKEN=32074818> 

22 Northeast Energy Star Lighting and Appliance. Dehumidifiers. Accessed June 26, 2006. 

<http://www.myenergystar.com/Dehumidifiers.aspx> 

8-131 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
23 California Measurement Advisory Committee. CALMAC Protocols, Appendix F, Effective 

Useful Live Values for Major Energy Efficiency Measures, September, 2000. 

<http://www.calmac.org/events/APX_F.pdf> 

24 Consortium for Energy Efficiency. Commercial, Family-Sized Washers: An Initiative 

Description of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency, 1998. Boston, MA. 

<http://www.cee1.org/com/cwsh/cwsh-main.php3> 

25 Coin Laundry Association. Industry Overview. Downers Grove, IL. 

<http://www.coinlaundry.org/resources/industryoverview.cfm> 

26 Sullivan, G.P., J. W. Currie, T.C. Hillman, and G.B. Parker. High-Performance Clothes 

Washer Demonstration at Leisure World Laguna Woods Final Report, December, 2000. 

Prepared for Southern California Edison Company by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, 

Richland, WA. 

<http://eere.pnl.gov/building-technologies/doc/scefinal%202-22-01.pdf> 

27 The Federal Reserve Board. 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004 Survey of Consumer 

Finances, 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004. 

<http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/scfindex.html> 

28 U.S. Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics. Bureau of Labor Statistics Data, 

Prices & Living Conditions, 2006. Washington, DC. <http://data.bls.gov/> 

29 National Bureau of Economic Research. U.S. Federal and State Average Marginal Income 

Tax Rates, 2006. <http://www.nber.org/~taxsim/marginal-tax-rates/plusstate.html> 

(Last accessed, October 10, 2006). 

30 The Federal Reserve Board. Federal Reserve Statistical Release, Selected Interest Rates, 

Historical Data, Instrument: CDs (secondary market), Maturity: 6-month, Frequency: 

Annual, Description: Average rate on 6-month negotiable certificates of deposit (secondary 

market), quoted on an investment basis, 2006. Washington, DC. 

<http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H15/data.htm> 

31 The Federal Reserve Board. Federal Reserve Statistical Release, Selected Interest Rates, 

Historical Data, Instrument: State and local bonds, Maturity: 20-year, Frequency: Monthly, 

Description: Bond buyer go 20-bond municipal bond index, 2006. Washington, DC. 

<http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H15/data.htm> 

32 The Federal Reserve Board. Federal Reserve Statistical Release, Selected Interest Rates, 

Historical Data, Instrument: Corporate bonds/Moody’s Seasoned AAA, Frequency: Annual, 

Description: Moody’s yield on seasoned corporate bonds – all industries, AAA, 2006. 

Washington, DC. <http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H15/data.htm> 

8-132 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
33 Mortgage-X, Mortgage Information Service. Cost of Savings Index (COSI) Index History, 

2006. <http://mortgage-x.com/general/indexes/default.asp> (Last accessed, October 10, 

2006). 

34 Damodaran Online. The Data Page: Historical Returns on Stocks, Bonds, and Bills – United 

States, 2006. <http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/> 

35 Ibbotsons Associates. Cost of Capital 2001 Yearbook, Data Through March 2001, 2001. 

Chicago, IL. 

36 Damodaran Online. The Data Page: Cost of Capital by Industry Sector, 2006. 

<http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/> 

37 Ibbotsons Associates. Statistics for SIC code 72, 2006. <http://www.ibbotson.com> 

38 Ibbotsons Associates. SBBI Valuation Edition 2001 Yearbook, 2001. Chicago, IL. pp. 38, 44. 

39 U.S. Government Printing Office. Economic Report of the President 2006, 2006. 

Washington, DC. <http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/index.html> 

40 U.S. Department of Energy. Implementation Report: Energy Conservation Standards 

Activities. Submitted Pursuant to Section 141 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, August 2006. 

Washington, DC. 

<http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/implementation_report_0806.pdf> 

41 Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. AHAM Data on Dishwashers for Efficiency 

Standards Rulemaking, September 7, 2006. Letter to Building Technologies Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

42 Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. AHAM Data on Dehumidifiers for

Efficiency Standards Rulemaking, August 23, 2006. Letter to Building Technologies 

Program, U.S. Department of Energy.

43 Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. AHAM Data on Cooking Products for 

Efficiency Standards Rulemaking, August 23, 2006. Letter to Building Technologies 

Program, U.S. Department of Energy. 

44 Appliance Recycling Information Center. INFOBulletin #8, Applications in Appliances, 

March 2005. Washington, DC. 

<http://www.aham.org/industry/ht/action/GetDocumentAction/id/5370> 

8-133 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2
45 Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. AHAM Data on Commercial Clothes 

Washers for DOE Efficiency Standards Rulemaking, October 12, 2006. Letter to Building 

Technologies Program, U.S. Department of Energy. 

46 U.S. Office of the Federal Register. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 430 -

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products, Subpart B, Appendix C: Uniform 

Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Dishwasher, January 1, 2007. 

Washington, DC. 

47 U.S. Office of the Federal Register. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 430 -

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products, Subpart B, Appendix X: Uniform 

Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Dehumidifiers, January 1, 2007. 

Washington, DC. 

48 U.S. Office of the Federal Register. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 430 -

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products, Subpart B, Appendix I: Uniform Test 

Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Conventional Ranges, Conventional 

Cooking Tops, Conventional Ovens, and Microwave Ovens, January 1, 2007. Washington, 

DC. 

49 U.S. Office of the Federal Register. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 431 -

Energy Conservation Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment, Subpart 

I—Commercial Clothes Washers, January 1, 2007. Washington, DC. 

8-134 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 39.2