### 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 PAYB ACK 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

### 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

### Table 8.1.1 Dishwashers: LCC and PBP Input Summary

...................................................... 8-6 Table 8.1.2 Dehumidifiers: LCC and PBP Input Summ ary
.................................................... 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: LC C and PBP Input Summary

........................................... 8-11 Table 8.1.6 Commercial Clothes Washer s: LCC and PBP Input Summary

......................... 8-12 Table 8.2.1 Inputs for Total Installed Cost

........................................................................... 8-14 Table 8.2.2 Dishwashers: Baseli ne Manufacturer Costs

....................................................... 8-15 Table 8.2.3 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: Standard-Level Manufacturer C ost Increases

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

......................................................................... 8-16 Table 8.2.5 Dishwashers: Baseli ne Installation Costs

.......................................................... 8-17 Table 8.2.6 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: Consum er Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs

......................................................................... 8-17 Table 8.2.7 Dehumidifiers: Base line Manufacturer Costs

.................................................... 8-18 Table 8.2.8 Dehumidifiers, 0-35.00 pints/day: Standard-L evel Manufacturer Cost Increases

............................................................................................................. 8-18 Table 8.2.9 Dehumidifiers, 35.01-45.00 pints/day: Standard-L evel Manufacturer Cost Increases

............................................................................................................. 8-19 Table 8.2.10 Dehumidifiers, 54.01-74.99 pints/day: Standard-L evel 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 To tal Installed Costs

...................................................... 8-20 Table 8.2.13 Dehumidifiers, 35.01-45.00 pint s/day: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and To tal Installed Costs

...................................................... 8-20 Table 8.2.14 Dehumidifiers, 54.01-74.99 pint s/day: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and To tal Installed Costs

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

............................................................ 8-21 Table 8.2.16 Cooking Products: Pr oducer Price Indexes

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

............. 8-22 Table 8.2.18 Electric Smooth Cooktops: Standard-Level Manufact urer 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 fo r an Electrical Outlet

.......................................................... 8-24 Table 8.2.23 Electric Coil Cooktops: Consumer Equipm ent Prices, Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs

.................................................................................... 8-24 Table 8.2.24 Electric Smooth Cooktops: Cons umer Equipm ent 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: Standa rd-L evel Manufacturer Cost Increases

........... 8-26 Table 8.2.28 Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens: Standard-Level Manufacturer C ost Increases

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

8-iii

### 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: Consum er Equipm ent Prices, Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs

.................................................................................... 8-28 Table 8.2.33 Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens: Consum er Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs

......................................................................... 8-28 Table 8.2.34 Gas Standard Ovens: Consumer Equipm ent Prices, Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs

.......................................................................................... 8-29 Table 8.2.35 Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens: Consum er Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs

.................................................................................... 8-29 Table 8.2.36 Microwave Ovens: Ba seline Manufacturer Costs

.............................................. 8-29 Table 8.2.37 Microwave Ovens: Standard-Lev el Manufacturer CostIncreases

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

................................................................ 8-30 Table 8.2.39 Microwave Ovens: Consumer E quipm ent Prices, Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs

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

........................... 8-31 Table 8.2.41 Commercial Clothes Washers: S tandard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases

............................................................................................................. 8-32 Table 8.2.42 Commercial Clothes Wa shers: Overall Markups

............................................. 8-32 Table 8.2.43 Commercial Clothes Washer s: Baseline Installation Costs

............................... 8-33 Table 8.2.44 Commercial Clothes Washers: Consum er 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: A nnual Energy and W ater Use by Efficiency Level

.................................................................................................................. 8-37 Table 8.2.47 0-35 Pints/Day Dehum idifiers: Annual Energy Use by Efficiency Level

........ 8-38 Table 8.2.48 35.01-45 Pints/Day Dehum idifiers: 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 Consum ption by Efficiency Level

..... 8-39 Table 8.2.51 Electric Smooth Cooktops: Annual Energy Consum ption by Efficiency Level

.................................................................................................................. 8-39 Table 8.2.52 Gas Cooktops: Annual Energy C onsum ption 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 Ener gy Consum ption by Efficiency Level

........ 8-40 Table 8.2.56 Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens: Annual E nergy Consumption by Efficiency Level

.................................................................................................................. 8-40 Table 8.2.57 Microwave Ovens: Annual Ener gy Consum ption by Efficiency Level

........... 8-41 Table 8.2.58 Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Fa mily Application: Annual Energy and Water Use by Efficiency Level

................................................................... 8-42

8-iv

### 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 Dishwasher s 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 Comm ercial 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 Natu ral 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 Residentia l Oil Prices in 2005

............................................................. 8-53 Table 8.2.70 Average Residential Oil Pr ices for D ishwashers in 2005

.................................. 8-54 Table 8.2.71 Average Per-Unit-Volu m e 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 W ashers in 2006

............................................................................................................... 8-56 Table 8.2.74 Dishwashers: Product Lifetime Estimates and Sources

.................................... 8-60 Table 8.2.75 Dishwashers: Average, Min i m um, 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, Minim um, 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: Aver age, Minimum, and Maximum Product Lifetim es Used in LCC Analysis

....................................................................... 8-62 Table 8.2.80 Microwave Ovens: Produc t Lifetim e 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, Minim um, and Maximum Product Lifetimes Used in LCC Analysis

.......................................................... 8-64 Table 8.2.84 Data Used to Calculate R eal Effective Mortgage Rates

.................................... 8-65 Table 8.2.85 Average Shares of Considered Household Debt and Equity T ypes
.................. 8-66 Table 8.2.86 Average Nominal Interest Rates fo r Household Debt Classes (percent)

........... 8-67 Table 8.2.87 Average Real Effective Intere st 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

### Table 8.2.90

Table 8.2.92 Discount Rates for Comm ercial Clothes W ashers

............................................. 8-72

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

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

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

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

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

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

................................................... 8-80 Table 8.2.93 Standard-S ized Dishwasher s: Base Case Market Shares Table 8.2.94 Dehum idifiers: 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: Per cent of Shipments with Pilots Table 8.2.98 Ovens: Base Case Market Shares Table 8.2.99 Microwave Ovens: Ba se Case Market Shares Data for the Calcul ation of Weighted-Average Co st of Capital for Sectors that Purchase Commercial Clothes Washers

..................................................... 8-71 Table 8.2.91 Weighted Average Cost of Capita l for Sectors that Purchase C ommercial Clothes Washers

................................................................................................. 8-71

Table 8.2.100 Commercial Clothes Washer s: Base Case Market Shares

................................. 8-81 Table 8.4.1 Standard-S ized Dishwashers: LCC and PBP Results

........................................ 8-86 Table 8.4.2 Dehum idifiers, 0-35.00 pint s/day: LCC and PBP Results

................................. 8-92 Table 8.4.3 Dehum idifiers, 35.01-45.00 pi nts/day: LCC and PBP Results

.......................... 8-92 Table 8.4.4 Dehum idifiers, 54.01-74.99 pi nts/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 O vens: LCC and PBP Results

..................................... 8-108 Table 8.4.10 Gas Standard Oven s: 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 Re sults

...................................................... 8-116 Table 8.4.13 Comm ercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application: LCC and PBP Results

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

Table 8.5.2 Standard-S ized Dishwasher s: Rebuttable Payback Periods

............................. 8-127 Table 8.5.3 Dehum idifiers: Re buttable 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: Re buttable Payback Periods

............................................. 8-129 Table 8.5.7 Comm ercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application: Rebuttable Payback Periods

............................................................................................... 8-129 Table 8.4.14 Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundrom at Application: LCC and PBP Results

.............................................................................................................. 8-121 Table 8.5.1 Annual Useful Cooking Energy Output Values: Com parison of Values Used for the Determination of Rebuttable PBP and Distribution PBP

............ 8-125

Table 8.5.8 Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundrom at Application: Rebuttable Payback Periods

............................................................................................... 8-129

LIST OF FIGURES

8-vi

### Figure 8.1.1 Flow Diagram of Inputs for th e 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 .............................................................................................. 8-5 9 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: Di stribution of LCC Impacts for Standard Level 3 ............................................................................................................... 8-84 Figure 8.4.3 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: Distri bution 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 Y ears for Standard-Sized Dishwashers .............. 8-87 Figure 8.4.6 Dehumidifiers, 25.01-35.00 pints/day: Base Ca se LCC Distribution................ 8-88 Figure 8.4.7 Dehumidifiers, 35.01-45.00 pints/day: Base Ca se LCC Distribution................ 8-88 Figure 8.4.8 Dehumidifiers, 54.01-74.99 pints/day: Base Ca se LCC Distribution................ 8-89 Figure 8.4.9 Dehumidifiers, 35.01-45.00 pints/day: Distribut ion of LCC Impacts for Standard Level 3 ................................................................................................ 8-90 Figure 8.4.10 Dehumidifiers, 35.01- 45.00 pints/day: Distributio n of PBPs for Standard Level 3 ............................................................................................................... 8-91 Figure 8.4.11 Range of LCC Savings for De humidifiers, 0-35.00 pints/day........................... 8-93 Figure 8.4.12 Range of LCC Savings for De humidifiers, 35.01-45.00 pints/day.................... 8-94 Figure 8.4.13 Range of LCC Savings for De humidifiers, 54.01-74.99 pints/day.................... 8-94 Figure 8.4.14 Range of Payback Periods fo r Dehumidifiers, 0-35.00 pints/day...................... 8-95 Figure 8.4.15 Range of Payback Periods fo r Dehumidifiers, 35.01-45.00 pints/day............... 8-95 Figure 8.4.16 Range of Payback Periods fo r Dehumidifiers, 54.01-74.99 pints/day............... 8-96 Figure 8.4.17 Electric Coil Cooktops: Ba se 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 Period s 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 fo r Electric Standard Ovens ....................................... 8-110

8-vii

### 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 fo r 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 fo r 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, Mu lti-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, Mu lti-Family Application: Distribution of LCC Impacts for Standard Level 5 .................................................................. 8-119 Figure 8.4.50 Commercial Clothes Washers, Mu lti-Family Application: Distribution of PBPs for Standard Level 3 ............................................................................... 8-120 Figure 8.4.51 Range of LCC Savings for Commer cial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family....... 8-122 Figure 8.4.52 Range of LCC Savi ngs for Commercial Clothe s Washers, Laundromat......... 8-122 Figure 8.4.53 Range of Payback Periods fo r Commercial Clothes Washers, MultiFamily .............................................................................................................. 8-123 Figure 8.4.54 Range of Payback Periods for Co mmercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat ... 8-123

8-viii

### 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
econom ic impacts of possible energy efficiency st andards on individual c onsumers. The effect of standards on individual consum ers includes a change in operating expense (usually decreased) and a change in purchase price (usually increase d). This chapter describes three metrics DOE used in the consumer analysis to determine th e effect of standards on individual consumers:

• Life-cycle cost(LCC) is the total consum er expe nse 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) m easures 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 sp ecial case of the PBP. Where LCC and PBP are estimated over a range of inputs reflecting ac tual conditions, rebuttabl e payback period is based on laboratory conditions, specif ically DOE test procedure inputs. Inputs to the LCC and PBP are discussed insections 8.2 and 8.3, respectively, of this chapter. Results for the LCC and PBP are pr esented in section 8.4. The rebuttable PBP is discussed in section 8.5. Key va riables and calculations are pr esented 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 spr eadsheets are discussed in Appendix 8A.

8.1.1 General Approach for LCC and PBP Analysis Recognizing that several i nputs to the determ ination of consumer LCC and PBP are either variable or uncertain, DOE conducted th e 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 Mont e 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 pr obability distributions by using Microsoft Excel ® 

### spreadsheets combined with Crystal Ball ® 

### (a commercially available add-in program).
In addition to characterizi ng several of the inputs to th e analysis with probability distributions, in the case of residential dishwashers, dehum id ifiers, and cooking products, DOE

8-1

### also developed a sample of individual households that use each of the a ppliances. The household sample sizes for these residential products are: 2,476 household records from dishwashers; 578 for dehumidifiers; 2,895 for el ectric cooktops; 1,159 for electri c 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 w ith each household. As described in Chapter 6, DOE used the DOE Energy Information Admi nistration (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 expenditure s 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 hous ehold 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 si ze. 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 deviati on multiplied by 1.5 percent. For the dehumidifier and gas self-cleaning oven sub-samples, the asso ciated 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 pe rcent. 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 repres entative 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 pricin g. DOE also es tablished the variability of annual water use and water pricing for dishwashers. For dehum idifiers, DOE used RECS to establish only the variability in electricity pric ing. 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 anal ysis, the range of annual energy use and/or energy prices is quite large (the actual range s of energy consumption were presented and discussed in Chapter 6). Thus, although the a nnual energy use and/or en ergy pricing are not uncertain for any particular household, their vari ability across all househol ds contributes to the range of LCCs and PBPs calculated fo r any particular standard level. For commercial clothes washers, DOE was unable to develop a consumer sam ple, since neither RECS nor EIA’s Commer cial 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 ener gy use (and water use) and energy pricing (and water pricing) for commercial clothes washers. Inst ead, as described in Chapter 6, DOE established the variability and uncertainty in energy and water use fo r commercial clothes washers by defining the

8-2

### uncertainty and variability in the usage (in cycl es per day) of the equipment. As will be described later in this chapter, the variabilityand uncertainty in energy and water pricing are characterized by regional differen ces 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 vari ation 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 equipm ent, 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 standar d. It represents the nu mber of years it will take the customer to recove r the increased purchase expe nse through decreased operating expenses. DOE categorizes inputs to the LCC and PB P analysis as follows: (1) inputs for establishing the purchase expense, otherwise known as the total in stalled cost, and (2) inputs for calculating the operating cost. The primary inputs for establishi ng the total insta lled 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 a ssociated with converting the manufacturer cost to a consumer equipmen t price. The markups and sale tax are described in detail in Chapter 7, Mark ups for Equipment Price Determination.

• Installation cost : The cost to the consumer of inst alling the equipment. The installation cost represents all costs required to inst all the equipment other than the marked-up consumer equipment price. The installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts. Thus, th e total installed cost equals the consumer equipment price plus the installation cost. The primary inputs for calcul ating the operating cost are:

8-3

### • 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 commercia l clothes washers, is the site water use associated with operating the equipm ent. 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 dictat es the equipm ent energy and water consumption associated with standard-level equipment (i.e., equipment with efficiencies greater than baseline equipment). Chap ter 6, Energy and Water Use Determination, details how energy and water consumption chan ge with increasing equipment efficiency.

• Energy and water prices : Energy and water prices are th e prices paid by consumers for energy (i.e., electricity, gas, or oil) and water. DOE dete rmined current energy prices based on data from the DOE- EIA. DOE dete rmined 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 th e 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 interm ediate outputs, and the blue boxes indicate the final outputs (the LCC and PBP).

8-4Retailer 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 D OE used to calculate the LCC and PBP for cooktops, ovens, microwave ovens, dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and commercial clothes washers, respectively. Each table summarizes the tota l installed cost inputs and the operating cost inputs including the lifeti me, discount rate, and energy and water price trends. DOE characterized all of the total cost inputs with single-point va lues, 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 su pport document (TSD) where more detailed information on the inputs can be found.

8-5

### 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 Co st 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 Inc rease 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 Inc remental = 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 10 3 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 $/10 3 gallon Variability based on region 8.2.2.2 Repair and Maintenance Costs No cost increase with efficiency No cost increase with efficiency8.2.2.4

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: H igh & 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

### Table 8.1.2 Dehumidifiers: LCC and PBP Input Summary TSD Section Input Product Class Average or T ypical 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 Si ngle-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 Inc rease 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 M arkup All 1.26 Single-Point V alue 7.2 Retailer Markup All Baseline = 1.45 Inc remental = 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 h ours/year Uniform distribution = 87 5 to 4320 hours/year 6.3.1 25.01-35.00 pt/day Baseline use* = 540 kW h Variability based on usage 6.3.2; 6.3.3 Annual Energy Use 35.01-45.00 pt/day Baseline use* = 664 kW h Variability based on usage 6.3.2; 6.3.3 54.01-74.99 pt/day Baseline use* = 928 kW h 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 Main tenance 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: H igh & Low Growth Cases 8.2.2.3

* Annual use provided for baseline product only. Annua l use decr eases with incr eased product efficiency.

8-7

### Table 8.1.3 Cooktops: LCC and PBP Input Summary TSD Section Input Product Class Average or T ypical Value Characterization Reference Total Installed Cost Inputs
Baseline Manufacturer Cost Electric Coil El ectric Smooth 0.737 EF = $64.72 0. 742 EF = $83.54 Single-Point Value Si ngle-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 El ectric Smooth 0.769 EF = $2.14 0. 753 EF = $155.86 Single-Point Value Si ngle-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 M arkup All 1.26 Single-Point V alue 7.2 Retailer Markup All Baseline = 1.45 Inc remental = 1.15 Single-Point Value 7.3

Sales Tax Electric 1.0670 Single-Point V alue 7.5 Gas 1.0706 Single-Point V alue 7.5 Installation Cost All $125 Single-Point Value 8.2.1.3 Operating Cost Inputs Usage Electric Gas 1.22 m eals/day 1.29 meals/day Variability determined from ho usehold 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 Baselin e use* = 2.74 MMBtu Variability based on usage Variab ility 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 Main tenance Costs All No cost increase with efficiency No cost increase with efficiency 8.2.2.4

Lifetime Electric 19.0 years Uniform distribution = 1 0 to 28 years 8.2.3.3

Gas 19.0 years Uniform distribution = 1 2 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: H igh & Low Growth Cases 8.2.2.3

* Annual use provided for baseline product only. Annual c onsumption d ecreases with in creased product efficiency.

8-88-9 

### 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 Gas Standard Baseline use* = 1.83 MMBtu Variability based on usage 6.4.1.3 Annual Energy Use
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 8.2.2.2Input Product Class Average or T ypical Value Characterization TSD Section Refere nce Gas = 14.26 $/MMBtu Repair and Main tenance Costs All No cost increase with efficiency No cost increase with efficiency 8.2.2.4

Lifetime Electric 19.0 years Uniform distribution = 1 0 to 28 years 8.2.3.3

Gas 19.0 years Uniform distribution = 1 2 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: H igh & Low Growth Cases 8.2.2.3

* Annual use provided for baseline product only. Annua l use decr eases with incr eased product efficiency.

8-10

### 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 Co st 0.557 EF = $112.46 Single-Point Value 8.2.1.5

Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Inc rease 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 Inc remental = 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 m eals/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 efficiency8.2.2.4

Lifetime 9.0 y ears 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: H igh & Low Growth Cases 8.2.2.3

* Annual use provided for baseline product only. Annua l use decr eases with incr eased product efficiency.

8-11

### 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 Co st 1.26 MEF/9.50 WF = $359.06 Single-Point Value 8.2.1.6

Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Inc rease 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 Inc remental = 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 Laundrom at = 6 cycles/day Uniform distribution: Mu lti-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**: Mu lti-Family = 33.1 10 3 gallon Laundromat = 58.3 10 3 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 $/10 3 gallon Singe-Point Value 8.2.2.2 Repair and Maintenance Costs No cost increase with efficiency No cost increase with efficiency8.2.2.4

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: H igh & 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 withincreased product efficiency.

8-12

### 8.2 LIFE-CYCLE COST INPUTS Life-cycle cost is the total customer expe nse over the life of an appliance, including purchase expense and operating costs (includingenergy expenditures). D OE 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 + 

# ∑ OC t 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 installe d cost, operating cost, lifetim e, and discount rate.

8.2.1 Total Installed Cost Inputs DOE defines the total installed co st using the following equation:


### IC = EQP + INST where: EQP= Equipment price (i.e., customer pric e for the equipm ent only), expressed in dollars, and INST = Installation cost or the customer pric e 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 determ ination of total installed cost.

8-13

### 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 associ ated 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 instal ling the equipment and represents all costs required to install the equipment other than the marked-up consumer equipment price. The installation cost include s labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts. Thus, the total installed cost equals the consumer equi pment price plus the installation cost. DOE calculated the total installed cost for baseli ne products based on the following equation:
IC BASE 

### = EQP BASE 

### + INST BASE


### = COST MFG 

### × MU

_ OVERALL BASE 

### + INST BASE


### where:
IC BASE 

### = Baseline total installed cost, EQPBASE 

### = Consumer equipment price for baseline models, INST BASE 

### = Baseline installation cost, COST MFG 

### = Manufacturer cost for baseline models, and MU OVERALL_BASE 

### = Baseline overall markup (product of manufacturer markup, baseline retailer or distributor markup, and sales tax).
DOE calculated the total installed cost for st andard-level products based on the following equation:
IC STD 

### = EQP + INST STD STD



### = 

# ( EQP + ∆ EQP 

# ) + 

# ( INST + ∆ INST STD 

# ) BASE STD BASE



### = 

# ( EQP + INST BASE 

# ) + 

# ( ∆

EQP + ∆ INST STD 

# ) BASE STD


### = IC BASE 

### + 

# ( ∆ COST MFG 

### × MU

_ OVERALL INCR 

### + ∆ INST STD 

# )

where:

8-14

### IC STD 

### = Standard-level total installed cost, EQP STD 

### = Consumer equipment price for standard-level models, INST STD 

### = Standard-level installation cost, EQPBASE 

### = Consumer equipment price for baseline models, ∆ EQP STD 

### = Change in equipment price for standard-level models, INST BASE 

### = Baseline installation cost, ∆ INST STD 

### = Change in installation co st for standard-level models, IC BASE 

### = Baseline total installed cost, ∆ COST MFG 

### = Change in manufacturer cost for standard-level models, and MU OVERALL_INCR

### = Incremental overall markup (p roduct of manufacturer markup, incremental retailer or distri butor m arkup, and sales tax). The remainder of this section provides information about each of the above input variables that DOE used to calcu late the total installed cost fo r cooking products, dishw ashers, dehumidifiers, and commercial clothes washers.

8.2.1.1 Dishwashers Baseline Manufacturer Cost DOE used data from the Association of Ho me 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, tota l dishwasher sales equaled $2,106,245 million while total industry ship ments of built-in dishwashers equa led 7,294 million. DOE divided total sales by total shipments to arrive at an av erage manufacturer price of $288.76. Based on a manufacturer markup of 1.26, as determined in section 7.2 of Chapter 7, Markups for EquipmentPrice Determination, DOE arrived at a baseline manufacturer cost of $229.17 for the standardsized dishwasher product class. Table 8.2.2 pres ents the baseline manufacturer cost as well as the associated baseline energy factor.
Table 8.2.2 Dishw ashers: 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 asso ciated with increases in product standard levels. Refer to Chapter 5, Engin eering Analysis, for details. DOE developed manufacturer cost increases fo r only the standard-sized dishwa sher product class. Table 8.2.3 presents the standard-level manufacturer cost incr eases as well as their as sociated energy factors.

8-15

### Table 8.2.3 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: Standa rd-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases

Level Energy Factor (cycle/kWh) Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost In crease (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 multip lying the manufa cturer 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 di shwashers. Refer to Chapter 7, Markups for Equipment Price Determination, for details.
Table 8.2.4 Dishw ashers: 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 cost s for dishw ashers from data in the RS Means Plumbing Cost Data, 2005

. 3 

### This book provides estimates onthe labor required to install residential dishwashers. Table 8.2.5 summarizes the nationally representative average costs associated with the installation of a four-o r-more-cycle dishwasher as presented in RS Means Plumbing Cost Data . Table 8.2.5 provides both bare cost s (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

### Table 8.2.5 Dishwashers: Baseline Installation Costs Bare Costs (2005$) Including Overhead & Profit (2005$) Installation Type Material Labo r 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 subtr actin g 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 consum er equipment price and the installation cost. Refer back to section 8.2.1 to see the eq uations that DOE used to calculate the total installed cost for baseline and standard-level products. Table 8.2.6 presents the consumer equipment pr ice, installation costs, and total installed costs for standard-s ized dishwashers. Prices an d costs are presented at the baseline level and each standard level.
Table 8.2.6 Standard-Siz ed Dishwashers: Consum er 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 whil e 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

### $80.75 for an averaged sized dehumidifier. DOE c onsidered the average baseline manufacturer cost of $80.75 to be representative of the 35.01- 45.00 pints/day product cl ass. 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 th at the 0-35.00 pints/day product class represents two classes: 0-25.00 pints/day and 25.01-35.00 pi nts/day. Table 8.2.7 presents the baseline manufacturer cost as well as the associated baseline energy factor.
Table 8.2.7 Dehumidifiers: Baselin e 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 increa ses 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 asso ciated baseline energy factors.
Table 8.2.8 Dehumidifiers, 0-35.00 pints/day: S t andard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases

Level Energy Factor (cycle/kWh) Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost In crease (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

aAHAM 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 extrapol ating off the linear trend from the previous four efficiency levels.

8-18

### Table 8.2.9 Dehumidifiers, 35.01-45.00 pints/day: St andard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases

Level Energy Factor (cycle/kWh) Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost In crease (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: St andard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases

Level Energy Factor (cycle/kWh) Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost In crease (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 multip lying the manufa cturer 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 de humidifiers. 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 Plum bing Cost Data, 2005 , DOE determined that there are no installation costs for dehumidifiers. 3

8-19

### Total Installed Cost The total installed cost is the sum of the consum er equipment price and the installation cost. Refer back to section 8.2.1 to see the eq uations 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 installe d costs for 0-35.00 pints/day, 35.01-45.00 pints/day, and 54.01-74.99 pints/day dehum idifiers, respectiv ely. Prices and costs are pres ented 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 th e 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

### 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 fo r Residential Cooking Products to develop the baseline m anufact urer costs for cooktops. 5 

### As shown in Table 8.2.15, DOE developed baseline manufacturer costs for the three cooktop product clas ses: electric coil, electric smooth, and gas. Also included inTable 8.2.15 are the associated baseline energy factors and cooking efficiencies.
Table 8.2.15 Cooktops: Baseline M anufacturer 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 co st data into 2006$. The last column in Table 8.2.15 shows the baseline manufacturer costs in 2006$. To pe rform the necessary monetary conversion for cooking products, DOE used producer price in dexes (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 materi als, and purchased parts. Because the PPI measures the price change from the perspectiv e of the manufacturer, DOE used the PPI to convert the manufacturer price (the manufacturer costs multip lied by the manufacturer markup) from 1990$ into 2006$. Specifically, DOE determined the ratio of the 2006 PPI to the 1990 PPI and used it as a multiplicative factor to conve rt the manufacturer pr ice into 2006$. Table 8.2.16 shows the 1990 and 2006 PPIs for electric and gas c ooking appliance manufacturers. Included in the table is the ratio of the two PPI values.

8-21

### 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 costincreases for electric coil, el ectric smooth, and gas cooktops, respectively. Also included in each of the tabl es 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-L evel 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 In crease (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 multip lying the manufacturer and retailer markups and the sales tax together to arrive ata single markup value. In turn, DOE multiplied the overall markup by the baseline or standard-level manufacturer costto arrive at the price paid by the consumer for the product. DOE divided th e overall markup into a baseline markup (i.e., a

8-22

### markup used to convert the baselin e manufacturer cost into a cons umer price) and an incremental markup (i.e., a markup used to convert an incremen tal 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 estimat es on the labor required to install residential cooking range equipment. Table 8.2.21 summarizes the nationally representative costs associated with the inst allation of a 30-inch, free-standi ng cooking range as presented in RS Means Plumbing Cost Data . DOE decided that the costs of in stalling a range are representative of the costs of installing a c ooktop. Table 8.2.21 provides both bare costs (i.e., costs before overhead and profit (O&P)) and inst allation 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 Labo r 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 subtr actin g 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 st andard levels on a supplemental analysis to the 1996 Technical Support Document on Residential Cooking Products . In the supplemental analysis, DOE determined that only gas cooktop s 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 th at do not require el ectricity to operate would require the

8-23

### installation of an electri cal 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 co st of an electrical outlet. Table 8.2.22 provides both the bare costs and the total costs including O&P for the installati on 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 cost s from 2005$ to 2006$. Using an installation cost of $76.39 coupled with the assumption that 20 per cent 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 Installa tion Costs for an Electrical Outlet

Indiv. Line # Description Crew Daily Outp ut PersonHour s Unit 2005 Bare Costs Total incl. O&P Mat. Labor Equip. Total 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 consum er equipment price and the installation cost. Refer back to section 8.2.1 to see the equations DOE used to calcul ate 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 cost s for the electric coil, electric smooth, and gas cooktop product classes, resp ectively. Prices and costs are presente d at the baseline level and each standard level.
Table 8.2.23 Electric Coil Cooktops: Consumer Equipm ent 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

### Table 8.2.24 Electric Smooth Cooktops: Consumer Equi pment 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 Pri ces, 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 fo r Residential Cooking Products to develop the baseline m anuf acturer costs for ovens. 5 

### As shown in Table 8.2.26, DOE developed baseline manufacturer costs for the four oven pr oduct 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 ener gy factors and cooki ng efficiencies.
Table 8.2.26 Ovens: Bas eline 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 co st data into 2006$. The last column in Table 8.2.26 shows the baseline manufacturer costs in 2006$. To pe rform the necessary monetary conversion for cooking products, DOE used PPIs for hous ehold cooking appliance manufacturers. 6 

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

8-25

### Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases DOE developed manufacturer cost increas es 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 Anal ysis, for details. Tables 8.2.27 through 8.2.30 summarize the standard-level manufacturer cost in creases 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 c ooking efficiencies.
Table 8.2.27 Electric Sta ndard Ovens: Standard -Level Manufacturer Cost Increases

Level Energy Factor Cooking Efficiency Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost In crease (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: Standa rd-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases

Level Energy Factor Cooking Efficiency Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost In crease (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-L evel Manufacturer Cost Increases

Level Energy Factor Cooking Efficiency Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost In crease (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 t he technologies for each design are different. Level 1 is a hot surface ignition device while level 1a is a spark ignition device.

8-26

### Table 8.2.30 Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens: Standard -Level Manufacturer Cost Increases

Level Energy Factor Cooking Efficiency Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost In crease (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 m arkup is the value determined by multiplying the manufacturer and reta iler markups and the sales tax together to arrive at a single markup value. Table 8.2.31 shows the overall base line and incremental markups for electric and gas ovens. Refer to Chapter 7, Markups for E quipment 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 de scribed earlier for cooktops, DOE derived baseline installation costs for ovens based on data in the RS Means Plum bing 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 insta llation costs for oven st andard levels on a supplem ental analysis to the 1996 Technical Support Document on Residential Cooking Products . In the supplemental analysis, DOE determ ined 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 esti mate the increased installation costs for gas ovens. The resulting increased inst allation costs that DOE determined are for gas ovens that do not require electric ity to operate but would require th e installation of an electrical outlet in the kitchen in order to bring electrical service to a ga s oven that needed electricity. Refer back to Table 8.2.22 to review the added inst allation cost of providing electrical service to gas ovens.

8-27

### Total Installed Cost The total installed cost is the sum of the consum er 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 consum er equipm ent price, installation costs, and total installed costs for the electric standar d, electric self-cleaning, ga s standard, and gas selfcleaning oven product classes. Prices and cost s are presented at the baseline level and each standard level.
Table 8.2.32 Electric Sta ndard Ovens: Consumer Equi pment 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: Consum er 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

### Table 8.2.34 Gas Standard Ovens: Consumer Equipmen t 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 t he 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 fo r Residential Cooking Products to develop the baseline m anufactur er 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 Microw ave 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

### 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 co st data into 2006$. The last column in Table 8.2.36 shows the baseline manufacturer costs in 2006$. To pe rform the necessary monetary conversion for cooking products, DOE used PPIs for hous ehold 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 increas es 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 Analys is, for details. Table 8.2.37 summarizes the standard-level manufacturer cost increases for mi crowave ovens. Also in cluded in each of the tables are the associated energy factors and cooking efficiencies.
Table 8.2.37 Microw ave Ovens: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases

Level Energy Factor Cooking Efficiency Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost In crease (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 m arkup is the value determined by multiplying the manufacturer and reta iler markups and the sales tax together to arrive at a single markup value. Table 8.2.38 shows the overall ba seline and incremental markups for microwave ovens. Refer to Chapter 7, Markups for Equi pment Price Determination, for details.
Table 8.2.38 Microw ave 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 manu facturer cost data reported in DOE’s 1996 Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking Productsare in 1990$. Because DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analysis in 2006$, it need s to covert all cost data into 2006$. To perform the necessary monetary conversion fo r cooking products, DOE used PPIs that are applicable to household cooking ap pliance manufacturers. Refer back to Table 8.2.20 to review the 1990 and 2006 PPIs for electric cooking appliance manufacturers that DOE used to convert manufacturer microwave ove n prices from 1990$ to 2006$.

8-30

### Installation Cost Based on its 1996 Technical Support Document on Residential Cooking P roducts , 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 consum er equipment price and the installation cost. Refer back to section 8.2.1 to see the eq uations that DOE used to calculate the total installed cost for baseline and standard-level products. Table 8.2.39 presents the consumer equipm ent prices, installati on costs, and total installed costs for m icrowave ovens. Prices and co sts are presented at the baseline level and each standard level.
Table 8.2.39 Microw ave 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 fo r commercial clothes washers. 2 

### According to the AHAM 2005 Fact Book, in the year 2005, total dehumidi fier sales equaled $3,373,042 million while total industry shipments equaled 9,394 m illion. DOE divided total sales by total shipments to arrive at an average manufacturer price of $359.06. Based on a ma nufacturer markup of 1.26, as determined in section 7.2 of Chapter 7, Markups for Equipment Price Determination, DOE arrived at a baseline manuf acturer cost of $284.97. Table 8.2.40 presents the baseline manufacturer cost as well as the associated ba seline modified energy f actor and water factor.
Table 8.2.40 Commercia l 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

### 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 incr eases associated with increases in product standard le vels. 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 Commercia l Clothes Washers: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases

Level Modified Energy Factor (cu.ft./kWh/cyc) Water Factor (gal/cu.ft.) Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost In crease (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 multip lying the manufa cturer 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 co mmercial clothes washers. Refer to Chapter 7, Markups for Equipment Price De termination, for details.
Table 8.2.42 Commercial Clothes Wash ers: 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 co mm ercial 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 th e installation of a f our-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 co sts including O&P. DOE used Gross domestic product (GDP) price deflators to co nvert the costs from 2005$ to 2006$. 8 

### DOE determined that installation costs would not be impact ed with increased standard levels.

8-32

### Table 8.2.43 Commercial Clothes Washers: Baseline Installation Costs Bare Costs (2005$) Including Overhead & Profit (2005$) Installation Type Material Labo r 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 subtr acting 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 consum er equipment price and the installation cost. Refer back to section 8.2.1 to see the eq uations 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-s ized dishwashers. Prices an d costs are presented at the baseline level and each standard level.
Table 8.2.44 Commercia l 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

### WC = For dishwashers and commercial clothe s washers, the water expenditure associated with operating the equipment, RC = Repair cost associated with component failure, and MC = Service cost for mainta ining 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 determ ining lifetime operating expenses, which include the energy price trends (and water pri ce trends), product lifetime, disc ount 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 associ ated with operating the equipment. The annual energy (and water) consumption vary with the produc t efficiency. That is, the energy and water consumption associated with standard-level equi pment (i.e., equipment with efficiencies greater than baseline equipment) are less than the consum ptions associated with baseline equipment. Energy and water prices are the prices paid by consumers for en ergy (i.e., electric ity, 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, alon g 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 

### = EC BASE 

### + WC BASE 

### + RC BASE 

### + MC BASE


### = AEC BASE 

### × PRICE ENERGY 

### + AWC BASE 

### × PRICE WATER 

### + RC BASE 

### + MC BASE


### where:

8-34

### OC BASE 

### = Baseline operating cost, EC BASE 

### = Energy expenditure associated withoperating the baseline equipment, WC BASE 

### = For dishwashers and commercial clothe s washers, the water expenditure associated with operating the baseline equipment, RC BASE 

### = Repair cost associated with component failure for the baseline equipment, MC BASE 

### = Service cost for maintain ing baseline equipment operation, AEC BASE 

### = Annual energy consumption for baseline equipment, PRICE ENERGY 

### = Energy price, AWC BASE 

### = Annual water consumption for baseline equipment, and PRICE WATER 

### = Water price. DOE calculated the operating cost for standard-level products based on the following equation:


### OC STD 

### = EC STD 

### + WC STD 

### + RC STD 

### + MC STD


### = AEC STD 

### × PRICE ENERGY 

### + AWC STD 

### × PRICE WATER 

### + RC STD 

### + MC STD



### = 

# ( AEC __ 

### ∆ AEC STD 

# ) × PRICE + 

# ( AWC __ 

### ∆ AWC STD 

# ) × PRICE BASE ENERGY BASE WATER 

### + 

# ( RC + ∆ RC STD 

# ) + 

# ( MC + ∆ MC STD 

# ) BASE BASE


### where:
OC STD 

### = Standard-level operating cost, EC STD 

### = Energy expenditure associated withoperating standard-level equipment, WC STD 

### = 

### For dishwashers and commercial clothes washers, the water expenditure associated with operating standard-level equipment, RC STD 

### = Repair cost associated with component failure for standard-level equipment, MC STD 

### = Service cost for maintaining standard-level equipment operation, AEC STD 

### = Annual energy consumption fo r standard-level equipment, PRICE ENERGY 

### = Energy price, AWC STD 

### = Annual water consumption fo r standard-level equipment, PRICE WATER 

### = Water price, ∆

AEC STD 

### = Change in annual energy consumption caused by standard-level equipment, ∆

AWC STD 

### = Change in annual water cons umption caused by standard-level equipment, ∆ RC STD 

### = Change in repair cost cause d by standard-level equipment, and ∆MC STD 

### = 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 ope rating costs for cooking products, dishwashers, dehum idifiers, and commercial clothes washers.

8-35

### 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 sam ple of i ndividual households that use each of the appliances. By developing househol d samples, DOE was able to perform the LCC and PBP calculations for each household to accountfor 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 th e variability in both annual energy consumption and energy pricing. (DOE also established the variability of annual wate r use and water pricing for dishwashers.) Refer back to Chap ter 6, sections 6.2.1.4, 6.2.2.3, and 6.3.3 to review the variability of annual energy consumption fo r 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 th e variability in electr icity pricing, not annual energy consumption. Because there was no means to establish the variability of annual energy consumption through RECS, DOE characterized th e variability of dehumidifier usage based on several studies. In conducting the LCC and PB P analysis, DOE established the variability of usage based on data provided by AHAM only. Re fer back to Chapter 6, section 6.4.4 to review how DOE characterized dehum idifier usage variability. For commercial clothes washers, DOE was unable to develop a consumer sam ple 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 pr icing) for commercial clothes washers. Similar to dehumidifiers, DOE characterized the variability of commercial clothes washer usage based on several studies. For multi-family product appl ications, 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 determ ination analysis described in Chapter 6. Keep in mind that th e 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 aver age annual energy and water consum ption by efficiency level for standard-sized dishwashers. The ta ble below is similar to Table 6.2.2 in section 6.2.2 from Chapter 6 with the excepti on that, in Table 8.2.46, the electri c, 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

### consumption in Table 8.2.46 is weighted by the shar e 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 thatDOE 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 Water Heating* Machine + Drying

Level Factor Electric Gas Oil + Standby** Use cycle/kWh kWh/year MMBtu/year MMB tu/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 el ectric, 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. Standb y 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 consum ption by efficiency level for only three of the si x product classes: 25.0 1-35.00 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 opera tional use—1,095 hours. Refer back to section 6.3.3 from Chapter 6 for more details on how DOE determ ined the annual energy and water consumption for dehumidifiers. Note that DO E presents the annual energy consumption of only the 0-35.00 pints/day, 35.01-45.00 pi nts/day, and 54.01-74.99 pints/day product classes, since it did not establish manufacturing costs fo r the other three pr oduct classes.

8-37

### Table 8.2.47 0-35 Pints/Day Dehumidifiers: Annua l 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: Annua l 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: A nnual 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 consum ption 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.

8-381 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 Cons umption 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 th e average annual energy consum ption 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 Chapte r 6 for more details on how DOE determined the annual energy consumption for ovens.
Table 8.2.53 Electric Standard Ovens: Annual Ener gy 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

### Table 8.2.54 Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens: Annua l 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 k Wh /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 e nergy consumption due to hot surface ignition device. Measured te st 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 t he 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 Ener gy 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 c onsumption due t o hot surface i gnition device. Measured test energy use of 176 W-hr. † Clock energy consumption based on clock power of 3.6 Watts.

8-40

### Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens Table 8.2.57 provides the aver age annual energy consum ption 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 consum ption by efficiency level for commercial clothes wash ers. 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 ex ception 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 an d dryers. In others words, the electric and gas water heating and drying consumption in Tables 8.2.58 and 8.2.59 are wei ghted by the share of buildings that use electric and gas water heaters and dryers. Ba sed on data from the Consortiumfor Energy Efficiency (CEE), the shares of electric and gas water heating and drying in multifamily applications are: 20 percent and 80 perc ent electric and gas water heating, respectively, and 40 percent and 60 percent electric and gas drying, respectively. Al so based on CEE data, 100 percent of laundromats use ga s water heating and drying.

8-41

### Table 8.2.58 Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Fa mily Application: Annual Energy and Water Use by Efficiency Level

Level MEF WF Annual Energy Use* Annual Water Us e Water Heating** Drying*** Machine Electric Gas Electric Gas 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 cy cles per day (1241 cycles per year).

** Electric and gas water heating based on water heater e fficie ncies of 100% for electric and 75% for gas. Water heater consumption is weighted by the share of buildi ngs 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, LaundromatApplication: Annual Energy and Water Use by Efficiency Level

Level MEF WF Annual Energy Use* Annual Water Us e Water Heating** Drying*** Machine Electric Gas Electric Gas 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 cycl es per day (2190 cycles per year).

** Electric and gas water heating based on water heater e fficie ncies of 100% for electric and 75% for gas. Water heater consumption is weighted by the share of buildi ngs 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 ar eas 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

### 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 dehum idifiers, DOE used RECS to develop a
sam ple 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 sam ple, since neither RECS nor EIA’s CBECS provided the necessary data to develop one. Thus, DOE characterized energy and water price regional variab ility with probability distributions. It based the probability associated with each regional en ergy 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 re gional energy and water pr ices 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 va lues leaving out data for the large State—for example, the Pacific region average does not incl ude California, and the West South Central does not include Texas. Residential Electricity Prices 

### DOE estimated electricity prices for re sidential 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 el ectricity sales, and number of consumers, for the residential, commercial, and i ndustrial sectors, for every utility serving final consumers. The calculation of an average reside ntial electricity price proceeds in two steps:
1. For each utility, estimate an average residentia l p rice by dividing the residential revenues by residential sales. 2. Calculate a regional average price, weighting each utility with custom ers in a region by the number of residential consumers served in that region.
The calculation uses the most recent available EI A data at the tim e the analysis was conducted, from 2004. Table 8.2.60 shows the results for each geographic region.

8-43

### 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 geogr aphic area. Table 8.2.62 shows the national average residential electricity prices for dishwash ers and dehumidifiers. DOE determined the weighting of each geographic areabased 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 elec tricity prices from 2004$ to 2006$. 4 

### As will be described in the following section on energy and water price tr ends (section 8.2.2.3), DOE normalized energy prices to the year 2005. Therefore, to forecas t 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 y ear 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

### Table 8.2.61 Average Residential Electricity Prices for Cooking Products in 2005 Saturations* Geographic Area Average Price ( 2006$/kWh)** Elec Co oktops Gas Co oktops Elec Std Oven s Elec SC Oven s Gas Std Oven s Gas SC Oven s MW Oven s 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). Co nverted 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

### 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). Co nverted 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 fo r residential consumers, except that DOE used commercial sector data. Tabl e 8.2.63 shows the results.

8-46

### 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 comm ercial electricity prices for commercial clothes washers based on the relative residentia l consumer weight of each geographic area. DOE used 2005 population estimates from the U.S. Cens us as a proxy to estimate how the national saturation of commercial clothes washers wa s 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 necessarymonetary 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 elect ricity price in 2004 by the ratio of the AEO- 

### estimated commercial prices for the years 2005 and 2004.

8-47

### 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).

Co nverted 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 signifi cant. Summer is defined as the months May through September, with all othe r months defined as winter. The calculation of average prices proceeds in two steps:
1. Calculate the summer and winter prices fo r each State us ing 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 ca lculate electricity p rices 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

### 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 resi dential natural gas prices for gas cooking products and dishwashers based on the relative re sidential consumer weight of each geographic area. Note that because electric cooking pr oducts 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$, it need ed to convert all natural gas prices into 2006$. To perform the necessary monetary c onversion, DOE used the CPI for all urban consumers to convert the natural gas prices from 2005$ to 2006$. 4

8-49

### 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 t cf 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

### 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 commer cial 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 washer s was distributed over th e 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 necessarymonetary conversion, DOE used the GDP to convert the electricity pr ices from 2005$ to 2006$.

8-51

### 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 in clude 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 averag e 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 consum ers. The price units inthe table are in both dollars per gallon and dollars per million BTU (MMBtu).

8-52

### 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

Di strict (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 reside ntial 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 on ly appliance of the four products being considered that uses oil (f or 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 eachappliance in the U.S. using data from 2001 RECS. Because DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analysis in 20 06$, it needed to convert all oil prices into 2006$. To perform the necessary monetary c onversion, DOE used the CPI for all urban consumers to convert the oil prices from 2005$ to 2006$. 4

8-53

### 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 th e So uth 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 Cons ultants and the American Water Works Association. 14 

### The survey covers approximately 300 wate r utilities and 200 wa stewater 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 ch arges. 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 separa tely for residential and non-residential customers. For wast ewater utilities, the format is similar, but the cost refers to the cost of treating a given volum e of wastewater. In both survey s, 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 enoughto calculate regional prices for all U.S. Census divisions and large States (for com par ison, the EIA Form 861 data include more than

8-54

### 3000 utilities). For this reason, DOE calculated regional values at the Census region level (Northeast, South, Midwest, and West). The ca lculation of average pe r-unit-volume prices proceeds in three steps:
1. For each utility, calculate the per-unit-volume price by divid ing the total volumetric cost by the volume delivered. 2. Calculate a State-level average price by wei ghtin g each utility in a given State by the number of consumers it serves (eit her residential or commercial). 3. Calculate a regional average by combining th e 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-s ampling of large States.
The results of the calculation are presented in Table 8.2.71. Th e table includes the relative weight for each region. The price units in th e 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 resi dential 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 satura tion 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

### 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). Co nverted 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 comm ercial 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 wash ers 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 necessarymonetary conversion, DOE used the GDP to convert the water and wastewater prices from2004$ 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 th e 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 esti mate 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

### 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 commercia l 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 YearPrice 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

8-578-58 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 YearPrice 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 YearPrice 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

### To estimate the future trend for water and wastewater prices, DOE used data on the historic trend in the nationa l water price index (U.S. city average) from 1970 through 2005. 15 

### It extrapolated a future trend based on the li near 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 estim ate water and wastewater prices for both residential dishwashers and commercial clothes washers.Water CPI 600

500

400

300

200

100

0 Water CPI
Li near Extrapolat i on

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 produc t 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 th e 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 reque sted 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 pr ovides lifetime estimates for dishwashers and dehumidifiers, but the estimates ar e actually based on data from Appliance Magazine 

### . Because,

8-59

### 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 sour ces 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 sour ces 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 undere stimate the act ual 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 li fetime, DOE calculated the av erage 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 pr oduct lifetime, DOE took the difference between the minimum and average values (5.3 years) an d added it to the average product lifetime. DOE then characterized the product life time with a uniform probability distribution that ranged from the minimum to maximum lifetim e 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 sour ces listed in Table 8.2.76 to estimate product lifetime.

8-60

### 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 pr oduct 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 av erage product lifetime, DOE calcul ated the average value from estimates provided by the two remaining sources lis ted 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 establis h the maximum product lif etime, DOE took the difference between the minimum and average valu es (6 years) and added it to the average product lifetime. DOE then ch aracterized the product lifetim e 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 Li fetime Estimates and Sources Lifetime (years) Source Gas Ranges*: Mean = 15; Low = 12; High = 18 Electric Rang es*: 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-owne r use of the product and does not necessarily mean the appliance is worn out.” In other words, Appliance Magazine 

### ’s

8-61

### lifetime estimates underestimate the actual lifetime of the products in those cases where the product is used by two or more us ers. 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 mini mum product lifetime. To establish the maximum product lifetime, DOE took the di fference between the minimum and average values (nine years for electric products and seven years for gas pr oducts) and added them to the average product lifetime. DOE then characteri zed the product lifetimes with uni form probability distributions that ranged from the minimum to maximu m lifetime estimates shown in Table 8.2.79.
Table 8.2.79 Cooktops and Ovens: Average, Minimu m, 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 so urces 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 undere stimate the act ual 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-y ear 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 lifetim es as shown in Table 8.2.81.

8-62

### Table 8.2.81 Microwave Ovens: Average, Minimu m, 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 di stribution to characterize microwave product lifetime, DOE used a triangular distribution becau se 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%

1 0 1 2 1 4 fetime (yearsProbability



### Figure 8.2.5 Microwave Ovens: Product Life time Probability Distribution

8.2.3.5 Commercial Clothes Washers 

### For commercial clothes washers, DOE cons idered the sources lis ted in Table 8.2.82 to estimate product lifetime.

8-63

### 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 es tablished separate lifetimes for each product application. Because clothes washers in multi-fam ily applications are used less frequently than in laundromats, DOE decided to use only those sour ces that indicated lifetim es of seven years or greater for multi-family applications. For la undromats 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 life time 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 year s. 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 laun drom ats) and added it to the average product lifetime. DOE then characteri zed the product lifetimes with uni form probability distributions that ranged from the minimum to maximu m 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 L CC and PBP analysis from estimates of the finance cost of purchasing the c onsidered products. Following fi nancial 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, th e purchase of equipment for new homes entails

8-64

### different finance costs for consumers than the purchase of replacement equipment. Thus, DOE used different discount rates for new cons truction 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-inflati on) 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 house hold 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 inte res t 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 be low 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 hom eowners in these six years was 8.1 percent. Since the mortgage rates carried by hous eholds 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 re al interest rates on mo rtgages 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 Rate 28 (%) Marginal Tax Rate applicable to Mortgage Interest 29 (%)* Average Real Effective Int erest 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 m arginal tax rate on mortgage interest.

b Fisher formula is given by: Real Interest Rate = [(1 + Nominal Interest Rate) / (1 + Inflation Rate)] – 1.

8-65

### To account for variation among new househol ds, DOE sampled a rate for each household from a distribution of rates. DOE developed a pr obability 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 fi nancing vehicles used to purchase replacement equipment. The shares of different financing ve hicles in total replacement equipment purchases are unknown, however. DOE’s approach involves identifying all possibl e debt or asset classes that m ight be used to purchase replacement equipm ent, including household assets that might be affected indirectly. c 

### DOE did not include debt from primary mo rtgages and equity of assets considered non-liquid (such as retirement accounts), since th ese 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 e quity and debt portfolios using SCF 

### data for 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2004. Table 8.2.85 shows the average sh ares of each considered class. DOE used the mean share of each class across the si x 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

### DOE estimated interest or return rates associ ated 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 us ed 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 de ductible. Table 8.2.87 shows the av erage effective real rates in each year and the mean rate across the years. Si nce the interest rates fo r each debt carried by households in these years were established ov er 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 househol ds, 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

### 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 nomin al and real interest ra tes for the classes of assets are shown in Table 8.2.88. Si nce the interest and return rate s for each asset type cover a range of time, DOE believes they are representa tive 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 househol ds, 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 pres ents the probability di stribution of interest rates for each asset type that DOE usedin the LCC and PBP analysis.
Table 8.2.89 summarizes the mean real effectiv e rates of each type of equity or debt. DOE determined the average share o f each debt and asset using SCF 

### data for 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2004. Each year of SCF data provi des 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

### Table 8.2.89 Shares and Interest or Return Rates Us ed for Household Debt and Equity Types
Type Average Share of Household Debt plus Eq uity (%)* 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 derive d the discount rate from the cost of capital of publicly traded firms in the sectors th at purchase commercial clothes washers. 35 

### These companies typically finance equipment purchas es 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 compan ies in the sectors that purchase commercial clothes washers:

• 

### personal services (inc luding 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 sour ce of inform ation 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

### this sector. 37 

### Ibbotson Associates is a leading authority on asset al location with expertise in capital market expectations and portfolio implementation. DOE estimated the cost of equity usi ng the cap ital 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 (R f 

### ), and the equity risk premium ( ERP 

### ). The risk coefficient of the firm indicates the risk associated with that firm relative to the pr ice 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 st ock 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:


### k e 

### = R f 

### + 

## ( β × ERP 

## ) where:
ke 

### = Cost of equity, R

f 

### = Expected return on risk-free assets, β = Risk coefficient of the firm, and ERP 

### = Equity risk premium. The cost of debt financing ( k d

### ) is the interest rate paid on money borrowed by a company. The cost of debt is estimated by adding a risk adjustment factor (R a 

### ) 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:


### k di 

### = R f 

### + R ai 

### where:
k d 

### = Cost of debt financing for firm, i 

### , R

f 

### = Expected return on risk-free assets, and R ai 

### = Risk adjustment factor to risk-free rate for firm, i



### . DOE estimates the weighted-average cost of capital (WACC) using the following equation:
WACC = k e 

### × w e 

### + k d 

### × w d


### where:

w WACC = 

### Weighted average cost of capital,

e 

### = Proportion of equity financing, and

8-70

### w d 

### = 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 R f ERP R a w e w d 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 th e data in Table 8.2.90, Table 8.2.91 shows the WACC for each of the four sectors th at 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. Th e real WACC is calculated by ad justing the cost of capital by the expected rate of inflation using the following formula:

+ 1 WACC WACC r 

### = _ 

### 1 + 1 r


### where:
WACCr 

### = 

### Real weighted-average cost of capital, WACC = 

### Weighted-average co st 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 o f the sectors given in Table 8.2.92. For the calculation of the discount rates, DOE assumed an inflation rate of 2.5 perc ent (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 comm ercial 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 obt ain an average discount rate va lue for the entire commercial

8-71

### clothe washer industry, DOE anal yzed additional data from the CEE. The CEE estimates that there are up to 3,000,000 commercia l 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 edu cational institutions. Using these proportions, DOE derived weights of 14 per cent, 19.4 percent, and 66.6 pe rcent 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 rate s within each of the sectors, DOE used the average values and standard deviations in the table above to characteri ze the discount rates for each sector with a normal probabi lity 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 pr oportion to the truncation at the lo wer 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 whena new standard become s 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, whic h is March 2012. The Department calculated the LCC for all consumers as if they each would pur chase 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. Howe ver, some consumers already purcha se products with efficiencies

8-72

### greater than the baseline levels. Thus, to accurately estimate the percentage of consumers that would be affected by a particular standard le vel, DOE took into account the distribution of product efficiencies currently in the marketplace. In other word s, rather than analyzing the impacts of a particular standard level assumi ng 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 appr oach for conducting the LCC analysis for residential products (i.e., c ooking products, dishw ashers, and dehumidifiers) relied on developing samples of households that use each of the produc ts. 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 pe rformed the LCC calculations on a household-byhousehold basis, DOE based the LCC for a particul ar standard-level on th e 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 consider ation, 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 sam ple. However, it took into account the mix of co mmercial clothes wash er efficiencies by characterizing the current mix of product efficienci es as a probability di stribution. In other words, as DOE performed the Monte Carlo si mulation, each standard level analyzed was evaluated against the dist ribution of product efficien cies in the base case. The product efficiency distributions that DOE used for cooking products, dishwashers, dehum idifiers, and commercial clothes washers inthe 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 distri bution of standard dishwasher s efficiencies sold in 2005. 41 

### Table 8.2.93 presents the market shares of the efficiencylevels 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 additiona l 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 purchasedin the year 2012 in the absence of new standards.

8-73

### 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 distri bution of dehumidifier efficiencies in 2005 for two of the six product classes; 35.01-45.00 pi nts/day and 54.01-74.99 pints/day. Because DOE conducted the engineering and LCC and PBP analyses on th e combined product class of 0- 35.00 pints/day as well as these tw o classes, DOE had to estim ate that the market share data for the 0-35.00 pints/day combined prod uct class were equivalent to the market shares for the closest product class—the 35.01-45.00 pint/d ay 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 abse nce 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 pint s/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 m arket shares as for the 35.01-45.00 product class.

8-74

### 8.2.6.3 Cooking Products – Cooktops 

### Because DOE currently does not regulate cookt op efficiency with an energy efficiency descriptor, very little is known regarding the di stribution of product effici encies that consumers in the United States currently purchase. As discussed in Section 3.14.3 of Chap ter 3, M arket and Technology Assessment, Natural Resources Canada (NRCanada) does publish the efficiency of el ectric cooking products sold in Canada. Although the range in electric cooktop effici ency 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 re presentative 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 cu rrently purchase products at th e baseline efficiency level. For gas cooktops, even less is known about m odel efficiency, since neither NRCanada nor AHAM publish any data on gas cooktop efficiencies. However, data are available that establish the percent of gas cookt ops that are shipped with standing pilots. Based on shipments data submitted by AHAM for the years 2003–2005, ga s 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 ove ns, 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 anal ysis 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 approxim ately 690,000, 620,000, and 250,000 gas ranges were shipped with standing pilot ignition syst ems for the years 1997, 2000, and 2004, respectively. Figure 8.2.6 plots the data in Ta ble 8.2.95 to graphically depict the decreasing percentage in gas cooktops with pilots.

8-75

### 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: 1 988-1996: 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 YearPercent 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

### baseline efficiency level. DOE assumed that the remaining 93.2 percent of consumers purchased gas cooktops with pilotl ess ignition systems. Table 8.2.96 presents the market shares of the efficiency levels in the b ase case for each of the cooktop product classes. The market sh ares represent the equi pment that households would have purchased in the year 20 12 in the absence of new standards.
Table 8.2.96 Cooktops: Base Case Market Shares

Level Baseline 1 EF Electri c Coil

0.737 0.769 Market Share 100%

0% Level Baseline 1 EF Electri c Smooth

0. 742 0.753 Market Share 100%

0% Level Baseline 1 2 EF Gas

0.156 0.39 9 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 effici ency 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 Chap ter 3, M arket and Technology Assessment, NRCanada does publish the efficiency of electri c oven products sold in Canada. Although the range in electric oven efficiencyis relatively wide, the distri bution 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 el ectric oven efficiency distributi on is of actual shipments sold in the U.S., DOE did not use NRCanada’s data fo r this analysis. Inst ead, 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 e fficiencies. However, data are available that establish the percent of gas ove ns that are shipped withstanding pilots. Based on shipments data that AHAM submitted for the years 2003–2005, gas st andard (i.e., non-selfcleaning) ranges are the only pr oduct type that are still sh ipped with standing pilots. 42 

### Table 8.2.97 shows the historical percentage of gas standard range and gas built-in oven shipm ents 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 de creasing percentage in ga s ovens with pilots.

8-77

### 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: 1 988-1996: 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 YearPercent 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

### 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 remain ing 82.4 percent of consumers purchase gas ovens with pilotless ignition sy stems (i.e., products at efficiency level 1—globar ignition systems). All gas self-cleaning ovens already have p ilo tless ignition systems (i.e., the baseline efficiency level uses pilotless ignition). Because virtually nothi ng is known about the distribution of gas self-cleani ng 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 b ase 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-Cle an Gas Standard Gas Self-Clean Market Market Market Market Level EF Level EF Level EF Level EF Share Share Share 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 nee d for a standing pilot—but the te chnologies for each design are differen t. 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 Chap ter 3, M arket 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 c onducted the LCC analysis for microwave ovens assuming that 100 percent of consumers currently purchase products at the baseline efficiency level.

8-79

### 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 Chapte r 3, M arket 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 relativ ely wide, the distribution is based on the number of availabl e models being sold rather than the percent of shipments being sold. Thus, because it is unknown how representative CEC’s effi ciency distributions are of actual shipments sold in the U.S., DOE did not us e the CEC data to establish base case market shares. Without market share data supplied by e ither AHAM or CEC, DOE used the shipm entweighted efficiency data that AHAM provided to derive market sh ares. Because the commercial clothes washer market consists of top-loading ve rtical-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 determin ed that the market sh are of 1.26 MEF/9.5 WF washers is 79.7 percent and the market shar e 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 es tablishments would have purch ased 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

### 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 e quipment 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 operati ng 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 g reater than the life of the product mean that the increased total installed costis not recovered in reduced operating expenses. The data inputs to PBP are the total installe d cost of the equipm ent to the consumer for each efficiency level and the annua l (first year) operating expenditures for each standard level. The inputs to the total in stalled 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, th e required energy price is only for the year in which a new

8-81

### 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 result s 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 sample s of households that use each of the products. DOE also characterized the uncerta inty of many of the inputs to the analysis with probability distributions. DOE used a Mont e Carlo simulation tec hnique 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 co mmercial clothes washer s, DOE was unable to develop a sample of consumers that use the equi pment. However, DOE still used Monte Carlo simulation to perform the LCC and PBP analysis, since it characterized th e uncertainty of many of the inputs to the analysis w ith probability distributions. DOE calculated LCC savings and PBPs relati ve to the ba se case equipment that it assigned to the households (in th e case of residential products) and commercial consumers (in the case of commercial clothes washers). As disc ussed 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 re ason, 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 figur es showing the distribut ion of LCCs in the base cas e for each product class. Also presente d below for a specific standard level are figures showing the distribution of LCC impacts and the di stribution of PBPs. Th e figures are presented as frequency charts that showthe distribution of LCCs, LCC impacts, and PBPs with their corresponding probability of occurre nce. DOE generated the figures for the distributions from a Monte Carlo simulation run based on 10,000 samples. In the case of residential products, L CC and PBP calculations were perform ed 10,000 times on the sample of households established for each residential produc t. Each LCC and PBP calculation was performed on a si ngle household that was select ed from the sample. The selection of a household was based on its weight (i.e., how repres entative a particular household is of other households in the distribution). E ach 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 de veloped to characterize many of the inputs.

8-828-83 

### Based on the Monte Carlo simulations that DOE performed, for each standard-level, DOE calculated the share of households (in the ca se of residential produc ts) 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 consid ered a household or commercial user to receive no impact at a given standard leve l 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 clothe s washer users, the sections below present figures that provide such info rmation for each product class.

8.4.1 Dishwashers

8.4.1.1 Base Case LCC Distributions 

### Figure 8.4.1 shows the frequency chart fo r the base case LCC for standard-sized dishwashers. The figure below shows the mean L CC of the base case distribution as well as the full range of LCCs.

Figure 8.4.1 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: Ba se Case LCC Distribution

8.4.1.2 Standard-Level Distributions of LCC Impacts 

### Figure 8.4.2 is an example of a freque ncy chart showing the distribution of LCC differences for the case of standard level 3 for st andard-sized dishwashers. In the figure, a text box next to a vertical line at th at 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.,

### households that already use dishwa shers with efficiencies greater than or equal to the standard level. Refer back to section 8.2.6.1 on the di stribution of product effi ciencies under the base case. DOE can generate a frequency chart like th e one shown in Figure 8.4.2 for every standard level.

Figure 8.4.2 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: Di stribution of LCC Impacts for Standard Level 3

8.4.1.3 Standard-Level PBP Distributions 

### Figure 8.4.3 is an example of a frequenc y chart showing the di stribution 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 w ith dishwashers that ar e 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

### Figure 8.4.3 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: Distributio n 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 th e 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 base line at 0.46 EF to the standards case at 0.65 EF, then the average LCC savings are $99. But sinc e 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 st andard. For example, in the case of standard level 3, almo st eleven percent of the house holds did not factor into the calculation of the median and average PBP.

8-85

### Table 8.4.1 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: LCC and PBP Results

Level EF Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (ye ars) Average Installed

Price Average Operatin g Cost Average LCC Average Savings Households with
Median Average Net Cos t No Impac t 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 bo ttom of the box indicate the 75 th 

### and 25 th

### 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 5 th 

### and 95 th

### percentiles. The sma ll box shows the average LCC savings for each standard level. Figure 8.4.5 shows the range of PBPs.

8-86

### Figure 8.4.4 Range of LCC Savings for Standard-Sized Dishwashers

Figure 8.4.5 Range of Payback Periods in Year s for Standard-Sized Dishwashers

8-878-88 

### 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 fr equency charts for the base case LCC for the three dehumidifier product classes that DOE an alyzed 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 Distribution8-89 

### 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 freque ncy chart showing the distribution of LCC differences for the case of standard level 3 fo r the 35.01-45.00 pint/day pr oduct class. In the figure, a text box next to a vertic al 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 househol ds 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 sect ion 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.

### 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 frequenc y chart showing the di stribution 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 incr ease 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 efficienci es 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

### 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 L CC 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 al l 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

### Table 8.4.2 Dehumidifiers, 0-35.00 pints/d ay: LCC and PBP Results

Level Efficiency liters/kWh Life-Cycle Cost* Life-Cycle Cost Savings* Payback Period (ye ars)* Average Installed

Price Average Operatin g Cost Average LCC Average Savings Households with
Median Average Net Cos t No Impac t 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 (ye ars) Average Average Households with Efficiency Installed Operatin g 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 (ye ars) Average Average Households with Efficiency Installed Operatin g 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 th e bottom of the box indicate the 75 th 

### and 25 th

### percentiles,

8-92

### respectively. The bar at the middle of the box in dicates the median; 50 per cent of the households have LCC savings above this valu e. The ‘whiskers’ at the bottom and the top of the box indicate the 5 th 

### and 95 th

### percentiles. The small box shows the average LCC savings for each standard level. Figures 8.4.14, 8.4.15, and 8.4.16 s how the range of PBPs for the 25.01-35.00, 35.01- 45.00, and 54.01-74.99 pint/day pr oduct classes, respectively.

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

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

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

8.4.3 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.

8-968-97 

### Figure 8.4.17 Electric Coil Cooktops: Base Case LCC Distribution

Figure 8.4.18 Electric Smooth Cooktops: Base Case LCC Distribution8-98 

### 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 freque ncy chart showing the distribution of LCC differences for the case of standard level 2 for gas cooktops. In the figur e, a text box next to a vertical line at that value on th e x-axis shows the mean change in LCC (a cost of $5 in the example here). The note, “Certainty is 6.82% fr om $0 to +Infinity,” means that 6.82 percent of households with gas cooktops w ill 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 ea ch product class.8-99 

### Figure 8.4.20 Gas Cooktops: Distribution of L CC Impacts for Standard Level 2

8.4.3.3 Standard-Level PBP Distributions 

### Figure 8.4.21 is an example of a frequenc y chart showing the di stribution of payback periods for standard level 2 for gas cooktops. The large ‘spike’ at the PBP value of -1.00 indicates the percentage of hous eholds 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 s hown 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

### 8.4.3.4 LCC and PBP Results 

### Tables 8.4.5, 8.4.6, and 8.4.7 show the L CC and PBP results for cooktops. For example, in the case of gas cooktops, standard level 1 (p ilotless 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 alre ady purchased a gas c ooktop 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 standard s case at 0.399 EF, then the average LCC savings are $281. But since the base case includes a significant numbe r of households that are not impacted by the standard, the average savings over al l 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 stan dard. 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 (ye ars) Average Average Households with Installed Operatin g 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 (ye ars) Average Installed

Price Average Operatin g Cost Average LCC Average Savings Households with
Median Average Net Cos t No Impac t 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 (ye ars) Average Average Households with Installed Operatin g 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

### 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 75 th 

### and 25 th

### 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 bott om and the top of the box indicate the 5 th 

### and 95 th 

### percentiles. The small box shows the average L CC 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

### 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

### 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

### 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 s how 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.

8-1040 72 i l Frequency Chart

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 i l Frequency Chart

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

8-1050 95 i l Frequency Chart

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 i l Frequency Chart

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 freque ncy chart showing the distribution of LCC differences for the case of standard level 2 for gas standard ovens. In th e 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 wi ll have LCC savings due to the standard level

8-106

### 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 eac h of the four oven product classes.

i i ( ) ini 0 ) i l Frequency Chart

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: Distri bution of LCC Impacts for Standard Level 1

8.4.4.3 Standard-Level PBP Distributions 

### Figure 8.4.33 is an example of a frequenc y chart showing the di stribution of payback periods of standard level 2 for gas standard ove ns. DOE can generate a frequency chart like the one shown in Figure 8.4.33 for every standard le vel in each of the four oven product classes.

0 i l Frequency Chart

.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

### 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 leve l 1 (pilotless igniti on with an efficiency of 0.053 EF) shows an average LCC savings of $16. Note that for standard leve l 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 al l 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 stan dard. 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 (ye ars) Average Average Households with Installed Operatin g 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 (ye ars) Average Average Households with Installed Operatin g 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

### Table 8.4.10 Gas Standard Ovens: LCC and PBP Results

Level EF Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (ye ars) Average Installed

Price Average Operatin g Cost Average LCC Average Savings Households with
Median Average Net Cos t No Impac t 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 t he 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 en d 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 (ye ars) Average Installed

Price Average Operatin g Cost Average LCC Average Savings Households with
Median Average Net Cos t No Impac t 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 showthe range of LCC savings for the standard levels for electric standard, electric self-clean ing, gas standard, and ga s self-cleaning ovens, respectively. For each standard level, th e top and the bottom of the box indicate the 75 th 

### and 25 th 

### 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 5 th 

### and 95 th

### 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-c leaning, gas standard, and gas self-cleaning ovens, respectively.

8-109

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 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

### 8.4.5 Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens

8.4.5.1 Base Case LCC Distributions 

### Figure 8.4.42 shows the frequency chart fo r 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 i l Frequency Chart

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 freque ncy chart showing the distribution of LCC differences for the case of standard level 4. In th e 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 per cent 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 s hown in Figure 8.4.43 for every standard level.

8-114i i ini = ( ) 0 ) ) ) ) i l Frequency Chart

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 L CC Impacts for Standard Level 3

8.4.5.3 Standard-Level PBP Distributions 

### Figure 8.4.44 is an example of a frequenc y chart showing the di stribution 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 i l Frequency Chart

.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

### 8.4.5.4 LCC and PBP Results 

### Table 8.4.12 shows the LCC and PBP resu lts 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 (ye ars) Average Average Households with Installed Operatin g 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 75 th 

### and 25 th 

### 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 5 th 

### and 95 th

### percentiles. The small box shows the average LCC savings for each standard level. Figure 8.4.46 shows the range of PBPs.

8-116

### Figure 8.4.45 Range of LCC Savings for Microwave Ovens

Figure 8.4.46 Range of Payback Periods for Microwave Ovens

8-117

### 8.4.6 Commercial Clothes Washers

8.4.6.1 Base Case LCC Distributions 

### Figures 8.4.47 and 8.4.48 show the freque ncy 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 i l Frequency Chart

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 i l Frequency Chart

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, La undromat Application: Base Case LCC Distribution

8-118

### 8.4.6.2 Standard-Level Distributions of LCC Impacts 

### Figure 8.4.49 is an example of a freque ncy 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 vertic al 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 consumer s using clothes washers will have LCC savings due to the standard level compared to the base ca se. The large ‘spike’ in Figure 8.4.49 represents the percentage of consumers that are not impact ed by an increase in the standard level, i.e., consumers that already use commerci al clothes washers withefficiencies 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 ch art like the one shown in Figure 8.4.49 for every standard level and each product application.

i i ( ) ini 0 ) i l Frequency Chart

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 Impact s for Standard Level 5

8.4.6.3 Standard-Level PBP Distributions 

### Figure 8.4.50 is an example of a frequenc y chart showing the di stribution of payback periods of standard level 5 for the multi-family pr oduct application. The la rge ‘spike’ at the PBP value of -2.00 indicates the per centage of consumers using comme rcial clothes washers that are not impacted by an increase in the standard leve l, 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 s hown in Figure 8.4.50 for every standard level and each product application.

8-1190 i l Frequency Chart

.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 PB P results for both pr oduct 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 cas e 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 th e 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 pe rcentage 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

### 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 (ye ars) Average Installed

Price Average Operatin g Cost Average LCC Average Savings Households with
Median Average Net Cos t No Impac t 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, Laundrom at Application: LCC and PBP Results Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (ye ars) Average Average Households with Installed Operatin g 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 LC C savings for the standard levels for both product applications of commercial clothes washers. For each st andard level, the top and the bottom of the box indicate the 75 th 

### and 25 th

### percentiles, respectively. The bar at the middle of the box indicates the median; 50 pe rcent of the households have LCC savings above this value The ‘whiskers’ at the bottom and the top of the box indicate the 5 th 

### and 95 th

### 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

### Figure 8.4.51 Range of LCC Savings for CommercialClothes Washers, Multi-Family

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

Figure 8.4.54 Range of Payback Periods for Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat

8-123

### 8.5 REBUTTABLE PAYBACK PERIOD 

### DOE presents rebuttable PBPs to provide th e legally established rebuttable presumption that an energy efficiency standard is economically justified if the additional product costs attributed to the standard are le ss 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 insections 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 en ergy 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 valu es, the m ost 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 ener gy (and water) consumption. Fo r the four sets of products being considered under this standards rulemaking, the following sec tions identify the differences, if any, between the annual en ergy (and water) consumptions dete rmined for the distribution PBP and the rebuttable PBP.

8.5.1.1 Dishwashers 

### DOE based the annual energy and water consump tion 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 notprovide a method for determining the product’s annual energy consumption. 47 

### As a result, the DOE testprocedure does not offer a basis for determining the rebuttable PBP. Ba sed on operational use data presented by DOE in section 6.4 of Chapter 6, Energy and Water Use De termination, 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

### considerably. Some of the operational use da ta 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 analys is of LCC and PBP, DOE char acterized the variability of operational use with an equilate ral 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 rebutta ble PBP for dehumidifiers is virtually the same as the av erage 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 out put 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 lo wer than the annual energy consumption values DOE used to determine the rebuttable PBP. f 

### The higher the annual energy consumption value, the greater th e 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 calcu late the rebuttable PB P and distribution PBP.
Table 8.5.1 Annual Useful Cooking Energy Output Va lues: Comparison of Values Used for the Determination of Rebu ttable 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

### 8.5.1.4 Commercial Clothes Washers 

### DOE based the annual energy and water consump tion 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 pr ocedure cites the residential clothes washer test procedure to establish efficiency ratin gs 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 di ffer from the distribution PBP in that the calculation uses discrete values, rath er than distributions, for inputs. Note that for th e calculation of distribution PBP, because inputs for the determination of to tal 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 determ ination of the rebuttable PBP.

• Manufacturing costs, markups, sales taxes, and installation costs we re all based on the single-point values used in the d istributional LCC and PBP analysis.

• As described in section 8.5.1, annual ener gy and water consumption is based on the D OE test procedure.

• Energy and water prices are ba sed on national average values for the year that new standard s 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 standa rd 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 wo rds, 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 with out new standards).

8-126

### The following sections present the results for th e sets of products being analyzed for this standards rulemaking.

8.5.3.1 Dishwashers 

### Table 8.5.2 presents the rebuttable PB Ps 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 fo r 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 pr oduct class.

8-127

### 8.5.3.3 Cooking Products – Cooktops 

### Table 8.5.4 presents the rebuttable PB Ps 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-Cle an

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 t he 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.

8-1281 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 rebuttabl e 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, Laundr omat 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

### REFERENCES

1 

### U.S. Department of Energy-En ergy Inform ation 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 Ap pliance Manufacturers. AHAM 2005 Fact Book 

### , 2005. Washington, DC.

3 

### RS Means. Plumbing Cost Data, 28 th 

### Annual Edition 

### , 2005. Kingston, MA. p. 97.

4 

### U.S. Department of Labor-B ureau 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-O ffice of Codes and Standards. Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking Products, Volume 2: Pote ntial Impact of Altern ative 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/resi de ntial/cooking_pro ducts_0998_r.html >

6 

### U.S. Department of Labor-B ureau 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/applianc e_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 Do mestic 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-En ergy Inform ation Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030 

### , February, 2007. Washingt on, 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 >

8-13012 

### U.S. Department of Energy-En ergy Inform ation Administration. Natural Gas Monthly 

### , 2005. Washington, DC. < http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/natural_gas_m onthly/ngm.htm>

13 

### U.S. Department of Energy-En ergy Inform ation 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-B ureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Indexes, Item: Water and sewerage maintenance, Series Id: CUUR000 0SEHG01, U.S. city average (not seasonally adjusted), 

### 2006. Washington, DC. < http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#data>

16 

### U.S. Department of En ergy-Federal Energy Managem ent 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/a016fu ll.pdf?CFID=405412&CFTOKEN=32074818 >

22 

### Northeast Energy Star Lighting and Appliance. Dehumidifiers 

### . Accessed June 26, 2006. < http://www.myenergystar.com/Dehumidifiers.aspx >

8-13123 

### California Measurem ent Advisory Committee. CALMAC Protocols, Appendix F, Effective Useful Live Values for Majo r 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 Comp any 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-B ureau 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/d ata.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/d ata.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>

8-13233 

### 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 Secti on 141 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

### , August 2006. Washington, DC. < http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_ standards/pdfs/implem entation_report_0806.pdf >

41 

### Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. AHAM Data on Dishwashers for Efficiency Standards Rulemaking 

### , September 7, 2006. Letter to Bu ilding Technologies Program, U.S. Department of Energy.

42 

### Association of Home Ap pliance 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/a ction /GetDocumentAction/id/5370 >

8-13345 

### Association of Home App liance 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 En ergy 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 Ener gy 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 Consump tion 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