CHAPTER 8. LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

8.1.1 General Approach to Analysis ......................................................................................... 8-1

8.1.2 Overview of Inputs to Analysis ....................................................................................... 8-3

8.2 INPUTS TO LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS ................ 8-5

8.2.1 Inputs to Total Installed Cost ........................................................................................... 8-5

8.2.1.2 Forecasting Future Product Prices ................................................................. 8-7

8.2.1.3 Baseline Manufacturer Cost ........................................................................... 8-8

8.2.1.4 Incremental Manufacturer Cost by Efficiency Level ..................................... 8-9

8.2.1.5 Overall Markup ............................................................................................ 8-11

8.2.1.6 Installation Costs .......................................................................................... 8-11

8.2.1.7 Total Installed Cost ...................................................................................... 8-12

8.2.2 Inputs to Operating Cost ................................................................................................ 8-14

8.2.2.2 Annual Operating Hours .............................................................................. 8-15

8.2.2.3 Operating Hours by Mode ........................................................................... 8-16

8.2.2.4 Power Use by Mode ..................................................................................... 8-18

8.2.2.5 Residential Electricity Prices ....................................................................... 8-18

8.2.2.6 Energy Price Trends ..................................................................................... 8-20

8.2.2.7 Repair and Maintenance Costs ..................................................................... 8-21

8.2.2.8 Product Lifetime .......................................................................................... 8-21

8.2.3 Discount Rates ............................................................................................................... 8-24

8.2.3.1 Discount Rates for Residential Consumers .................................................. 8-24

8.2.4 Compliance Date of Standard ........................................................................................ 8-27

8.2.5 Product Energy Efficiency in the Base Case ................................................................. 8-27

8.3 RESULTS OF LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS ........... 8-30

8.3.1 Summary of Results ....................................................................................................... 8-31

8.3.1.2 Distributions of Impacts ............................................................................... 8-34

8.3.1.3 Range of Impacts ......................................................................................... 8-39

8.4 REBUTTABLE PAYBACK PERIOD .......................................................................... 8-47

8.4.1 Inputs to Rebuttable Payback Period Analysis .............................................................. 8-48

8.4.2 Results of Rebuttable Payback Period Analysis ............................................................ 8-48

LIST OF TABLES

Table 8.2.1 Inputs to Total Installed Cost ............................................................................... 8-6

Table 8.2.2 Baseline Manufacturer Costs ............................................................................... 8-9

Table 8.2.3 Portable Dehumidifiers ≤20.00 Pints/Day: Incremental Manufacturer Cost 

by Efficiency Level .............................................................................................. 8-9

Table 8.2.4 Portable Dehumidifiers 20.01–30.00 Pints/Day: Incremental Manufacturer 

Cost by Efficiency Level ..................................................................................... 8-9

8-i
Table 8.2.5 Portable Dehumidifiers 30.01–35.00 Pints/Day: Incremental Manufacturer 

Cost by Efficiency Level ................................................................................... 8-10

Table 8.2.6 Portable Dehumidifiers 35.01–45.00 Pints/Day: Incremental Manufacturer 

Cost by Efficiency Level ................................................................................... 8-10

Table 8.2.7 Portable Dehumidifiers >45.00 Pints/Day: Incremental Manufacturer Cost 

by Efficiency Level ............................................................................................ 8-10

Table 8.2.8 Dehumidifiers ≤8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole-Home): Incremental 

Manufacturer Cost by Efficiency Level ............................................................. 8-10

Table 8.2.9 Dehumidifiers >8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole-Home): Incremental 

Manufacturer Cost by Efficiency Level ............................................................. 8-11

Table 8.2.10 Portable Dehumidifiers: Overall Markup .......................................................... 8-11

Table 8.2.11 Whole-Home Dehumidifiers: Overall Markup .................................................. 8-11

Table 8.2.12 Whole-home Dehumidifiers: Baseline Installation Costs .................................. 8-12

Table 8.2.13 Portable Dehumidifiers ≤20.00 Pints/Day: Consumer Product Prices, 

Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs ...................................................... 8-12

Table 8.2.14 Portable Dehumidifiers 20.01–30.00 Pints/Day: Consumer Product Prices, 

Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs ...................................................... 8-12

Table 8.2.15 Portable Dehumidifiers 30.01–35.00 Pints/Day: Consumer Product Prices, 

Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs ...................................................... 8-13

Table 8.2.16 Portable Dehumidifiers 35.01–45.00 Pints/Day: Consumer Product Prices, 

Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs ...................................................... 8-13

Table 8.2.17 Portable Dehumidifiers >45.00 Pints/Day: Consumer Product Prices, 

Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs ...................................................... 8-13

Table 8.2.18 Dehumidifiers ≤8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole-Home): Consumer Product 

Prices, Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs .......................................... 8-13

Table 8.2.19 Dehumidifiers >8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole-Home): Consumer Product 

Prices, Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs .......................................... 8-14

Table 8.2.20 Inputs to Operating Cost .................................................................................... 8-14

Table 8.2.21 Usage Data for RECS2009 Portable Dehumidifiers .......................................... 8-16

Table 8.2.22 Usage Data for Whole-Home Dehumidifiers .................................................... 8-16

Table 8.2.23 Power Use by Mode ........................................................................................... 8-18

Table 8.2.24 Average Residential Electricity Prices in 2011 ................................................. 8-20

Table 8.2.25 Whole-home Dehumidifiers: Average, Minimum, and Maximum Product 

Lifetimes ............................................................................................................ 8-21

Table 8.2.26 Lifetime Parameters ........................................................................................... 8-24

Table 8.2.27 Types of Household Debt and Equity by Percentage Shares ............................. 8-25

Table 8.2.28 Average Nominal Interest Rates for Household Debt ....................................... 8-25

Table 8.2.29 Average Real Effective Interest Rates for Household Debt .............................. 8-26

Table 8.2.30 Average Nominal and Real Interest Rates for Household Equity ..................... 8-26

Table 8.2.31 Average Interest on Types of Household Debt and Equity ............................... 8-27

Table 8.2.32 Dehumidifiers ≤20.00 Pints/Day: Base-Case Market Shares ............................ 8-28

Table 8.2.33 Dehumidifiers 20.01–30.00 Pints/Day: Base-Case Market Shares ................... 8-29

Table 8.2.34 Dehumidifiers 30.01–35.00 Pints/Day: Base-Case Market Shares ................... 8-29

Table 8.2.35 Dehumidifiers 35.01–45.00 Pints/Day: Base-Case Market Shares ................... 8-29

Table 8.2.36 Dehumidifiers >45.00 Pints/Day: Base-Case Market Shares ............................ 8-30

8-ii
Table 8.2.37 Dehumidifiers ≤8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole-Home): Base-Case Market 

Shares ................................................................................................................. 8-30

Table 8.2.38 Dehumidifiers >8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole-Home): Base-Case Market 

Shares ................................................................................................................. 8-30

Table 8.3.1 Dehumidifiers ≤20.00 Pints/Day: LCC and PBP Results .................................. 8-32

Table 8.3.2 Dehumidifiers 20.01–30.00 Pints/Day: LCC and PBP Results ......................... 8-32

Table 8.3.3 Dehumidifiers 30.01–35.00 Pints/Day: LCC and PBP Results ......................... 8-32

Table 8.3.4 Dehumidifiers 35.01–45.00 Pints/Day: LCC and PBP Results ......................... 8-33

Table 8.3.5 Dehumidifiers >45.00 Pints/Day: LCC and PBP Results .................................. 8-33

Table 8.3.6 Dehumidifiers ≤8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole-Home): LCC and PBP 

Results ................................................................................................................ 8-33

Table 8.3.7 Dehumidifiers >8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole-Home): LCC and PBP 

Results ................................................................................................................ 8-34

Table 8.4.1 Rebuttable Payback Periods: Portable Dehumidifiers ....................................... 8-48

Table 8.4.2 Rebuttable Payback Periods: Whole-Home Dehumidifiers ............................... 8-49

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 8.1.1 Flow Diagram of Inputs for Determining LCC and PBP .................................... 8-5

Figure 8.2.1 Probability Distribution of Dehumidification Mode for Whole-Home 

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

Figure 8.2.2 Probability Distribution of Fan-Only Mode for Whole-Home 

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

Figure 8.2.3 Probability Distribution of Standby/Off Mode for Whole-Home 

Dehumidifiers .................................................................................................... 8-18

Figure 8.2.4 Residential Electricity Price Trends ................................................................... 8-21

Figure 8.2.5 Weibull Function for Lifetime of Portable Dehumidifiers ................................ 8-23

Figure 8.2.6 Weibull Function for Lifetime of Whole-Home Dehumidifiers ........................ 8-23

Figure 8.3.1 Dehumidifiers ≤20.00 Pints/Day: Base-Case LCC Distribution ....................... 8-34

Figure 8.3.2 Dehumidifiers 20.01–30.00 Pints/Day: Base-Case LCC Distribution............... 8-35

Figure 8.3.3 Dehumidifiers 30.01–35.00 Pints/Day: Base-Case LCC Distribution............... 8-35

Figure 8.3.4 Dehumidifiers 35.01–45.00 Pints/Day: Base-Case LCC Distribution............... 8-36

Figure 8.3.5 Dehumidifiers >45.00 Pints/Day: Base-Case LCC Distribution ....................... 8-36

Figure 8.3.6 Dehumidifiers ≤8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole-Home): Base-Case LCC 

Distribution ........................................................................................................ 8-37

Figure 8.3.7 Dehumidifiers >8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole-Home): Base-Case LCC 

Distribution ........................................................................................................ 8-37

Figure 8.3.8 Dehumidifiers ≤20.00 Pints/Day: LCC Savings Distribution for Efficiency 

Level 2 ............................................................................................................... 8-38

Figure 8.3.9 Dehumidifiers ≤20.00 Pints/Day: PBP Distribution for Efficiency Level 2 ..... 8-39

Figure 8.3.10 Dehumidifiers ≤20.00 Pints/Day: Range of Average LCC Savings .................. 8-40

Figure 8.3.11 Dehumidifiers 20.01–30.00 Pints/Day: Range of Average LCC Savings ......... 8-40

Figure 8.3.12 Dehumidifiers 30.01–35.00 Pints/Day: Range of Average LCC Savings ......... 8-41

Figure 8.3.13 Dehumidifiers 35.01–45.00 Pints/Day: Range of Average LCC Savings ......... 8-41

Figure 8.3.14 Dehumidifiers >45.00 Pints/Day: Range of Average LCC Savings .................. 8-42

8-iii
Dehumidifiers ≤8.0 ft3

 Case Volume (Whole-Home): Range of Average 

LCC Savings ...................................................................................................... 8-42

Figure 8.3.15 8-42

Figure 8.3.16 Dehumidifiers >8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole-Home): Range of Average 

LCC Savings ...................................................................................................... 8-43

Figure 8.3.17 Dehumidifiers ≤20.00 Pints/Day: Range of Average Payback Period .............. 8-44

Figure 8.3.18 Dehumidifiers 20.01–30.00 Pints/Day: Range of Average Payback Period ..... 8-44

Figure 8.3.19 Dehumidifiers 30.01–35.00 Pints/Day: Range of Average Payback Period ..... 8-45

Figure 8.3.20 Dehumidifiers 35.01–45.00 Pints/Day: Range of Average Payback Period ..... 8-45

Figure 8.3.21 Dehumidifiers >45.00 Pints/Day: Range of Average Payback Period .............. 8-46

Figure 8.3.22 Dehumidifiers ≤8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole-Home): Range of Average 

Payback Periods ................................................................................................. 8-46

Figure 8.3.23 Dehumidifiers >8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole-Home): Range of Average 

Payback Periods ................................................................................................. 8-47

8-iv
CHAPTER 8. LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS 

8.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter of the preliminary technical support document (TSD) describes the U.S.

Department of Energy’s (DOE)’s method for analyzing the economic impacts of new energy 

conservation standards on individual consumers. The effects of standards on individual 

consumers include a change in operating expense (usually decreased) and a change in purchase 

price (usually increased). This chapter describes three metrics DOE used to determine the effects 

of standards on individual consumers of dehumidifiers. 

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

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

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

lifetime of the product. 

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

assumed higher purchase price of more energy efficient products through lower 

operating costs.

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

estimated given a range of inputs that reflect field conditions, rebuttable payback 

period is based on laboratory conditions, specifically inputs to DOE’s test procedure.

 Inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations are discussed in section 8.2 of this chapter. 

Results are presented in section 8.3. The rebuttable PBP is discussed in section 8.4. Key 

variables and calculations are presented for each metric. DOE performed the calculations 

discussed herein using a series of Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, which are accessible on the 

Internet. 

(http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/dehumidifiers.html) 

Details and instructions for using the spreadsheets are presented in appendix 8A. 

8.1.1 General Approach to Analysis 

DOE uses the following equation to calculate life-cycle cost (LCC), the total consumer 

expense throughout the life of an appliance. 

( ) ∑= +

+=

N

t

t

t

r

OC ICLCC

1 1

Where:

LCC = life-cycle cost in dollars,

IC = total installed cost in dollars,

∑ = sum over the appliance lifetime, from year 1 to year N,

8-1
N = lifetime of the appliance in years,

OC = operating cost in dollars, 

r = discount rate, and

t = year for which operating cost is being determined. 

Numerically, the payback period (PBP), defined above, is the ratio of the increase in 

purchase cost (i.e., from a less energy efficient design to a more efficient design) to the decrease 

in annual operating expenditures. This type of calculation results in what is termed a simple

payback period, because it does not take into account changes in operating expenses over time or 

the time value of money. That is, the calculation is done at an effective discount rate of zero 

percent. The equation for PBP is: 

OC

IC PBP

∆

∆ =

Where:

ΔIC = difference in total installed cost between the more energy efficient design and the 

baseline design, and 

ΔOC = difference in annual operating expenses. 

Payback periods are expressed in years. Payback periods greater than the life of the 

product indicate that the increased total installed cost is not recovered through reduced operating 

expenses.

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

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

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

distributions. Appendix 8B provides a detailed explanation of Monte Carlo simulation and the 

use of probability distributions. DOE used Microsoft Excel spreadsheets combined with Crystal 

Ball (a commercially available add-in program) to develop LCC and PBP spreadsheet models 

that incorporate both Monte Carlo simulation and probability distributions. 

 In addition to using probability distributions to characterize several of the inputs to the 

analysis, DOE developed a sample of individual households that use dehumidifiers. By 

developing household samples, DOE was able to calculate the LCC and PBP for each household 

to account for the variability in energy consumption and/or energy price associated with a range 

of households. 

 As described in chapter 7 of this preliminary TSD, DOE used the Energy Information 

Administration’s (EIA’s) 2009 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS 2009) to develop 

household samples for both portable and whole-home dehumidifiers.

1 The EIA designed RECS 

2009, which consists of 12,083 housing units, to be a national representation of household 

population in the United States. DOE used the subset of RECS 2009 records in which the 

household has a portable dehumidifier. Because RECS 2009 does not provides stock and usage 

8-2
information for whole-home dehumidifiers, DOE used some of the variables that were assigned 

to central air-conditioners as the sample variables for whole-home dehumidifiers. Refer to 

chapter 7 of this preliminary TSD for details. DOE used RECS to establish the variability of 

annual dehumidifier use and of energy prices. DOE assigned unique annual hours of operation to 

each household in the sample. The variability among households in annual dehumidifier use 

and/or energy pricing contributes to the range of LCCs and PBPs calculated for a candidate

standard level (CSL). 

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

conditions. Results, which are presented in section 8.3, are based on 10,000 samples per Monte 

Carlo simulation run. To illustrate the implications of the analysis, DOE generated a frequency 

chart that depicts the variation in LCC and PBP for each CSL being considered. 

8.1.2 Overview of Inputs to Analysis

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

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

operating costs. The primary inputs for establishing the total installed cost are listed below.

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

products that meet current minimum efficiency standards. 

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

associated with producing products that meet a given CSL. 

• Markups and sales tax: The increases associated with converting the manufacturer 

cost to a consumer product cost. 

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

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

consumer product cost. The installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any 

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

product cost plus the installation cost. 

• Learning rate: The cost reduction factor associated with economies of scale and 

technology learning. 

 The primary inputs for calculating operating costs are listed below.

• Product energy consumption: The on-site energy use associated with operating a 

product. 

• Product efficiency: The product energy consumption associated with standard-level 

products (i.e., products having efficiencies greater than those of baseline products). 

• Energy prices: The prices consumers pay for energy (e.g., electricity or natural gas). 

• Energy price trends: DOE used the EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2013 (AEO 2013) 2

to forecast energy prices. 

• 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 product. 

8-3
• Lifetime: The age at which the product is retired from service. 

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

present value. 

 The data inputs for calculating the PBP for each CSL are the total installed cost of the 

product to the consumer for each energy efficiency level and the annual (first-year) operating 

expenditures. The inputs to total installed cost are the product cost plus the installation cost. The 

inputs to operating costs are the annual energy cost, the annual repair cost, and the annual 

maintenance cost. The PBP uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, except the PBP does not 

require energy price trends or discount rates. Because the PBP is what is termed a simple 

payback, the required energy price is only for the year in which a new energy efficiency standard 

takes effect. The energy price DOE uses in the PBP calculation is the price projected for that 

year. Discount rates are also not required for calculating the simple PBP.

Figure 8.1.1 depicts the relationships among inputs to the calculation of the LCC and 

PBP. In the figure, the yellow boxes indicate inputs, the green boxes indicate intermediate 

outputs, and the blue boxes indicate final outputs (the LCC and PBP). 

8-4
Figure 8.1.1 Flow Diagram of Inputs for Determining LCC and PBP 

8.2 INPUTS TO LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS

DOE gathered most of the data for performing the LCC and PBP analysis in 2013. DOE 

expresses dollar values in 2012$. 

8.2.1 Inputs to Total Installed Cost 

DOE uses the following equation to define the total installed cost.

+= INSTCPCIC

Where:

IC = total installed cost, 

CPC = consumer product cost (i.e., consumer cost for the product only), and 

Baseline

Manufacturer

Cost

Std-Level

Manufacturer

Cost

Manufacturer

Markup

Retailer or

Distributor

Markup

Sales Tax

Installation

Cost

Energy

Consumption

 Product

Price

Lifetime

Operating

Expense

Annual Energy

Expense

Lifetime Repair and

Maintenance

Cost

Discount Rate

Energy Price

Trends

Annual

Operating

Expense

Payback

Period

Life-Cycle

Cost

Energy Prices

Total Installed

Cost

8-5
INST = consumer cost to install the product. 

The product cost depends on how the consumer purchases the product. As discussed in 

chapter 6 of this preliminary TSD, DOE defined markups and sales taxes for converting 

manufacturing costs into consumer product costs. Table 8.2.1 summarizes the inputs for

determining total installed cost.

Table 8.2.1 Inputs to Total Installed Cost

Baseline manufacturer cost

Standard-level manufacturer cost

Markups throughout distribution chain

Sales tax (replacement applications)

Installation cost

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

products that meet current minimum efficiency standards. Standard-level manufacturer cost

increases are the change in manufacturer cost associated with producing products that meet a 

new standard level. Markups and sales tax convert the manufacturer cost to a consumer product 

cost. The installation cost represents all costs required for the consumer to install the product, 

other than the marked-up consumer product cost. The installation cost includes labor, overhead, 

and any miscellaneous materials and parts. 

DOE calculated the total installed cost for baseline products based on the following 

equation. 

MFG OVERALL BASE BASE

BASE BASE BASE

COST MU INST

IC CPC INST

= × +

+=

_

Where:

ICBASE = total installed cost for baseline model, 

CPCBASE = consumer product cost for baseline model, 

INSTBASE = installation cost for baseline model, 

COSTMFG = manufacturer cost for baseline model, and 

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

retailer or distributor markup, and sales tax).

DOE used the following equation to calculate the total installed cost for standard-level 

products. 

8-6
( ) ( )

( ) ( )

( ) BASE MFG OVERALL INCR STD

BASE BASE STD STD

BASE STD BASE STD

STD STD STD

IC COST MU INST

CPC INST CPC INST

CPC CPC INST INST

IC CPC INST

∆+= × ∆+

= + ∆+∆+

= +∆+ ∆+

+=

_

Where:

ICSTD = total installed cost for standard-level model, 

CPCSTD = consumer product cost for standard-level model, 

INSTSTD = installation cost for standard-level model, 

CPCBASE = consumer product cost for baseline model, 

ΔCPCSTD = change in product cost for standard-level model, 

INSTBASE = baseline installation cost,

ΔINSTSTD = change in installation cost for standard-level model,

ICBASE = baseline total installed cost, 

ΔCOSTMFG = change in manufacturer cost for standard-level model, and 

MUOVERALL_INCR = overall incremental markup (product of manufacturer markup, incremental 

retailer or distributor markup, and sales tax).

The rest of this section provides information about each of the above input variables, 

which DOE used to calculate the total installed cost for dehumidifiers. 

8.2.1.2 Forecasting Future Product Prices

 

 Historical price data for certain appliances and equipment that have been subject to 

energy conservation standards indicate that the assumption of constant real prices and costs may 

overestimate long-term trends in appliance and equipment prices. Economic literature and 

historical data suggest that the real costs of products may trend downward over time in response 

to “learning” or “experience” curves. A draft paper, Using the Experience Curve Approach for 

Appliance Price Forecasting, posted on the DOE web site at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/experience_curve_appliance_p

rice_forecasting_3-16-11.pdf, summarizes currently available data and literature relevant to price 

forecasts for selected appliances and equipment.

 An extensive body of literature discusses the learning or experience curve phenomenon, 

typically based on observations in the manufacturing sector. Based on the experience curve 

approach, the real cost of production is related to the cumulative production, or experience, of a 

product. Typically, DOE uses historical shipments data to estimate cumulative shipments 

(production); however, the historical shipment data for portable and whole-home dehumidifiers 

are too limited to construct a robust cumulative production estimation for the products. 

Therefore, DOE used the appropriate Producer Price Index (PPI) series fit to an exponential 

model having year as the explanatory variable. In this case, the exponential function takes the 

form of:

8-7
Y = a ∙ ebX

where Y is the dehumidifier price index, X is the time variable, a is the constant, and b is 

the slope parameter of the time variable. 

To derive the exponential parameters for residential dehumidifiers, DOE obtained 

historical PPI data for “small electric household appliances” and for “room AC and 

dehumidifiers” from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Although the two PPI series encompass 

much more than portable and whole-home dehumidifiers, no PPI data specific to the two 

products were available. The PPI data reflect nominal prices, adjusted for changes in product 

quality. DOE calculated an inflation-adjusted (deflated) price index by dividing the PPI series by 

the Gross Domestic Product Chained Price Index for each product. The deflated price index is 

presented in 2012 dollar values.

 

 For portable dehumidifiers, the regression performed as an exponential trend line fit 

results in an R-square of 0.99, which indicates a superior fit to the data. The fit results in a 2.02-

percent annual rate of price decline. The final estimated exponential function for portable 

dehumidifiers is:

Y = 6.266 × 1017 ∙ e(−0.0204)X

For whole-home dehumidifiers, the regression performed as an exponential trend line fit 

results in an R-square of 0.96, which also indicates an excellent fit to the data. The fit results in a 

2.32-percent annual rate of price decline. The final estimated exponential function for wholehome dehumidifiers is:

Y = 2.949 × 1020 ∙ e(−0.0235)X

Based on the fitted regressions, DOE derived separate price factor indexes for portable 

and whole-home dehumidifiers for each future year in the analysis. For the LCC and PBP 

analysis, DOE renormalized the price factor index, setting 2012 equal to 1, to estimate the price 

of portable and whole-home dehumidifiers in 2019. 

8.2.1.3 Baseline Manufacturer Cost 

 DOE developed the baseline manufacturer costs for all seven product classes of 

dehumidifiers (described in chapter 5 of this preliminary TSD, Engineering Analysis). Baseline 

manufacturer costs are shown in Table 8.2.2. 

8-8
Table 8.2.2 Baseline Manufacturer Costs

Product Class

(Pints/Day)

Baseline Integrated 

Energy Factor (L/kWh)*

Baseline Manufacturer 

Cost (2012$)

≤ 20.00 0.77 $106.22

20.01–30.00 0.80 $112.14

30.01–35.00 0.94 $126.36

35.01–45.00 1.00 $136.47

> 45.00 2.07 $424.67

≤ 8.0 ft3 case volume (whole-home) 1.10 $389.13

>8.0 ft3 case volume (whole-home) 1.68 $527.59

 * L/kWh = liters (of moisture removed) per kilowatt-hour (of energy consumed). 

8.2.1.4 Incremental Manufacturer Cost by Efficiency Level

DOE used a reverse-engineering analysis to develop manufacturer cost increases 

associated with increases in dehumidifier efficiency. Refer to chapter 5 of this preliminary TSD 

for details. Table 8.2.3 through Table 8.2.9 present the incremental manufacturer costs at each 

efficiency level for all seven product classes of dehumidifiers. 

Table 8.2.3 Portable Dehumidifiers ≤20.00 Pints/Day: Incremental Manufacturer Cost 

by Efficiency Level

Efficiency

Level

Integrated Energy Factor

(L/kWh)

Manufacturer Cost Increase 

(2012$)

Baseline 0.77 -

1 1.10 -

2 1.20 $1.56

3 1.30 $4.64

4 1.42 $7.77

Table 8.2.4 Portable Dehumidifiers 20.01–30.00 Pints/Day: Incremental Manufacturer 

Cost by Efficiency Level

Efficiency

Level

Integrated Energy 

Factor (L/kWh)

Manufacturer Cost

Increase (2012$)

Baseline 0.80 -

1 1.10 -

2 1.20 $1.85

3 1.30 $3.78

4 1.52 $10.82

8-9
Table 8.2.5 Portable Dehumidifiers 30.01–35.00 Pints/Day: Incremental Manufacturer 

Cost by Efficiency Level

Efficiency

Level

Integrated Energy 

Factor

(L/kWh)

Manufacturer Cost Increase 

(2012$)

Baseline 0.94 -

1 1.20 -

2 1.40 $2.94

3 1.60 $8.72

4 1.75 $13.40

Table 8.2.6 Portable Dehumidifiers 35.01–45.00 Pints/Day: Incremental Manufacturer 

Cost by Efficiency Level

Efficiency

Level

Integrated Energy 

Factor

(L/kWh)

Manufacturer Cost Increase 

(2012$)

Baseline 1.00 -

1 1.30 -

2 1.40 $1.98

3 1.60 $7.56

4 1.75 $11.24

Table 8.2.7 Portable Dehumidifiers >45.00 Pints/Day: Incremental Manufacturer Cost 

by Efficiency Level

Efficiency

Level

Integrated Energy 

Factor

(L/kWh)

Manufacturer Cost Increase 

(2012$)

Baseline 2.07 -

1 2.40 $38.40

2 2.80 $49.16

3 3.52 $100.13

Table 8.2.8 Dehumidifiers ≤8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole-Home): Incremental 

Manufacturer Cost by Efficiency Level

Efficiency

Level

Integrated Energy 

Factor

(L/kWh)

Manufacturer Cost Increase 

(2012$)

Baseline 1.10 -

1 1.40 $15.22

2 1.59 $76.18

8-10
Table 8.2.9 Dehumidifiers >8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole-Home): Incremental 

Manufacturer Cost by Efficiency Level

Efficiency

Level

Integrated Energy 

Factor

(L/kWh)

Manufacturer Cost Increase 

(2012$)

Baseline 1.68 -

1 1.90 $6.14

2 2.80 $37.05

3 3.41 $112.01

8.2.1.5 Overall Markup 

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

markups and the sales tax together to arrive at a single markup value. Table 8.2.10 and Table 

8.2.11 show the overall baseline and incremental markups for portable and whole-home 

dehumidifiers, respectively. Refer to chapter 6 of this preliminary TSD for details. 

Table 8.2.10 Portable Dehumidifiers: Overall Markup 

Markup Baseline Incremental

Manufacturer 1.43

Retailer 1.36 1.11

Sales tax 1.071

Overall markup 2.08 1.70

 

Table 8.2.11 Whole-Home Dehumidifiers: Overall Markup 

Markup Replacement New Construction

Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental

Manufacturer 1.43 1.43

Wholesaler 1.36 1.10 1.36 1.10

Mechanical contractor 1.53 1.22 1.45 1.15

General contractor -- -- 1.47 1.34

Sales tax 1.071 -- --

Overall markup 3.19 2.06 4.15 2.42

8.2.1.6 Installation Costs 

Based on the previous rulemaking conducted for dehumidifiers, 3 DOE determined that 

there are no installation costs for portable dehumidifiers.

DOE derived baseline installation costs for whole-home dehumidifiers from data in the 

RS Means Residential Cost Data, 2013.

4 The book estimates the labor required to install room 

air conditioners. Table 8.2.12 summarizes the nationally representative average costs associated 

8-11
with installing split-system air conditioners as presented in RS Means Residential Cost Data. 

Table 8.2.12 provides both bare costs (i.e., costs before overhead and profit [O&P]), and 

installation costs including O&P. DOE determined that installation costs would not be affected 

by increased efficiency levels. 

Table 8.2.12 Whole-home Dehumidifiers: Baseline Installation Costs

Installation Type

Bare Costs (2013$) Including Overhead & Profit (2013$)

Material Labor Total Total Material* Labor**

Average $995 $338 $1,333 $1,663 $1,095 $568

Average (2012$) $562

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

** DOE derived labor cost including O&P by subtracting materials plus O&P from total plus O&P.

Source: RS Means, Residential Cost Data. 2013.

8.2.1.7 Total Installed Cost 

Total installed cost is the sum of the consumer product cost and installation cost. Table 

8.2.13 through Table 8.2.19 present the total installed costs for each dehumidifier product class 

at each efficiency level examined. 

Table 8.2.13 Portable Dehumidifiers ≤20.00 Pints/Day: Consumer Product Prices, 

Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs

Efficiency

Level

Integrated 

Energy Factor

(L/kWh)

Product Price 

(2012$)

Installation 

Cost (2012$)

Total Installed 

Cost (2012$)

Baseline 0.77 $218.71 $0.00 $218.71 

1 1.10 $218.71 $0.00 $218.71 

2 1.20 $221.33 $0.00 $221.33 

3 1.30 $226.50 $0.00 $226.50 

4 1.42 $231.76 $0.00 $231.76 

Table 8.2.14 Portable Dehumidifiers 20.01–30.00 Pints/Day: Consumer Product Prices, 

Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs

Efficiency

Level

Integrated 

Energy Factor

(L/kWh)

Product Price 

(2012$)

Installation 

Cost (2012$)

Total Installed 

Cost (2012$)

Baseline 0.80 $230.90 $0.00 $230.90 

1 1.10 $230.90 $0.00 $230.90 

2 1.20 $234.01 $0.00 $234.01 

3 1.30 $237.25 $0.00 $237.25 

4 1.52 $249.08 $0.00 $249.08 

8-12
Table 8.2.15 Portable Dehumidifiers 30.01–35.00 Pints/Day: Consumer Product Prices, 

Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs

Efficiency

Level

Integrated

Energy Factor

(L/kWh)

Product Price 

(2012$)

Installation 

Cost (2012$)

Total Installed 

Cost (2012$)

Baseline 0.94 $260.18 $0.00 $260.18 

1 1.20 $260.18 $0.00 $260.18 

2 1.40 $265.12 $0.00 $265.12 

3 1.60 $274.83 $0.00 $274.83 

4 1.75 $282.69 $0.00 $282.69 

Table 8.2.16 Portable Dehumidifiers 35.01–45.00 Pints/Day: Consumer Product Prices, 

Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs

Efficiency

Level

Integrated 

Energy Factor

(L/kWh)

Product Price 

(2012$)

Installation 

Cost (2012$)

Total Installed 

Cost (2012$)

Baseline 1.00 $280.99 $0.00 $280.99 

1 1.30 $280.99 $0.00 $280.99 

2 1.40 $284.32 $0.00 $284.32 

3 1.60 $293.70 $0.00 $293.70 

4 1.75 $299.88 $0.00 $299.88 

Table 8.2.17 Portable Dehumidifiers >45.00 Pints/Day: Consumer Product Prices, 

Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs

Efficiency

Level

Integrated 

Energy Factor

(L/kWh)

Product Price 

(2012$)

Installation 

Cost (2012$)

Total Installed 

Cost (2012$)

Baseline 2.07 $874.40 $0.00 $874.40 

1 2.40 $938.93 $0.00 $938.93 

2 2.80 $957.01 $0.00 $957.01 

3 3.52 $1,042.67 $0.00 $1,042.67 

Table 8.2.18 Dehumidifiers ≤8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole-Home): Consumer Product 

Prices, Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs 

Efficiency

Level

Integrated 

Energy Factor

(L/kWh)

Product Price 

(2012$)

Installation 

Cost (2012$)

Total Installed 

Cost (2012$)

Baseline 1.10 $1,051.64 $562.00 $1,613.64 

1 1.40 $1,078.19 $562.00 $1,640.19 

2 1.59 $1,184.54 $562.00 $1,746.54 

8-13
Table 8.2.19 Dehumidifiers >8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole-Home): Consumer Product 

Prices, Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs 

Efficiency

Level

Integrated 

Energy Factor

(L/kWh)

Product Price 

(2012$)

Installation 

Cost (2012$)

Total Installed 

Cost (2012$)

Baseline 1.68 $1,425.84 $562.00 $1,987.84 

1 1.90 $1,436.55 $562.00 $1,998.55 

2 2.80 $1,490.47 $562.00 $2,052.47 

3 3.41 $1,621.24 $562.00 $2,183.24 

8.2.2 Inputs to Operating Cost 

 DOE defines operating cost (OC) by the following equation: 

OC RCEC ++= MC

Where: 

EC = energy expenditure associated with operating the product, 

RC = repair cost associated with component failure, and 

MC = cost for maintaining product operation. 

Table 8.2.20 shows the inputs for determining annual operating costs and their discounted 

values throughout the product lifetime. 

Table 8.2.20 Inputs to Operating Cost

Annual energy consumption

Energy prices and price trends

Repair and maintenance costs

 

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

product. Annual energy consumption varies with product efficiency. Energy prices are the prices 

paid by consumers for energy (e.g., electricity or natural gas). Multiplying the annual energy 

consumption by the energy price yields the annual energy cost. Repair costs are associated with 

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

maintaining the operation of the product. DOE used energy price trends to forecast energy prices 

into the future and, along with the product lifetime and discount rate, to establish the present 

value of lifetime energy costs. 

DOE used the following equation to calculate the annual operating cost for baseline 

products. 

OCBASE = AECBASE × PRICEENERGY RCBASE ++ MCBASE ( )

8-14
Where:

OCBASE = operating cost for baseline product, 

AECBASE = annual energy consumption for baseline product, 

PRICEENERGY = energy price, 

RCBASE = repair cost associated with component failure for baseline product, and 

MCBASE = cost for maintaining operation of baseline product. 

DOE calculated the annual operating cost for standard-level products based on the 

following equation. 

OCSTD = AECSTD × PRICEENERGY RCSTD ++ MCSTD ( )

Where:

OCSTD = operating cost for standard-level product, 

AECSTD = annual energy consumption for standard-level product, 

PRICEENERGY = energy price, 

RCSTD = repair cost associated with component failure for standard-level product, 

and 

MCSTD = cost for maintaining operation of standard-level product. 

The rest of this section provides information about each of the above input variables that 

DOE used to calculate the operating costs for all product classes of dehumidifiers. 

8.2.2.2 Annual Operating Hours

As described in chapter 7 of this preliminary TSD and in section 8.1.1, DOE utilized

RECS 2009 and the two recent field studies (Willem, et al., 2013a, Willem, et al., 2013b)5,6 to 

develop samples of individual households that use either portable or whole-home dehumidifiers. 

By developing a household sample for each product type, DOE was able to perform the LCC and 

PBP calculations for each household to account for the variability in both energy use and energy 

price, as shown in Table 8.2.21 and Table 8.2.22. Refer to chapter 7 of the preliminary TSD for 

details. 

8-15
Table 8.2.21 Usage Data for RECS2009 Portable Dehumidifiers 

Usage Bin 

(Months) 

Share of RECS Households

Percentage* (%) Number 

1 to 3 months 43.81% 708

4 to 6 months 30.13% 492

7 to 9 months 7.15% 116

10 to 11 months 2.59% 36

Turned on all year 16.33% 249

Total 100.00% 1,601

*Percentages represent weighted values.

 Source: RECS 2009. 

Table 8.2.22 Usage Data for Whole-Home Dehumidifiers 

Usage Bin

(Months) 

Share of RECS Households

Percentage* (%) Number

1 to 3 months 27.37% 6

4 to 6 months 46.35% 9

7 to 9 months 10.93% 2

Turn on all year 15.36% 3

Total 100% 20

*Percentages represent weighted values.

 Source: RECS 2009. 

8.2.2.3 Operating Hours by Mode

The fraction of time a portable dehumidifier spends in each mode of operation 

(standby/off, fan-only, and dehumidification) affects the unit’s energy use. To determine the 

fraction of time spent in each operational mode, DOE linked the RECS households having 

portable dehumidifiers to climate parameters. By linking the geographic locations of the RECS 

households with data on outdoor vapor density, DOE was able to calculate a sampled RECS 

household’s dehumidification operating times for each month. DOE also disaggregated the 

portable dehumidifier usage into four installation categories based on climate type and type of 

condensate removal (manual emptying of a bucket or use of a direct drain). DOE assumed that 

market shares of portable dehumidifiers are divided 15% to 85% between direct-drain units and 

units having buckets. See chapter 7 of this preliminary TSD for more information. 

To determine the fraction of time whole-home dehumidifiers spend in each mode of 

operation, DOE used the probability distribution of operating hours by mode for whole-home 

application only from Willem’s study (Willem, et al., 2013b)6. DOE did not link the RECS data 

with outdoor vapor density for whole-home dehumidifiers because the sample size from the 

study is insufficient to apply results to U.S. households in general. Figure 8.2.1 through Figure 

8.2.3 summarize the probability distributions of operating hours by mode for whole-home 

dehumidifiers. DOE assigned a probability distribution based on the frequency range for each 

mode. 

8-16
Figure 8.2.1 Probability Distribution of Dehumidification Mode for WholeHome Dehumidifiers

Figure 8.2.2 Probability Distribution of Fan-Only Mode for Whole-Home 

Dehumidifiers

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Probability Distribution (%)

Hours

Hours/day in Dehumidification Mode

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Probability Distribution (%)

Hours

Hours/day in Fan-only Mode

8-17
Figure 8.2.3 Probability Distribution of Standby/Off Mode for Whole-Home 

Dehumidifiers

8.2.2.4 Power Use by Mode

To determine power use by mode for portable dehumidifiers, DOE used a single value 

from Willem’s study (Willem, et al., 2013a)5 for fan-only mode and standby/off mode. To 

determine power use by mode for whole-home dehumidifiers, DOE used a range of power use 

associated with fan-only mode and standby/off mode from Willem’s study (Willem, et al., 

2013b)6, and assigned a probability distribution to each mode. Table 8.2.23 summarizes the 

power use by mode for portable and whole-home dehumidifiers. 

Table 8.2.23 Power Use by Mode 

Product Type Fan-Only Mode

(W)

Standby/Off Mode

(W)

Portable dehumidifier 65 1

Whole-home dehumidifier 131.3-157.7 2.64-4.24

DOE used the following equation to determine power use by dehumidification mode. 

kWDehum = 

Cap ∗ 0.473

IEF ∗ 24

8.2.2.5 Residential Electricity Prices

DOE derived electricity prices for each of the 27 RECS Reportable Domain categories 

regions. Using those data, DOE analyzed the regional variability of electricity prices at the 

regional level. 

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Probability Distribution (%)

Hours

Hours/day in Standby Mode

8-18
 DOE used data from EIA Form 8617 to estimate electricity prices for residential 

consumers in each of the 27 geographic areas. Those data, published annually, include annual 

electricity sales in kilowatt-hours; revenues from electricity sales; and number of consumers in 

the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors for every utility that serves final consumers. 

DOE calculated average residential electricity prices in two steps.

1. For each utility, an average residential price was estimated by dividing residential 

revenues by residential sales.

2. An average regional price was calculated, weighting each utility having customers in 

a region by the total number of residential consumers served in that region.

Table 8.2.24 shows the average residential electricity price calculated for each 

geographic region. 

8-19
Table 8.2.24 Average Residential Electricity Prices in 2011

Geographic Area Average Price 

(2012$/kWh)

Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont 0.174

Massachusetts 0.151

New York 0.197

New Jersey 0.166

Pennsylvania 0.137

Illinois 0.122

Indiana, Ohio 0.112

Michigan 0.136

Wisconsin 0.133

Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota 0.108

Kansas, Nebraska 0.103

Missouri 0.100

Virginia 0.109

Delaware, DC, Maryland, West Virginia 0.132

Georgia 0.114

North Carolina, South Carolina 0.108

Florida 0.118

Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi 0.104

Tennessee 0.102

Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma 0.094

Texas 0.114

Colorado 0.115

Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming 0.091

Arizona 0.113

Nevada, New Mexico 0.117

California 0.151

Alaska, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington 0.118

Source: EIA Form 861.

8.2.2.6 Energy Price Trends

DOE used EIA’s price forecasts to estimate future trends in electricity prices. To arrive at 

prices in future years, DOE multiplied the average prices listed in Table 8.2.24 by the forecast of 

annual average price changes based on the reference case in EIA’s AEO 2013.

2 To estimate the 

trend after 2040, DOE followed the guidance EIA previously provided to the Federal Energy 

Management Program, to use the average rate of change during 2025–2040. 

8-20
DOE calculated LCC and PBP based on three separate projections from the AEO 2013: 

reference case, low economic growth, and high economic growth. Those three cases reflect the 

uncertainty regarding economic growth during the forecast period. Figure 8.2.4 shows the three 

projected trends in residential electricity prices based on the three AEO 2013 cases. 

Figure 8.2.4 Residential Electricity Price Trends

8.2.2.7 Repair and Maintenance Costs

DOE included no changes to repair or maintenance costs for either portable or wholehome dehumidifiers that exceed baseline efficiency.

8.2.2.8 Product Lifetime

 

For portable dehumidifiers, DOE used lifetime estimates from the previous DOE 

rulemaking for dehumidifiers.

3

 

DOE assumed whole-home dehumidifiers have the same life span as residential room air

conditioners. DOE therefore applied the lifetime parameters derived for room air conditioners to 

whole-home dehumidifiers.8 See Table 8.2.25. 

Table 8.2.25 Room Air Conditioner Lifetime Reference Values 

Product Type Minimum Average Maximum

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.05

1.10

1.15

1.20

1.25

Electricity Price Trend (2012=100)

AEO 2013 Electricity Projection (National)

Reference Case High Low

8-21
(Years) (Years) (Years)

Room Air Conditioners 3.0 10.5 20.0

 To perform the LCC and PBP analysis, DOE had to develop survival functions for 

dehumidifiers. DOE estimated the percentage of appliances of a given age that would still be in 

operation in a given year. This survival function, which DOE assumes has the form of a 

cumulative Weibull distribution, provides an average and a median appliance lifetime. 

 The Weibull distribution is a probability distribution commonly used to measure failure 

rates.a Its form is similar to that of an exponential distribution, which models a fixed failure rate, 

except that a Weibull distribution allows for a failure rate that changes through time. The 

cumulative Weibull distribution takes the form:

e x

xP

β

α

θ 



 



 − −

)( = for x > θ and 

P(x) = 1 for x ≤ θ.

Where:

P(x) = probability that the appliance is still in use at age x; 

x = age of appliance; 

α = scale parameter, which would be the decay length in an exponential distribution; 

β = shape parameter, which determines the way in which the failure rate changes through 

time; and 

θ = delay parameter, which allows for a delay before any failures occur. 

 When β = 1, the failure rate is constant over time, giving the distribution the form of a 

cumulative exponential distribution. In the case of appliances, β commonly is greater than 1, 

reflecting an increasing failure rate as appliances age. Figure 8.2.5 and Figure 8.2.6 show the 

Weibull retirement and survival functions for portable and whole-home dehumidifiers, 

respectively. The results of DOE’s analysis are shown in Table 8.2.26. 

a For reference on the Weibull distribution, see sections 1.3.6.6.8 and 8.4.1.3 of the NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook 

of Statistical Methods. <www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/> (Last accessed August 21, 2012.)

8-22

 
Figure 8.2.5 Weibull Function for Lifetime of Portable Dehumidifiers 

Figure 8.2.6 Weibull Function for Lifetime of Whole-Home Dehumidifiers 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Lifetime Dist. for Portable Dehumidifiers

% of Retiring

% of Surviving

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Lifetime Dist. for Whole-home Dehumidifiers

% of Retiring

% of Surviving

8-23
Table 8.2.26 Lifetime Parameters

Product Type Average

(Years) 

Weibull Parameters

Alpha (Scale) Beta (Shape)

Portable dehumidifiers 11.0 11.00 4.20

Whole-home 

dehumidifiers 19.01 20.30 2.50

8.2.3 Discount Rates

The discount rate is the rate at which DOE discounts future expenditures or savings to 

establish their present value. The discount rate is applied to future energy cost savings and nonenergy operations and maintenance costs. Following financial theory, the financial cost of raising 

funds for future maintenance of products can be interpreted as: (1) the financial cost of any debt 

incurred to maintain a product, or (2) the opportunity cost of any equity used to maintain a 

product. Likewise, future energy cost savings may be applied to paying off debt or increasing 

equity. The financial value of reduced energy expenditures can be interpreted as: (1) the cost 

avoided by decreasing debt, or (2) the return earned from increasing holdings in various forms of 

equity, a function of the same portfolio of debt and equity as in the case of the financial cost of 

future maintenance. 

8.2.3.1 Discount Rates for Residential Consumers

DOE calculates the weighted average interest rate among types of consumer debt and 

equity, and applies that weighted average rate as the consumer discount rate. DOE estimated the 

average percentage shares of the various types of debt and equity in the average U.S. household 

using data from the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) for 1989, 

1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2010.9 Table 8.2.27 shows the average percentages of 

each considered type of debt or equity. DOE derived the mean percentages of each source of 

financing for the 8 years surveyed. 

8-24
Table 8.2.27 Types of Household Debt and Equity by Percentage Shares

Type of Debt or Equity 1989

(%)

1992

(%)

1995

(%)

1998

(%)

2001

(%)

2004

(%)

2007

(%)

2010

(%)

Mean

(%)

Home equity loan 4.3 4.5 2.7 2.8 2.8 4.4 4.6 4.4 3.8

Credit card 1.6 2.1 2.6 2.2 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.1 2.1

Other installment loan 2.8 1.7 1.4 1.7 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.6

Other residential loan 4.4 6.9 5.2 4.3 3.1 5.8 7.1 7.3 5.5

Other line of credit 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.5

Checking account 5.8 4.7 4.9 3.9 3.6 4.2 3.4 4.3 4.4

Savings or money market 

account 19.2 18.8 14.0 12.8 14.2 15.1 13.0 16.2 15.4

Certificate of deposit 14.5 11.7 9.4 7.0 5.4 5.9 6.5 6.7 8.4

Savings bond 2.2 1.7 2.2 1.1 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.6 1.3

Bonds 13.8 12.3 10.5 7.0 7.9 8.4 6.7 7.3 9.2

Stocks 22.4 24.0 25.9 36.9 37.5 28.0 28.6 23.4 28.3

Mutual funds 8.0 11.1 20.9 20.1 21.3 23.4 25.5 25.6 19.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Sources: Federal Reserve Board. Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) for 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 

2007, and 2010.

DOE estimated interest or return rates associated with each type of equity and debt. The 

source for interest rates for loans, credit cards, and lines of credit was the Federal Reserve 

Board’s SCF for 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2010. Table 8.2.28 shows the 

average nominal rates in each year and the inflation factors used to calculate real rates. DOE 

calculated effective interest rates for home equity loans in a similar manner as for mortgage 

loans, because interest on both is tax deductible. Table 8.2.29 shows the average effective real 

rates in each year and the mean rate across years. Because the interest rate for each type of 

household debt reflects economic conditions throughout numerous years, they are expected to be 

representative of rates that may be in effect in 2019. 

Table 8.2.28 Average Nominal Interest Rates for Household Debt 

Type of Debt 1989

(%)

1992

(%)

1995

(%)

1998

(%)

2001

(%)

2004

(%)

2007

(%)

2010

(%)

Mean

(%)

Home equity loan 11.5 9.6 9.6 9.8 8.7 5.7 7.9 6.0 8.6

Credit card* - - 14.2 14.5 14.2 11.7 12.6 13.9 13.5

Other installment loan 9.0 7.8 9.3 7.8 8.7 7.4 10.4 10.4 8.8

Other residential loan 8.8 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.5 6.0 6.3 6.0 7.2

Other line of credit 14.8 12.7 12.4 11.9 14.7 8.8 12.7 10.6 12.4

Inflation rate 4.82 3.01 2.83 1.56 2.85 2.66 2.85 1.64 -

Sources: Federal Reserve Board. Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) for 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 

2007, and 2010. 

* No data were available for interest rates on credit cards in 1989 or 1992.

8-25
Table 8.2.29 Average Real Effective Interest Rates for Household Debt 

Type of Debt 1989

(%)

1992

(%)

1995

(%)

1998

(%)

2001

(%)

2004

(%)

2007

(%)

2010

(%)

Mean

(%)

Home equity loan 3.8 4.3 4.4 5.8 3.8 1.9 2.1 3.1 3.8

Credit card* - - 11.0 12.7 11.1 9.1 3.3 12.1 11.0

Other installment loan 4.9 5.8 7.0 6.6 6.1 5.4 9.7 9.0 6.7

Other residential loan 4.0 4.7 4.8 6.0 4.6 3.3 3.4 4.3 4.4

Other line of credit 9.6 9.4 9.3 10.2 11.7 6.0 9.7 8.8 9.4

Sources: Federal Reserve Board. Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) for 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 

2007, and 2010. 

* No data were available for interest rates on credit cards in 1989 or 1992.

 

No similar rate data are available from the SCF for classes of household assets, so DOE

derived that information from national historical data. The interest rates associated with 

certificates of deposit,10 savings bonds,11 and bonds (AAA corporate bonds)12 were collected 

from Federal Reserve Board time-series data for 1977–2011. DOE assumed rates on checking 

accounts to be zero. Rates on savings and money market accounts were obtained from Cost of 

Savings Index data covering 1984–2011.13 The rates for stocks are the annual returns on the 

Standard and Poor’s 500 for 1977–2011.14 Rates for mutual funds are a weighted average of the 

stock rates (two-thirds weight) and the bond rates (one-third weight) each year for 1977–2011. 

DOE adjusted the nominal rates to real rates using the annual inflation rate for each year. 

Average nominal and real interest rates for the classes of household assets are listed in Table 

8.2.30. Because the interest and return rates for each type of asset reflect economic conditions 

throughout numerous years, they are expected to be representative of rates that may be in effect 

during the product lifetime.

Table 8.2.30 Average Nominal and Real Interest Rates for Household Equity 

Type of Equity Average Nominal Rate 

(%) 

Average Real Rate 

(%) 

Checking account - 0.0

Savings or money market account 5.1 2.1

Certificate of deposit 6.1 2.0

Savings bond 7.4 3.3

Bonds 8.2 4.0

Stocks 11.8 7.6

Mutual funds 10.4 6.1

Table 8.2.31 summarizes the mean real effective rate for each type of equity or debt. 

DOE determined the average percentage of each type of debt and asset using SCF data for 1989, 

1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2010. Each year of SCF data provides the percentages 

of debts and assets for U.S. households. DOE averaged those percentages for the 8 years of 

8-26
survey data to arrive at the percentages shown in Table 8.2.31. The average rate among all types 

of household debt and equity, weighted by the percentages of each type, is 5.0 percent. 

Table 8.2.31 Average Interest on Types of Household Debt and Equity 

Type of Debt or Equity

Average Percentage of 

Household Debt plus 

Equity (%)*

Mean Effective 

Real Rate (%)†

Home equity loan 3.8 3.8

Credit card 2.1 11.0

Other installment loan 1.6 6.7

Other residential loan 5.5 4.4

Other line of credit 0.5 9.4

Checking account 4.4 0.0

Savings or money market account 15.4 2.1

Certificate of deposit 8.4 2.0

Savings bond 1.3 3.3

Bonds 9.2 4.0

Stocks 28.3 7.6

Mutual funds 19.5 6.1

Total/weighted-average discount rate 100.0 5.0

* Not including primary mortgage or retirement accounts.

† Adjusted for inflation and, for home equity loans, tax deduction of interest.

 DOE developed a normal probability distribution of interest rates for each asset type by 

using the mean value and standard deviation from the distribution. To account for variations 

among households, DOE sampled a rate for each household from the distributions for the 

appropriate asset class. 

8.2.4 Compliance Date of Standard

The compliance date is the future date when manufacturers must comply with a new or 

amended standard. The compliance date of the potential energy conservation standards for 

dehumidifiers manufactured in, or imported into, the United States is March 11, 2019. DOE

calculated the LCC for all consumers as if each would purchase a new product in 2019. 

8.2.5 Product Energy Efficiency in the Base Case

To estimate the percentage of consumers who would be affected by a standard at any of 

the candidate standard levels, DOE considered the projected distribution of efficiencies for 

products that consumers purchase under the base case (the case without new or amended energy 

conservation standards). DOE refers to this distribution of product efficiencies as the base-case 

efficiency distribution. Using the projected distribution of efficiencies for each product class, 

DOE randomly assigned a product efficiency to each sampled household. The energy efficiency 

8-27
distributions that DOE used in the LCC analysis are described below. For this preliminary 

analysis, DOE used the efficiency distributions calculated based on DOE’s Certification 

Database for Dehumidifiers.

15 The energy factors for dehumidifiers listed in the DOE product 

database are determined by the current test procedure which took effect in 2007 and was updated 

in 2014. The current test procedure also defines integrated energy factor (IEF), which includes 

measures of standby mode and off mode energy use and is the basis of this preliminary analysis. 

Because the standby/off mode energy use is small compared to dehumidification mode energy 

use, DOE assumes that IEF as measured by the current test procedure is relatively equal to EF, 

and thus the base-case market shares would be similar. A proposed amendment to the test 

procedure would require dehumidification mode testing at an ambient temperature of 65 °F 

rather than 80 °F and would include a measure of fan-only mode energy use. Although these 

changes may result in IEF values that are significantly lower than EF for certain dehumidifiers, 

DOE expects that the distribution of efficiencies among dehumidifier models will remain 

approximately the same. 

 

Table 8.2.32 through Table 8.2.38 present recent market shares of the efficiency levels 

being considered for each dehumidifier product class, based on IEF measured at 80 °F and on 

IEF measured at 65 °F with fan-only mode energy use included. Because there is no evidence 

that average efficiency has changed in recent years, DOE assumes that the market shares will be

the same in 2019. 

Table 8.2.32 Dehumidifiers ≤20.00 Pints/Day: Base-Case Market Shares

Efficiency

Level

80 °F 65 °F

Market Share 

(%) Integrated Energy 

Factor (L/kWh)

Integrated Energy 

Factor (L/kWh)

Baseline 1.05 0.77 67%

1 1.50 1.10 1%

2 1.70 1.20 0%

3 1.85 1.30 29%

4 1.93 1.42 3%

8-28
Table 8.2.33 Dehumidifiers 20.01–30.00 Pints/Day: Base-Case Market Shares 

Efficiency

Level

80 °F 65 °F

Market Share 

(%) Integrated Energy 

Factor (L/kWh)

Integrated Energy 

Factor (L/kWh)

Baseline 1.16 0.80 0%

1 1.50 1.10 68%

2 1.70 1.20 0%

3 1.85 1.30 27%

4 1.93 1.52 6%

Table 8.2.34 Dehumidifiers 30.01–35.00 Pints/Day: Base-Case Market Shares 

Efficiency

Level

80 °F 65 °F

Market Share 

(%) Integrated Energy 

Factor (L/kWh)

Integrated Energy 

Factor (L/kWh)

Baseline 1.29 0.94 0%

1 1.60 1.20 61%

2 1.85 1.40 37%

3 1.95 1.60 0%

4 2.06 1.75 3%

Table 8.2.35 Dehumidifiers 35.01–45.00 Pints/Day: Base-Case Market Shares 

Efficiency

Level

80 °F 65 °F

Market Share 

(%) Integrated Energy 

Factor (L/kWh)

Integrated Energy 

Factor (L/kWh)

Baseline 1.35 1.00 0%

1 1.70 1.30 58%

2 1.85 1.40 37%

3 1.95 1.60 1%

4 2.06 1.75 4%

8-29
Table 8.2.36 Dehumidifiers >45.00 Pints/Day: Base-Case Market Shares 

Efficiency

Level

80 °F 65 °F

Market Share 

(%) Integrated Energy 

Factor (L/kWh)

Integrated Energy 

Factor (L/kWh)

Baseline 2.44 2.07 52%

1 3.00 2.40 16%

2 3.50 2.80 16%

3 4.20 3.52 16%

Table 8.2.37 Dehumidifiers ≤8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole-Home): Base-Case Market 

Shares 

Efficiency

Level

80 °F 65 °F

Market Share 

(%) Integrated Energy 

Factor (L/kWh)

Integrated Energy 

Factor (L/kWh)

Baseline 1.90 1.10 33%

1 2.20 1.40 11%

2 2.50 1.59 56%

Table 8.2.38 Dehumidifiers >8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole-Home): Base-Case Market 

Shares 

Efficiency

Level

80 °F 65 °F

Market Share 

(%) Integrated Energy 

Factor (L/kWh)

Integrated Energy 

Factor (L/kWh)

Baseline 2.50 1.68 40%

1 2.80 1.90 28%

2 3.50 2.80 16%

3 4.20 3.41 16%

8.3 RESULTS OF LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS

This section presents the results of the LCC and PBP analysis for all product classes of 

dehumidifiers. As discussed in section 8.1.1, DOE’s approach to the LCC analysis relied on 

developing samples of households that use each of the product classes. DOE also used 

probability distributions to characterize the uncertainty in many of the inputs to the analysis. 

8-30
DOE used Monte Carlo simulation to perform the LCC calculations for the households in the 

sample. For each set of sample households that use the product in each product class, DOE 

calculated the average LCC and LCC savings and the median and average PBP for each the 

efficiency levels. These efficiency levels are also referred to as candidate standard levels (CSLs).

DOE calculated LCC savings and PBPs relative to the base-case products that it assigned 

to sample households. For some consumers DOE assigned a base-case product that is more 

efficient than some of the CSLs. For that reason, the average LCC impacts are not equal to the 

difference between the LCC of a specific CSL and the LCC of the baseline product. DOE 

calculated the average LCC savings and the median PBP values by excluding the households that 

are not impacted by a standard at a given efficiency level. 

 LCC and PBP calculations were performed 10,000 times on the sample of consumers 

established for each product class. Each LCC and PBP calculation was performed on a single 

household selected from the sample. A household was selected based on its weight (i.e., how 

representative it was of other households in the distribution). Each LCC and PBP calculation also 

sampled from the probability distributions that DOE developed to characterize many of the 

inputs to the analysis. 

Using the Monte Carlo simulations for each CSL, DOE calculated the percent of 

consumers who experience a net LCC benefit, a net LCC cost, and no effect. DOE considered a 

consumer to receive no effect at a given standard level if DOE assigned it a baseline product 

having the same or higher efficiency than the standard level. The following sections present 

figures that illustrate the range of LCC and PBP effects among sample consumers. 

8.3.1 Summary of Results

Table 8.3.1 through Table 8.3.7 show the LCC and PBP results by efficiency level for 

each dehumidifier product class. DOE determined the median values for the PBPs by excluding 

those users not affected by the standard. 

8-31
Table 8.3.1 Dehumidifiers ≤20.00 Pints/Day: LCC and PBP Results

EL IEF* 

(L/Day)

Life-Cycle Cost (2012$) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Median 

Payback 

Period 

(Years) 

Average 

Installed 

Cost

Average

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost†

Average 

LCC

Average 

Savings 

(2012$)

% Users Having

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net 

Benefit

Baseline 0.77 $219 $698 $917

1 1.10 $219 $490 $709 $129 0% 38% 62% 0.0

2 1.20 $221 $450 $671 $167 0% 32% 68% 0.1

3 1.30 $227 $415 $642 $186 0% 32% 68% 0.3

4 1.42 $232 $381 $612 $294 0% 3% 97% 0.4

* IEF = Integrated energy factor.

† Discounted. 

Table 8.3.2 Dehumidifiers 20.01–30.00 Pints/Day: LCC and PBP Results

EL IEF* 

(L/Day)

Life-Cycle Cost (2012$) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Median 

Payback 

Period 

(Years)

Average 

Installed 

Cost

Average

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost†

Average 

LCC

Average 

Savings 

(2012$)

% Users Having

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net 

Benefit

Baseline 0.80 $231 $937 $1,168

1 1.10 $231 $683 $914 $0.00 0% 100% 0% NA

2 1.20 $234 $626 $860 $145 0% 53% 47% 0.1

3 1.30 $237 $578 $816 $235 0% 33% 67% 0.2

4 1.52 $249 $495 $744 $398 0% 6% 94% 0.4

* IEF = Integrated energy factor.

† Discounted. 

Table 8.3.3 Dehumidifiers 30.01–35.00 Pints/Day: LCC and PBP Results

EL IEF* 

(L/Day)

Life-Cycle Cost (2012$) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Median 

Payback 

Period 

(Years)

Average 

Installed 

Cost

Average

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost†

Average 

LCC

Average 

Savings 

(2012$)

% Users Having

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net 

Benefit

Baseline 0.94 $260 $1,037 $1,297

1 1.20 $260 $813 $1,073 $0.00 0% 100% 0% NA

2 1.40 $265 $697 $963 $164 0% 51% 49% 0.2

3 1.60 $275 $611 $886 $399 0% 3% 97% 0.4

4 1.75 $283 $559 $841 $441 0% 3% 97% 0.5

* IEF = Integrated energy factor.

† Discounted. 

8-32
Table 8.3.4 Dehumidifiers 35.01–45.00 Pints/Day: LCC and PBP Results

EL IEF* 

(L/Day)

Life-Cycle Cost (2012$) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Median 

Payback 

Period 

(Years)

Average 

Installed 

Cost

Average

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost†

Average 

LCC

Average 

Savings 

(2012$)

% Users Having

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net 

Benefit

Baseline 1.00 $281 $1,199 $1,480

1 1.30 $281 $923 $1,204 $0.00 0% 100% 0% NA

2 1.40 $284 $857 $1,142 $119 0% 66% 34% 0.1

3 1.60 $294 $751 $1,044 $412 0% 5% 95% 0.3

4 1.75 $300 $687 $987 $472 0% 4% 96% 0.4

* IEF = Integrated energy factor.

† Discounted. 

Table 8.3.5 Dehumidifiers >45.00 Pints/Day: LCC and PBP Results

EL IEF* 

(L/Day)

Life-Cycle Cost (2012$) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Median 

Payback 

Period 

(Years)

Average 

Installed 

Cost

Average

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost†

Average 

LCC

Average 

Savings 

(2012$)

% Users Having

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net 

Benefit

Baseline 2.07 $874 $1,050 $1,924

1 2.40 $939 $906 $1,845 $31 12% 61% 27% 4.6

2 2.80 $957 $777 $1,734 $128 12% 32% 56% 3.2

3 3.52 $1,043 $619 $1,662 $218 22% 16% 62% 4.1

* IEF = Integrated energy factor.

† Discounted. 

Table 8.3.6 Dehumidifiers ≤8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole-Home): LCC and PBP Results

EL IEF* 

(L/Day)

Life-Cycle Cost (2012$) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Median 

Payback 

Period 

(Years)

Average 

Installed 

Cost

Average

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost†

Average 

LCC

Average 

Savings 

(2012$)

% Users Having

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net 

Benefit

Baseline 1.10 $1,614 $1,988 $3,602

1 1.40 $1,640 $1,586 $3,226 $192 2% 75% 23% 1.2

2 1.59 $1,747 $1,409 $3,156 $192 10% 56% 34% 4.2

* IEF = Integrated energy factor.

† Discounted. 

8-33
Table 8.3.7 Dehumidifiers >8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole-Home): LCC and PBP Results

EL IEF* 

(L/Day)

Life-Cycle Cost (2012$) Life-Cycle Cost Savings Median 

Payback 

Period 

(Years)

Average 

Installed 

Cost

Average

Lifetime 

Operating 

Cost†

Average 

LCC

Average 

Savings 

(2012$)

% Users Having

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net 

Benefit

Baseline 1.68 $1,988 $2,117 $4,105

1 1.90 $1,999 $1,884 $3,883 $56 1% 74% 24% 0.8

2 2.80 $2,052 $1,314 $3,366 $602 7% 19% 73% 1.4

3 3.41 $2,183 $1,099 $3,282 $823 20% 0% 80% 3.4

* IEF = Integrated energy factor.

† Discounted. 

8.3.1.2 Distributions of Impacts 

 The figures in this section show the distribution of LCCs in the base case for each 

product class. Also presented are figures showing the distribution of LCC impacts and the 

distribution of PBPs for Efficiency Level 2. The figures are presented as frequency charts that 

show the distribution of LCCs, LCC impacts, and PBPs with their corresponding probability of 

occurrence. DOE generated the figures for the distributions from a Monte Carlo simulation run 

based on 10,000 samples. 

Base-Case LCC Distributions. Figure 8.3.1 through Figure 8.3.7 show the base-case 

LCC distributions for each product class of dehumidifiers.

Figure 8.3.1 Dehumidifiers ≤20.00 Pints/Day: Base-Case LCC Distribution

8-34
Figure 8.3.2 Dehumidifiers 20.01–30.00 Pints/Day: Base-Case LCC Distribution

Figure 8.3.3 Dehumidifiers 30.01–35.00 Pints/Day: Base-Case LCC Distribution

8-35
Figure 8.3.4 Dehumidifiers 35.01–45.00 Pints/Day: Base-Case LCC Distribution

Figure 8.3.5 Dehumidifiers >45.00 Pints/Day: Base-Case LCC Distribution

8-36
Figure 8.3.6 Dehumidifiers ≤8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole-Home): Base-Case LCC 

Distribution

Figure 8.3.7 Dehumidifiers >8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole-Home): Base-Case LCC 

Distribution

8-37
Standard-Level Distribution of Impacts. Figure 8.3.8 is an example of a frequency chart 

that shows the distribution of LCC differences for the case of Efficiency Level 2 for product 

class one (≤20.00 pints/day). In the figure, a text box next to a vertical line at a given value on 

the x-axis shows the mean change in LCC (a savings of $250 in the example here). The note, 

“Certainty is 100.00% from $0 to +Infinity,” means that 100 percent of owners of dehumidifier 

units will have LCC savings or not be affected by the efficiency level compared to the base case. 

The large spike in Figure 8.3.8 represents the percentage of consumers who are not affected by 

an increase in the efficiency level, i.e., consumers who already use dehumidifiers that have

efficiencies greater than or equal to the efficiency level. Refer to section 8.2.5 on the distribution 

of product efficiencies under the base case. DOE can generate a frequency chart like the one 

shown in Figure 8.3.8 for each efficiency level and product class. 

Figure 8.3.8 Dehumidifiers ≤20.00 Pints/Day: LCC Savings Distribution for 

Efficiency Level 2 

Figure 8.3.9 is an example of a frequency chart that shows the distribution of payback 

periods of Efficiency Level 2 for product class one (≤20.00 pints/day). The fact that the entire 

distribution of PBP values lies above 0 indicates that all consumers are affected by an increase in 

the efficiency level, i.e., consumers currently are using dehumidifiers that have efficiencies lower 

than the efficiency level. Refer to section 8.2.5 on the distribution of product efficiencies under 

the base case. DOE can generate a frequency chart like the one shown in Figure 8.3.9 for each

efficiency level and product class. 

8-38
Figure 8.3.9 Dehumidifiers ≤20.00 Pints/Day: PBP Distribution for Efficiency 

Level 2 

8.3.1.3 Range of Impacts 

Figure 8.3.10 through Figure 8.3.16 show the range of LCC savings for all efficiency 

levels considered for each dehumidifier product class. For each efficiency level, the top and the 

bottom of the box indicate the 75th and 25th percentiles, respectively. The bar at the middle of the 

box indicates the median: 50 percent of households have LCC savings in excess of that value. 

The “whiskers” at the bottom and the top of the box indicate the 5th and 95th percentiles. The 

small box shows the average LCC savings for each standard level. 

8-39
Figure 8.3.10 Dehumidifiers ≤20.00 Pints/Day: Range of Average 

LCC Savings

Figure 8.3.11 Dehumidifiers 20.01–30.00 Pints/Day: Range of 

Average LCC Savings 

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Life Cycle Cost Savings ($)

Efficiency Level

Average LCC Savings 

Average, Median; Box 25%-75%, Whisker 5-95% 

median

average

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Life Cycle Cost Savings ($)

Efficiency Level

Average LCC Savings 

Average, Median; Box 25%-75%, Whisker 5-95% 

median

average

8-40
Figure 8.3.12 Dehumidifiers 30.01–35.00 Pints/Day: Range of 

Average LCC Savings 

Figure 8.3.13 Dehumidifiers 35.01–45.00 Pints/Day: Range of 

Average LCC Savings 

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Life Cycle Cost Savings ($)

Efficiency Level

Average LCC Savings 

Average, Median; Box 25%-75%, Whisker 5-95% 

median

average

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Life Cycle Cost Savings ($)

Efficiency Level

Average LCC Savings 

Average, Median; Box 25%-75%, Whisker 5-95% 

median

average

8-41
Figure 8.3.14 Dehumidifiers >45.00 Pints/Day: Range of Average 

LCC Savings

Figure 8.3.15 Dehumidifiers ≤8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole-Home): 

Range of Average LCC Savings 

-$200

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Life Cycle Cost Savings ($)

Efficiency Level

Average LCC Savings 

Average, Median; Box 25%-75%, Whisker 5-95% 

median

average

-$200

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

Level 1 Level 2

Life Cycle Cost Savings ($)

Efficiency Level

Average LCC Savings 

Average, Median; Box 25%-75%, Whisker 5-95% 

median

average

8-42
Figure 8.3.16 Dehumidifiers >8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole-Home): 

Range of Average LCC Savings 

Figure 8.3.17 through Figure 8.3.23 show the range of PBPs for all efficiency levels

considered for all dehumidifier product classes. For each efficiency level, the top and the bottom 

of the box in the figure indicate the 75th and 25th percentiles, respectively. The bar at the middle 

of the box indicates the median: 50 percent of households have a payback period that exceeds

that value. The horizontal lines above and below each box indicate the 95th and 5th percentiles. 

The small box indicates the average PBP for each efficiency level. 

-$500

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Life Cycle Cost Savings ($)

Efficiency Level

Average LCC Savings 

Average, Median; Box 25%-75%, Whisker 5-95% 

median

average

8-43
Figure 8.3.17 Dehumidifiers ≤20.00 Pints/Day: Range of Average 

Payback Period 

Figure 8.3.18 Dehumidifiers 20.01–30.00 Pints/Day: Range of 

Average Payback Period 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Average Payback Period (years)

Efficiency Level

Average Payback Period 

Average, Median; Box 25%-75%, Whisker 5-95% 

median

average

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Average Payback period (years)

Efficiency Level

Average Payback Period 

Average, Median; Box 25%-75%, Whisker 5-95% 

median

average

8-44
Figure 8.3.19 Dehumidifiers 30.01–35.00 Pints/Day: Range of 

Average Payback Period

Figure 8.3.20 Dehumidifiers 35.01–45.00 Pints/Day: Range of 

Average Payback Period 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Average Payback Period (years)

Efficiency Level

Average Payback Period 

Average, Median; Box 25%-75%, Whisker 5-95% 

median

average

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Average Payback Periods (years)

Efficiency Level

Average Payback Period 

Average, Median; Box 25%-75%, Whisker 5-95% 

median

average

8-45
Figure 8.3.21 Dehumidifiers >45.00 Pints/Day: Range of Average 

Payback Period 

Figure 8.3.22 Dehumidifiers ≤8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole-Home): 

Range of Average Payback Periods 

0

5

10

15

20

25

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Average Payback Period (years)

Efficiency Level

Average Payback Period 

Average, Median; Box 25%-75%, Whisker 5-95% 

median

average

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Level 1 Level 2

Average Payback Period (years)

Efficiency Level

Average Payback Period 

Average, Median; Box 25%-75%, Whisker 5-95% 

median

average

8-46
Figure 8.3.23 Dehumidifiers >8.0 ft3 Case Volume (Whole-Home): 

Range of Average Payback Periods 

8.4 REBUTTABLE PAYBACK PERIOD

DOE develops rebuttable PBPs to provide the legally established rebuttable presumption 

that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional product costs 

attributed to the standard are less than three times the value of the first-year energy cost savings. 

(42 U.S.C. §6295 (o)(2)(B)(iii)) 

The basic equation for rebuttable PBP is the same as that shown for the PBP in section 

8.1.1. Unlike the analyses described in section 8.2, however, the rebuttable PBP is not based on 

household samples and probability distributions. The rebuttable PBP is based instead on discrete, 

single-point values. For example, whereas DOE uses a probability distribution of regional energy 

prices in the distributional PBP analysis, it uses only the national average energy price to 

determine the rebuttable PBP.

 Other than the use of single-point values, the most notable difference between the 

distributional PBP and the rebuttable PBP is the latter’s reliance on the DOE test procedure to 

determine a product’s annual energy consumption. DOE based the annual energy consumption 

for the rebuttable PBP on the number of operating hours per year specified in DOE’s proposed 

test procedure for dehumidifiers16. The following sections identify the differences, if any, 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Average Payback Period (years)

Efficiency Level

Average Payback Period 

Average, Median; Box 25%-75%, Whisker 5-95% 

median

average

8-47
between the annual energy consumptions determined by the distributional PBP and the rebuttable 

PBP for all product classes of dehumidifiers. 

8.4.1 Inputs to Rebuttable Payback Period Analysis 

 Because inputs for determining total installed cost for calculating the distributional PBP 

were based on single-point values, only the variability and/or uncertainty in the inputs for 

determining operating cost contributed to variability in the distributional PBPs. The following 

summarizes the single-point values that DOE used in determining the rebuttable PBP. 

• Manufacturing costs, markups, sales taxes, and installation costs were based on the 

single-point values used in the distributional LCC and PBP analysis. 

• Energy prices were based on national average values for the year that new standards 

would take effect.

• An average discount rate or lifetime is not required in calculating the rebuttable PBP.

• The effective date of any new standard is assumed to be 2019. 

8.4.2 Results of Rebuttable Payback Period Analysis

DOE calculated rebuttable PBPs for each efficiency level relative to the distribution of 

product efficiencies estimated for the baseline. In other words, DOE did not determine the 

rebuttable PBP relative to the base case energy efficiency, but relative to the distribution of 

product energy efficiencies for the baseline (i.e., the case without new energy conservation 

standards). Table 8.4.1 and Table 8.4.2 present the rebuttable PBPs for each product class of

dehumidifiers. 

Table 8.4.1 Rebuttable Payback Periods: Portable Dehumidifiers

≤20.00 

Pints/Day

20.01–30.00 

Pints/Day

30.01–35.00 

Pints/Day

35.01–45.00 

Pints/Day

>45.00 

Pints/Day

IEF

(L/kWh)

PBP

(Yrs)

IEF

(L/kWh)

PBP

(Yrs)

IEF

(L/kWh)

PBP

(Yrs)

IEF

(L/kWh)

PBP

(Yrs)

IEF

(L/kWh)

PBP

(Yrs)

0.77 – 0.80 – 0.94 – 1.00 – 2.07 – 

1.10 0.00 1.10 0.00 1.20 0.00 1.30 0.00 2.40 4.87

1.20 0.11 1.20 0.11 1.40 0.16 1.40 0.11 2.80 3.29

1.30 0.30 1.30 0.19 1.60 0.37 1.60 0.31 3.52 4.24

1.42 0.45 1.52 0.45 1.75 0.51 1.75 0.40 – – 

8-48
Table 8.4.2 Rebuttable Payback Periods: Whole-Home Dehumidifiers

≤8.0 ft3 Case Volume >8.0 ft3 Case Volume

IEF

(L/kWh)

RPBP

(Years)

IEF

(L/kWh)

RPBP

(Years)

1.10 – 1.68 – 

1.40 0.86 1.90 0.60

1.59 2.98 2.80 1.04

– – 3.41 2.49

8-49
REFERENCES

1 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)–Energy Information Administration (EIA). 

Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 2009. RECS Survey Data—Public Use 

Microdata File. October 2011. EIA: Washington, D.C. (Last accessed October 18, 2013.) 

<http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/#microdata> 

2 DOE–EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2013 with Projections to 2040. 2013. Washington, 

D.C. Report Number DOE/EIA-0383(2013). <http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/> 

3 DOE–Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). Energy Conservation Program 

for Consumer Products: Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for 

Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment, Residential 

Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, and Cooking Products, and Commercial Clothes Washers. 

2009. Washington, DC. (Last accessed October 10, 2013.) 

<http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/cooking_produc

ts_final_rule_tsd.html> 

4 RS Means. Residential Cost Data, 32nd Annual Edition. 2013. Kingston, MA. 

5 Willem, Henry, et al. 2013a. Using Field-Metered Data to Quantify Annual 

 Energy Use of Residential Portable Unit Dehumidifiers. Lawrence Berkeley 

 National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. LBNL-6469E. 

6 Willem, Henry, et al. 2013b. Field-Monitoring of Whole-Home Dehumidifiers: 

 Initial Results of a Pilot Study. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, 

 CA. LBNL-6475E. 

7 DOE–EIA. EIA Form 861: Customer Count Data by Utility for 2011. (Last accessed 

March 26, 2013.) <http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html> 

8 DOE–EERE. Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products. Technical Support 

Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and 

Industrial Equipment, Residential Clothes Dryers and Room Air Conditioners. 2011. 

Washington, D.C. (Last accessed October 25, 2013.) 

<http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010-0053>

9 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Research Resources: Survey of 

Consumer Finances (SCF). 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2010. (Last 

accessed September 18, 2012.) 

<http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/scfindex.html> 

10 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 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 

8-50

 
certificates of deposit (secondary market), quoted on an investment basis. 2010. (Last 

accessed September 18, 2012.) <http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H15/data.htm> 

11 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 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. 2010. (Last accessed September 18, 2012.) 

<http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H15/data.htm> 

12 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 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. 2010. (Last accessed September 18, 2012.) 

<http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H15/data.htm> 

13 Mortgage-X–Mortgage Information Service. Cost of Savings Index (COSI) Index History. 

2010. (Last accessed September 18, 2012.) <http://mortgagex.com/general/indexes/default.asp> 

14 Damodaran Online. Historical Returns on Stocks, Bonds and Bills–United States. Use 

link for Updated Data: Data Sets. 2012. A. Damodaran, New York University. (Last 

updated January 2012; last accessed September 18, 2012.) 

<http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/> 

15 DOE. Compliance Certification Database for Dehumidifiers. (Last accessed September 4, 

2013.) http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/CCMS-41431694081.html

16 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix X 

(“Appendix X”)

8-51