### 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

...................................................................................... 8-11

8.2.1 Total Installed Cost Inputs

............................................................................................. 8-11

8.2.1.1 Cooking Products – Cooktops

..................................................................... 8-13

8.2.1.2 Cooking Products – Ovens

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

8.2.1.3 Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens

....................................................... 8-25

8.2.1.4 Commercial Clothes Washers

...................................................................... 8-27

8.2.2 Operating Cost Inputs

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

8.2.2.1 Annual Energy and Water Consumption

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

8.2.2.2 Energy and Water Prices

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

8.2.2.3 Energy and Water Price Trends

................................................................... 8-49

8.2.2.4 Repair and Maintenance Costs

..................................................................... 8-51

8.2.3 Product Lifetime

............................................................................................................ 8-54

8.2.3.1 Cooking Products – Cooktops and Ovens

................................................... 8-54

8.2.3.2 Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens

....................................................... 8-55

8.2.3.3 Commercial Clothes Washers

...................................................................... 8-56

8.2.4 Discount Rates

............................................................................................................... 8-57

8.2.4.1 Discount Rate for New Housing Equipment

............................................... 8-57

8.2.4.2 Discount Rate for Residential Replacement Equipment

.............................. 8-58

8.2.4.3 Discount Rates for Commercial Clothes Washers

....................................... 8-61

8.2.5 Effective Date of Standard

............................................................................................. 8-64

8.2.6 Equipment Assignment for the Base Case

..................................................................... 8-65

8.2.6.1 Cooking Products – Cooktops

..................................................................... 8-66

8.2.6.2 Cooking Products – Ovens

........................................................................... 8-68

8.2.6.3 Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens

....................................................... 8-70

8.2.6.4 Commercial Clothes Washers

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

8.3 PAYBACK PERIOD INPUTS

...................................................................................... 8-73

8.4 LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

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

8.4.1 Cooking Products – Cooktops

....................................................................................... 8-75

8.4.1.1 Base Case LCC Distributions

...................................................................... 8-75

8.4.1.2 Standard-Level Distributions of LCC Impacts

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

8.4.1.3 Standard-Level PBP Distributions

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

8.4.1.4 LCC and PBP Results

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

8.4.2 Cooking Products – Ovens

............................................................................................. 8-83

8.4.2.1 Base Case LCC Distributions

...................................................................... 8-83

8.4.2.2 Standard-Level Distributions of LCC Impacts

............................................ 8-84

8.4.2.3 Standard-Level PBP Distributions

............................................................... 8-85

8.4.2.4 LCC and PBP Results

.................................................................................. 8-86

8-i

### 8.4.3 Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens

......................................................................... 8-93

8.4.3.1 Base Case LCC Distributions

...................................................................... 8-93

8.4.3.2 Standard-Level Distributions of LCC Impacts

............................................ 8-93

8.4.3.3 Standard-Level PBP Distributions

............................................................... 8-94

8.4.3.4 LCC and PBP Results

.................................................................................. 8-95

8.4.4 Commercial Clothes Washers

........................................................................................ 8-98

8.4.4.1 Base Case LCC Distributions

...................................................................... 8-98

8.4.4.2 Standard-Level Distributions of LCC Impacts

.......................................... 8-100

8.4.4.3 Standard-Level PBP Distributions

............................................................. 8-101

8.4.4.4 LCC and PBP Results

................................................................................ 8-102

8.5 REBUTTABLE PAYBACK PERIOD

........................................................................ 8-109

8.5.1 Metric

........................................................................................................................... 8-109

8.5.1.1 Cooking Products

....................................................................................... 8-109

8.5.1.2 Commercial Clothes Washers

.................................................................... 8-110

8.5.2 Inputs

............................................................................................................................ 8-110

8.5.3 Results

.......................................................................................................................... 8-111

8.5.3.1 Cooking Products – Cooktops

................................................................... 8-111

8.5.3.2 Cooking Products – Ovens

......................................................................... 8-111

8.5.3.3 Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens

..................................................... 8-112

8.5.3.4 Commercial Clothes Washers

.................................................................... 8-113

LIST OF TABLES

Table 8.1.1 Cooktops: LCC and PBP Input Summary

........................................................... 8-6

Table 8.1.2 Ovens: LCC and PBP Input Summary

................................................................. 8-7

Table 8.1.3 Microwave Ovens: LCC and PBP Input Summary

............................................. 8-9

Table 8.1.4 Commercial Clothes Washers: LCC and PBP Input Summary

......................... 8-10

Table 8.2.1 Inputs for Total Installed Cost

........................................................................... 8-12

Table 8.2.2 Cooktops: Baseline Manufacturer Costs

............................................................ 8-13

Table 8.2.3 Cooking Products: Producer Price Indexes

....................................................... 8-14

Table 8.2.4 Electric Coil Cooktops: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases

............. 8-14

Table 8.2.5 Electric Smooth Cooktops: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases

........ 8-14

Table 8.2.6 Gas Cooktops: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases

........................... 8-14

Table 8.2.7 Cooktops: Overall Markups

.............................................................................. 8-15

Table 8.2.8 Cooking Range: Baseline Installation Costs

...................................................... 8-15

Table 8.2.9 Installation Cost for an Electrical Outlet

........................................................... 8-18 Table 8.2.10 Electric Coil Cooktops: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs,

and Total Installed Costs

.................................................................................... 8-19 Table 8.2.11 Electric Smooth Cooktops: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs

......................................................................... 8-19 Table 8.2.12 Gas Cooktops: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and Total

Installed Costs

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

Table 8.2.13 Ovens: Baseline Manufacturer Costs

................................................................. 8-20

8-ii

### Table 8.2.14 Electric Standard Ovens: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases

........... 8-20 Table 8.2.15 Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost

Increases

............................................................................................................. 8-20

Table 8.2.16 Gas Standard Ovens: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases

................. 8-21 Table 8.2.17 Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases

......... 8-21 Table 8.2.18 Ovens: Overall Markups

................................................................................... 8-21 Table 8.2.19 Electric Standard Ovens: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs,

and Total Installed Costs

.................................................................................... 8-23 Table 8.2.20 Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs

......................................................................... 8-24 Table 8.2.21 Gas Standard Ovens: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and

Total Installed Costs

.......................................................................................... 8-24 Table 8.2.22 Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs,

and Total Installed Costs

.................................................................................... 8-24

Table 8.2.23 Microwave Ovens: Baseline Manufacturer Costs

.............................................. 8-25

Table 8.2.24 Microwave Ovens: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases for Energy Factor Levels

......................................................................................... 8-25

Table 8.2.25 Microwave Ovens: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases for Standby Power Levels

........................................................................................ 8-26 Table 8.2.26 Microwave Ovens: Overall Markups

................................................................ 8-26 Table 8.2.27 Microwave Ovens: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs for Energy Factor Levels

................................................. 8-27 Table 8.2.28 Microwave Ovens: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs for Standby Power Levels

................................................ 8-27

Table 8.2.29 Commercial Clothes Washers: Baseline Manufacturer Costs

........................... 8-28 Table 8.2.30 Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers: Standard-Level Manufacturer

Cost Increases

.................................................................................................... 8-28 Table 8.2.31 Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers: Standard-Level

Manufacturer Cost Increases

.............................................................................. 8-28 Table 8.2.32 Commercial Clothes Washers: Overall Markups

............................................. 8-29

Table 8.2.33 Commercial Clothes Washers: Baseline Installation Costs

............................... 8-29 Table 8.2.34 Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs

...................................................... 8-30 Table 8.2.35 Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs

.......................................... 8-30 Table 8.2.36 Inputs for Operating Cost

................................................................................... 8-31 Table 8.2.37 Electric Coil Cooktops: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level

..... 8-34 Table 8.2.38 Electric Smooth Cooktops: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency

Level

.................................................................................................................. 8-34 Table 8.2.39 Gas Cooktops: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level

.................. 8-34 Table 8.2.40 Electric Standard Ovens: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency

Level

.................................................................................................................. 8-34 Table 8.2.41 Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency

Level

.................................................................................................................. 8-35 Table 8.2.42 Gas Standard Ovens: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level

........ 8-35

8-iii

### Table 8.2.43 Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency

Level

.................................................................................................................. 8-35 Table 8.2.44 Microwave Ovens: Annual Energy Consumption by Energy Factor Level

..... 8-36 Table 8.2.45 Microwave Ovens: Annual Energy Consumption by Standby Power Level

.... 8-36 Table 8.2.46 Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application: Annual Energy and Water Use by Efficiency Level

.......................................... 8-37 Table 8.2.47 Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat Application: Annual Energy and Water Use by Efficiency Level

.......................................... 8-37 Table 8.2.48 Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application: Annual Energy and Water Use by Efficiency Level

.......................................... 8-38 Table 8.2.49 Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat Application: Annual Energy and Water Use by Efficiency Level

.......................................... 8-38 Table 8.2.50 Average Residential Electricity Prices in 2006

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

Table 8.2.51 Average Residential Electricity Prices for Cooking Products in 2006

.............. 8-41 Table 8.2.52 Average Commercial Electricity Prices in 2006

................................................ 8-42 Table 8.2.53 Average Commercial Electricity Prices for Commercial Clothes Washers

in 2006

............................................................................................................... 8-43 Table 8.2.54 Average Residential Natural Gas Prices in 2006

............................................... 8-44 Table 8.2.55 Average Residential Natural Gas Prices for Cooking Products in 2006

........... 8-45 Table 8.2.56 Average Commercial Natural Gas Prices in 2006

............................................. 8-46 Table 8.2.57 Average Commercial Natural Gas Prices for Commercial Clothes Washers

in 2006

............................................................................................................... 8-47 Table 8.2.58 Average Per-Unit-Volume Water Prices in 2006

.............................................. 8-48 Table 8.2.59 Average Per-Unit-Volume Water Prices for Commercial Clothes Washers

in 2006

............................................................................................................... 8-49

Table 8.2.60 Repair/Maintenance Findings for Gas Cooking Product Ignition Systems

....... 8-52 Table 8.2.61 Repair/Maintenance Costs for Gas Cooking Product Ignition Systems

............ 8-53 Table 8.2.62 Commercial Clothes Washer Annualized Repair Costs

.................................... 8-54 Table 8.2.63 Cooktops and Ovens: Product Lifetime Estimates and Sources

........................ 8-54 Table 8.2.64 Cooktops and Ovens: Average, Minimum, and Maximum Product

Lifetimes

............................................................................................................ 8-55

Table 8.2.65 Microwave Ovens: Product Lifetime Estimates and Sources

........................... 8-55 Table 8.2.66 Microwave Ovens: Average, Minimum, and Maximum Product Lifetimes

.... 8-56

Table 8.2.67 Commercial Clothes Washers: Product Lifetime Estimates and Sources

........ 8-56 Table 8.2.68 Commercial Clothes Washers: Average, Minimum, and Maximum

Product Lifetimes

............................................................................................... 8-57 Table 8.2.69 Data Used to Calculate Real Effective Mortgage Rates

.................................... 8-58 Table 8.2.70 Average Shares of Considered Household Debt and Equity Types

.................. 8-59 Table 8.2.71 Average Nominal Interest Rates for Household Debt Classes (percent)

........... 8-59 Table 8.2.72 Average Real Effective Interest Rates for Household Debt Classes (percent)

............................................................................................................. 8-60 Table 8.2.73 Average Nominal and Real Interest Rates for Household Equity Types

........... 8-60 Table 8.2.74 Shares and Interest or Return Rates Used for Household Debt and Equity Types

.................................................................................................................. 8-61

8-iv

### Table 8.2.75 Data for the Calculation of Weighted-Average Cost of Capital for Sectors

that Purchase Commercial Clothes Washers

..................................................... 8-63 Table 8.2.76 Weighted Average Cost of Capital for Sectors that Purchase Commercial

Clothes Washers

................................................................................................. 8-63

Table 8.2.77 Discount Rates for Commercial Clothes Washers

............................................. 8-64 Table 8.2.78 Gas Cooktops: Percent of Shipments with Pilots

............................................. 8-67 Table 8.2.79 Cooktops: Base Case Market Shares

................................................................. 8-68 Table 8.2.80 Gas Standard Ovens: Percent of Shipments with Pilots

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

Table 8.2.81 Ovens: Base Case Market Shares

...................................................................... 8-70 Table 8.2.82 Microwave Ovens: Base Case Market Shares by Energy Factor Level

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

Table 8.2.83 Microwave Ovens: Base Case Market Shares by Standby Power Level

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

Table 8.2.84 Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers: Base Case Market Shares

........... 8-73 Table 8.2.85 Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers: Base Case Market Shares

......... 8-73

Table 8.4.1 Electric Coil Cooktops: LCC and PBP Results

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

Table 8.4.2 Electric Smooth Cooktops: LCC and PBP Results

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

Table 8.4.3 Gas Cooktops: LCC and PBP Results

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

Table 8.4.4 Electric Standard Ovens: LCC and PBP Results

............................................... 8-87

Table 8.4.5 Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens: LCC and PBP Results

....................................... 8-87

Table 8.4.6 Gas Standard Ovens: LCC and PBP Results

..................................................... 8-87

Table 8.4.7 Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens: LCC and PBP Results

............................................. 8-88

Table 8.4.8 Microwave Ovens: LCC and PBP Results by Energy Factor Level

.................. 8-95

Table 8.4.9 Microwave Ovens: LCC and PBP Results by Standby Power Level

................ 8-95 Table 8.4.10 Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application:

LCC and PBP Results

...................................................................................... 8-103 Table 8.4.11 Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat Application:

LCC and PBP Results

...................................................................................... 8-103 Table 8.4.12 Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application:

LCC and PBP Results

...................................................................................... 8-103 Table 8.4.13 Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat Application:

LCC and PBP Results

...................................................................................... 8-104

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

Used for the Determination of Rebuttable PBP and Distribution PBP

............ 8-110

Table 8.5.2 Cooktops: Rebuttable Payback Periods

........................................................... 8-111

Table 8.5.3 Ovens: Rebuttable Payback Periods

................................................................ 8-112

Table 8.5.4 Microwave Ovens: Rebuttable Payback Periods for Energy Factor Levels

.... 8-112

Table 8.5.5 Microwave Ovens: Rebuttable Payback Periods for Energy Factor Levels

.... 8-112

Table 8.5.6 Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application: Rebuttable Payback Periods

............................................................................. 8-113

Table 8.5.7 Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat Application: Rebuttable Payback Periods

............................................................................. 8-113

Table 8.5.8 Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application: Rebuttable Payback Periods

............................................................................. 8-113

Table 8.5.9 Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat Application: Rebuttable Payback Periods

............................................................................. 8-114

8-v

### LIST OF FIGURES

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

....................... 8-5 Figure 8.2.1 Electricity Price Trends

...................................................................................... 8-50 Figure 8.2.2 Natural Gas Price Trends

................................................................................... 8-50 Figure 8.2.3 Water Price Trend

.............................................................................................. 8-51 Figure 8.2.4 Gas Cooktops: Percent of Shipments with Pilots

.............................................. 8-67 Figure 8.2.5 Gas Standard Ovens: Percent of Shipments with Pilots

.................................... 8-69 Figure 8.4.1 Electric Coil Cooktops: Base Case LCC Distribution

....................................... 8-75 Figure 8.4.2 Electric Smooth Cooktops: Base Case LCC Distribution

................................. 8-76 Figure 8.4.3 Gas Cooktops: Base Case LCC Distribution

..................................................... 8-76 Figure 8.4.4 Gas Cooktops: Distribution of LCC Impacts for CSL 2

................................... 8-77 Figure 8.4.5 Gas Cooktops: Distribution of PBPs for CSL 2

................................................ 8-78 Figure 8.4.6 Range of LCC Savings for Electric Coil Cooktops

........................................... 8-80 Figure 8.4.7 Range of LCC Savings for Electric Smooth Cooktops

...................................... 8-80 Figure 8.4.8 Range of LCC Savings for Gas Cooktops

......................................................... 8-81 Figure 8.4.9 Range of Payback Periods for Electric Coil Cooktops

...................................... 8-81 Figure 8.4.10 Range of Payback Periods for Electric Smooth Cooktops

................................. 8-82 Figure 8.4.11 Range of Payback Periods for Gas Cooktops

.................................................... 8-82 Figure 8.4.12 Electric Standard Ovens: Base Case LCC Distribution

..................................... 8-83 Figure 8.4.13 Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens: Base Case LCC Distribution

............................. 8-83 Figure 8.4.14 Gas Standard Ovens: Base Case LCC Distribution

........................................... 8-84 Figure 8.4.15 Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens: Base Case LCC Distribution

................................... 8-84 Figure 8.4.16 Gas Standard Ovens: Distribution of LCC Impacts for CSL 6

.......................... 8-85 Figure 8.4.17 Gas Standard Ovens: Distribution of PBPs for CSL 6

...................................... 8-86 Figure 8.4.18 Range of LCC Savings for Electric Standard Ovens

......................................... 8-89 Figure 8.4.19 Range of LCC Savings for Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens

................................. 8-89 Figure 8.4.20 Range of LCC Savings for Gas Standard Ovens

............................................... 8-90 Figure 8.4.21 Range of LCC Savings for Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens

....................................... 8-90 Figure 8.4.22 Range of Payback Periods for Electric Standard Ovens

.................................... 8-91 Figure 8.4.23 Range of Payback Periods for Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens

............................ 8-91 Figure 8.4.24 Range of Payback Periods for Gas Standard Ovens

.......................................... 8-92 Figure 8.4.25 Range of Payback Periods for Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens

.................................. 8-92 Figure 8.4.26 Microwave Ovens: Base Case LCC Distribution

.............................................. 8-93 Figure 8.4.27 Microwave Ovens: Distribution of LCC Impacts for CSL 3b

........................... 8-94 Figure 8.4.28 Microwave Ovens: Distribution of PBPs for CSL 3b

........................................ 8-94 Figure 8.4.29 Range of LCC Savings for Microwave Oven Energy Factor Levels

................. 8-96 Figure 8.4.30 Range of LCC Savings for Microwave Ovens Standby Power Levels

............. 8-97 Figure 8.4.31 Range of Payback Periods for Microwave Oven Energy Factor Levels

........... 8-97 Figure 8.4.32 Range of Payback Periods for Microwave Oven Standby Power Levels

.......... 8-98 Figure 8.4.33 Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application:

Base Case LCC Distribution

.............................................................................. 8-99 Figure 8.4.34 Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat Application:

Base Case LCC Distribution

.............................................................................. 8-99

8-vi

### Figure 8.4.35 Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application:

Base Case LCC Distribution

............................................................................ 8-100 Figure 8.4.36 Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat Application:

Figure 8.4.37 Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application:

Figure 8.4.38 Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application: Distribution of

Figure 8.4.39 Range of LCC Savings for Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers,

Figure 8.4.40 Range of LCC Savings for Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers,

Figure 8.4.41 Range of LCC Savings for Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers,

Figure 8.4.42 Range of LCC Savings for Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers,

Figure 8.4.43 Range of Payback Periods for Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers,

Figure 8.4.44 Range of Payback Periods for Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers,

Figure 8.4.45 Range of Payback Periods for Front-Loading Commercial Clothes

Figure 8.4.46 Range of Payback Periods for Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Base Case LCC Distribution

............................................................................ 8-100

Distribution of LCC Impacts for CSL 3

.......................................................... 8-101

PBPs for CSL 3

................................................................................................ 8-102

Multi-Family

.................................................................................................... 8-105

Laundromat

...................................................................................................... 8-105

Multi-Family

.................................................................................................... 8-106

Laundromat

...................................................................................................... 8-106

Multi-Family

.................................................................................................... 8-107

Laundromat

...................................................................................................... 8-107

Washers, Multi-Family

.................................................................................... 8-108

Washers, Laundromat

...................................................................................... 8-108

8-vii

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

8.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the Department of Energy (DOE)’s methodology for analyzing the economic impacts of possible energy efficiency standards on individual consumers. The effect of standards on individual consumers includes a change in operating expense (usually decreased) and a change in purchase price (usually increased). This chapter describes three metrics DOE used in the consumer analysis to determine the effect of standards on individual consumers:

• Life-cycle cost (LCC) is the total consumer expense over the life of an appliance, including purchase expense and operating costs (including energy expenditures). DOE discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase, and sums them over the lifetime of the equipment.

• Payback period (PBP) measures the amount of time it takes customers to recover the assumed higher purchase price of more energy-efficient equipment through lower operating costs.

• Rebuttable payback period is a special case of the PBP. Where LCC and PBP are estimated over a range of inputs reflecting actual conditions, rebuttable payback period is based on laboratory conditions, specifically DOE test procedure inputs.

Inputs to the LCC and PBP are discussed in sections 8.2 and 8.3, respectively, of this chapter. Results for the LCC and PBP are presented in section 8.4. The rebuttable PBP is discussed in section 8.5. Key variables and calculations are presented for each metric. DOE performed the calculations discussed here using a series of Microsoft Excel ® 

### spreadsheets which are accessible on the Internet ( http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ appliance_standards/). Details and instructions for using the spreadsheets are discussed in Appendix 8A.

8.1.1 General Approach for LCC and PBP Analysis

Recognizing that several inputs to the determination of consumer LCC and PBP are either variable or uncertain, DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analysis by modeling both the uncertainty and variability in the inputs using Monte Carlo simulation and probability distributions. A detailed explanation of Monte Carlo simulation and the use of probability distributions is contained in Appendix 8B. DOE developed LCC and PBP spreadsheet models incorporating both Monte Carlo simulation and probability distributions by using Microsoft

Excel ® 

### spreadsheets combined with Crystal Ball ® 

### (a commercially available add-in program).

In addition to characterizing several of the inputs to the analysis with probability distributions, in the case of residential cooking products, DOE also developed a sample of

8-1

### individual households that use each of the appliances. The household sample sizes for the residential cooking products are: 2,896 for electric cooktops; 1,460 for electric standard ovens; 1,302 for electric self-cleaning ovens; 1,598 for gas cooktops; 1,082 for gas standard ovens; 373 for gas self-cleaning ovens; and 4,150 for microwave ovens. By developing household samples, DOE was able to perform the LCC and PBP calculations for each household to account for the variability in energy (and water) consumption and/or energy price associated with each household. As described in Chapter 6, DOE used the DOE Energy Information Administration (EIA)’s 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) to develop household samples for each of the above three sets of products. 1 

### The 2001 RECS is a national sample survey of housing units that collects statistical information on the consumption of and expenditures for energy in housing units along with data on energy-related characteristics of the housing units and occupants. The 2001 RECS consists of for 4,822 housing units and was constructed by EIA tobe a national representation of the household population in the U.S. Of the household subsamples used in the LCC and PBP analysis, only two (for dehumidifiers and gas self-cleaning ovens) have a size which is less than 20 percent of the total 2001 RECS housing unit size. Even so, the potential errors associated with these smaller sub-sample sizes are not anticipated to be so large as to affect the validity of the results. Specifically, the standard error of a sample of size ‘n’ is the sample’s standard deviation divided by the square root of ‘n’. For the full 2001 RECS sample the associated standard error is the sample’s standard deviation multiplied by 1.5 percent. For the gas self-cleaning oven sub-sample, the associated standard error is the sub-sample’s standard deviation multiplied by 4.5 percent. Although the standard error of the sub-samples is three times the size of the entire 2001 RECS, it is still less than five percent. DOE believes a standard error of less than five percent is still small enough to yield meaningful results. Therefore, DOE believes the results generated from the household samples for cooking products are representative of U.S. households using these appliances.

For cooking products, DOE used RECS to establish the variability in annual energy use and energy pricing. By using RECS, DOE was able to assign a unique annual energy use and energy price to each household in the sample. Due to the large sample of households considered in the LCC and PBP analysis, the range of annual energy use and energy prices is quite large (the actual ranges of energy consumption were presented and discussed in Chapter 6). Thus, although the annual energy use and energy pricing are not uncertain for any particular household, their variability across all households contributes to the range of LCCs and PBPs calculated for any particular standard level.

For commercial clothes washers, DOE was unable to develop a consumer sample, since neither RECS nor EIA’s Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) provided the necessary data to develop one. As a result, DOE was not able to use a consumer sample to establish the variability in energy use (and water use) and energy pricing (and water pricing) for commercial clothes washers. Instead, as described in Chapter 6, DOE established the variability and uncertainty in energy and water use for commercial clothes washers by defining the uncertainty and variability in the usage (in cycles per day) of the equipment. As will be described later in this chapter, the variability and uncertainty in energy and water pricing are characterized by regional differences in energy and water prices.

8-2

### DOE displays the LCC and PBP results as distributions of impacts compared to the baseline conditions. Results are presented at the end of this chapter and are based on 10,000 samples per Monte Carlo simulation run. To illustrate the implications of the analysis, DOE generated a frequency chart depicting the variation in LCC and PBP for each standard level

considered.

8.1.2 Overview of LCC and PBP Inputs

The LCC is the total consumer expense over the life of the equipment, including purchase expense and operating expense (including energy expenditures). DOE discounts future operating expenses to the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the equipment. The PBP is the change in purchase expense due to an increased efficiency standard divided by the change in annual operating expense that results from the standard. It represents the number of years it will take the customer to recover the increased purchase expense through decreased operating

expenses.

DOE categorizes inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis as follows: (1) inputs for establishing the purchase expense, otherwise known as the total installed cost, and (2) inputs for calculating the operating cost.

The primary inputs for establishing the total installed cost are:

• Baseline manufacturer cost : The costs incurred by the manufacturer to produce equipment meeting existing minimum efficiency standards.

• Standard-level manufacturer cost increases : The change in manufacturer cost associated with producing equipment to meet a particular standard level.

• Markups and sales tax : The markups and sales tax associated with converting the manufacturer cost to a consumer equipment price. The markups and sale tax are described in detail in Chapter 7, Markups for Equipment Price Determination.

• Installation cost : The cost to the consumer of installing the equipment. The installation cost represents all costs required to install the equipment other than the marked-up consumer equipment price. The installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts. Thus, the total installed cost equals the consumer equipment price plus the installation cost.

The primary inputs for calculating the operating cost are:

• Equipment energy and water consumption : The equipment energy consumption is the site energy use associated with operating the equipment. The water consumption, which is applicable to dishwashers and commercial clothes washers, is the site water use associated with operating the equipment. Chapter 6, Energy and Water Use

8-3

### Determination, details how DOE determined the equipment energy and water consumption based on various data sources.

• Equipment efficiency : The equipment efficiency dictates the equipment energy and water consumption associated with standard-level equipment (i.e., equipment with efficiencies greater than baseline equipment). Chapter 6, Energy and Water Use Determination, details how energy and water consumption change with increasing equipment efficiency.

• Energy and water prices : Energy and water prices are the prices paid by consumers for energy (i.e., electricity, gas, or oil) and water. DOE determined current energy prices based on data from the DOE- EIA. DOE determined water prices based on data from the American Water Works Association (AWWA).

• Energy and water price trends : DOE used the EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2006 ( AEO2006 ) to forecast energy prices into the future. For the results presented in this chapter, DOE used the AEO2006 reference case to forecast future energy prices. DOE used consumer price index data specific to water and sewerage maintenance from the Bureau of Labor Statistics as the basis for its water price trend.

• Repair and maintenance costs : Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing components that have failed. Maintenance costs are associated with maintaining the operation of the equipment.

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

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

Figure 8.1.1 graphically depicts the relationships between the installed cost and operating cost inputs for the calculation of the LCC and PBP. In the figure below, the yellow boxes indicate the inputs, the green boxes indicate intermediate outputs, and the blue boxes indicate the final outputs (the LCC and PBP).

8-4Baseline

Manufacturer
Cost

Std-Level

Manufacturer

Cost

Manufacturer Markup

Retailer or

Distributor

Markup

Sales Tax Installation

Cost Total Installed

Cost

Water Prices

Energy and

Water Consumption Equipment

Price

Lifetime Operating Expense Annual Energy

and Water Expense

Lifetime Repair and

Maintenance

Cost

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 8.1.4 summarize the input values that DOE used to calculate the LCC and PBP for cooktops, ovens, microwave ovens, dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and commercial clothes washers, respectively. Each table summarizes the total installed cost inputs and the operating cost inputs including the lifetime, discount rate, and energy and water price trends. DOE characterized all of the total cost inputs with single-point values, but characterized several of the operating cost inputs with probability distributions that capture the input’s uncertainty and/or variability. For those inputs characterized with probability distributions, the values provided in the following tables are the average or typical values. Also listed in the following tables is the section of the technical support document (TSD) where more detailed information on the inputs can be found.

8-5

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

Input Product Class

Total Installed Cost Inputs

Baseline

Manufacturer Cost

Standard-Level

Manufacturer Cost

Increase

Manufacturer Markup

Retailer Markup

Sales Tax

Installation Cost Electric Coil

Electric Smooth

Gas

Electric Coil

Electric Smooth

Gas

All

All

Electric

Gas

All

Operating Cost Inputs

Electric Usage Gas

Electric Annual Energy Use Gas

Energy Prices All

Repair and All Maintenance Costs

Electric

Lifetime

Gas

Discount Rate All

Energy Price Trend All Average or Typical Value

0.737 EF = $64.72

0.742 EF = $83.54

0.156 EF = $83.70

0.769 EF = $2.14

0.753 EF = $155.71

0.399 EF = $11.30

0.420 EF = $30.12

1.26

Baseline = 1.45

Incremental = 1.15

1.0677

1.0713

Baseline = $146.06 Gas with electronic ignition = $118 for those households needing to install an outlet

1.22 meals/day

1.29 meals/day

Baseline use* = 128.2 kWh

Baseline use* = 2.74 MMBtu

Elec = 10.6 ¢/kWh Gas = 14.23 $/MMBtu

Elec: No cost increase with efficiency Gas: Standing Pilot Ignition = $126 in 10 th year; Electronic Ignition = $178 in

10 th year

19.0 years

19.0 years

5.4% Characterization

Single-Point Value

Single-Point Value

Single-Point Value

Single-Point Value

Single-Point Value

Single-Point Value

Single-Point Value

Single-Point Value

Single-Point Value

Single-Point Value

Single-Point Value

Variability determined from household sample. Usage ranges from 0 to 4 meals/day

Variability based on usage

Variability based on usage

Variability based on region

Single-Point Value

Weibull distribution = 10 to 28 years

Weibull distribution = 12 to 26 years

Custom distribution

Two sensitivities: AEO 2008 Reference Case High & Low Growth Cases TSD Section

Reference

8.2.1.1

8.2.1.1

8.2.1.1

5.5.3

5.5.3

5.5.3

7.2

7.3

7.5

7.5

8.2.1.1

6.2.1.4

6.2.1.4

6.2.1.3

6.2.1.3

8.2.2.2

8.2.2.4

8.2.3.1

8.2.3.1

8.2.4

8.2.2.3

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

8-6

### Table 8.1.2 Ovens: LCC and PBP Input Summary

Input Product Class

Total Installed Cost Inputs

Baseline

Manufacturer Cost

Standard-Level

Manufacturer Cost

Increase

Manufacturer Markup

Retailer Markup

Sales Tax

Installation Cost Elec Standard

Elec Self-Clean

Gas Standard

Gas Self-Clean

Elec Standard

Elec Self-Clean

Gas Standard

Gas Self-Clean

All

All

Elec Standard

Elec Self-Clean

Gas Standard

Gas Self-Clean

All

Operating Cost Inputs

Elec Standard

Elec Self-Clean Usage Gas Standard

Gas Self-Clean

Annual Energy Use Elec Standard

Elec Self-Clean

Gas Standard Average or Typical Value

0.1066 EF = $137.12

0.1099 EF = $173.69

0.0298 EF = $145.43

0.0540 EF = $206.93

0.1113 EF = $1.53
0.1163 EF = $4.54 0.1181 EF = $8.01
0.1206 EF = $45.16
0.1209 EF = $48.49

0.1102 EF = $4.10
0.1123 EF = $41.26

0.0536 EF = $11.33
0.0566 EF = $14.69
0.0572 EF = $15.71
0.0593 EF = $36.51
0.0596 EF = $38.03 0.0600 EF = $41.44
0.0583 EF = $14.09

0.0625 EF = $10.34
0.0627 EF = $14.45
0.0632 EF = $15.60

1.26

Baseline = 1.45

Incremental = 1.15

1.0681

1.0671

1.0714

1.0706

Baseline = $146.06 Gas with electronic or glo-bar ignition = $118 for those households needing to install

an outlet

0.52 meals/day

0.57 meals/day

0.49 meals/day

0.56 meals/day

Baseline use* = 166.5 kWh

Baseline use* = 171.0 kWh

Baseline use* = 1.83 MMBtu Characterization

Single-Point Value

Single-Point Value

Single-Point Value

Single-Point Value

Single-Point Value

Single-Point Value

Single-Point Value

Single-Point Value

Single-Point Value

Single-Point Value

Single-Point Value

Single-Point Value

Single-Point Value

Single-Point Value

Single-Point Value

Variability determined from household sample. Usage ranges from 0 to 2 meals/day

Variability based on usage

Variability based on usage

Variability based on usage TSD Section

Reference

8.2.1.2

8.2.1.2

8.2.1.2

8.2.1.2

5.5.3

5.5.3

5.5.3

5.5.3

7.2

7.3

7.5

7.5

7.5

7.5

8.2.1.2

6.2.1.4

6.2.1.4

6.2.1.4

6.2.1.4

6.2.1.3

6.2.1.3

6.2.1.3

8-7Input Product Class Average or Typical Value Characterization TSD Section

Reference

Gas Self-Clean Baseline use* = 0.86 MMBtu

= 53.3 kWh Variability based on usage 6.2.1.3

Energy Prices All Elec = 10.5 – 10.7 ¢/kWh Gas = 14.24 – 14.27 $/MMBtu Variability based on region 8.2.2.2

Repair and

Maintenance Costs All Elec: No cost increase with efficiency Gas: Standing Pilot Ignition = $126 in 10 th year; Electronic Ignition = $178 in

10 th year; Glo-bar Ignition = $147 every

5 th year No cost increase with efficiency 8.2.2.4

Lifetime Electric 19.0 years Weibull distribution = 10 to 28 years 8.2.3.1

Gas 19.0 years Weibull distribution = 12 to 26 years 8.2.3.1

Discount Rate All 5.4% - 5.5% Custom distribution 8.2.4

Energy Price Trend All AEO 2008 Reference Case Two sensitivities: High & Low Growth Cases 8.2.2.3

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

8-8

### Table 8.1.3 Microwave Ovens: LCC and PBP Input Summary

Input Average or Typical Value Characterization TSD Section

Reference

Total Installed Cost Inputs

Baseline Manufacturer

Cost 0.557 EF, 4 W Standby = $112.57 Single-Point Value 8.2.1.3

Standard-Level

Manufacturer Cost

Increase 0.586 EF = $8.14
0.588 EF = $16.84
0.597 EF = $30.52
0.602 EF = $47.95 2 W Standby = $0.28 1.5 W Standby = $0.63 1 W Standby = $1.38 0.02 W Standby = $4.81 Single-Point Value 5.5.3

Manufacturer Markup 1.26 Single-Point Value 7.2

Retailer Markup Baseline = 1.45

Incremental = 1.15 Single-Point Value 7.3

Sales Tax 1.0689 Single-Point Value 7.5

Installation Cost $0 Single-Point Value 8.2.1.3

Operating Cost Inputs

Usage 0.40 meals/day Variability determined from household sample. Usage ranges from 0 to 4 meals/day 6.2.2.4

Annual Energy Use* Baseline use* = 165.8 kWh Variability based on usage 6.2.2.3

Energy Prices 10.9 ¢/kWh Variability based on region 8.2.2.2

Repair and Maintenance

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

Lifetime 9.0 years Weibull distribution = 7 to 10 years 8.2.3.2

Discount Rate 5.4% Custom distribution 8.2.4

Energy Price Trend AEO 2008 Reference Case Two sensitivities: High & Low Growth Cases 8.2.2.3

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

8-9

### Table 8.1.4 Commercial Clothes Washers: LCC and PBP Input Summary

Input Product

Class Average or Typical Value Characterization TSD Section

Reference
Total Installed Cost Inputs

Baseline Manufacturer

Cost TopLoading 1.26 MEF/9.50 WF = $284.97 Single-Point Value 8.2.1.4

FrontLoading 1.72 MEF/8.00 WF = $587.65 Single-Point Value

Standard-Level

Manufacturer Cost

Increase TopLoading 1.42 MEF/9.50 WF = $74.63
1.60 MEF/8.50 WF = $129.83 1.76 MEF/8.30 WF = $144.43 Single-Point Value 8.2.1.4

FrontLoading 1.80 MEF/7.50 WF = $0.00
2.00 MEF/5.50 WF = $13.67
2.20 MEF/5.10 WF = $37.84
2.35 MEF/4.40 WF = $63.63 Single-Point Value

Manufacturer Markup Both 1.26 Single-Point Value 7.2

Distributor Markup Both Baseline = 1.43

Incremental = 1.18 Single-Point Value 7.4

Sales Tax Both 1.0690 Single-Point Value 7.5

Installation Cost Both $185.92 Single-Point Value 8.2.1.4
Operating Cost Inputs

Usage Both Multi-Family = 3.4 cycles/day Laundromat = 6 cycles/day Uniform distribution: Multi-Family = 1.5 to 6.4 cyc/day Laundromat = 3 to 8 cyc/day 6.3.2

Annual Energy Use* TopLoading Baseline use**: Multi-Family = 2769 kWh

Laundromat = 4867 kWh Variability based on usage 6.3.2

FrontLoading Baseline use**: Multi-Family = 2028 kWh

Laundromat = 3565 kWh Variability based on usage 6.3.2

Annual Water Use TopLoading Baseline use**: Multi-Family = 33.1 10 3 gallon

Laundromat = 58.3 10 3 gallon Variability based on usage 6.3.2

FrontLoading Baseline use**: Multi-Family = 27.9 10 3 gallon

Laundromat = 49.1 10 3 gallon Variability based on usage 6.3.2

Energy Prices Both Elec = 89.2 ¢/kWh Gas = 11.57 $/MMBtu Single-Point Value 8.2.2.2

Water and Wastewater

Prices Both Water = 1.97 $/10 3 gallon Wastewater = 2.55 $/10 3 gallon Singe-Point Value 8.2.2.2

Repair and

Maintenance Costs Both Annualized repair cost =

1⁄2 Equipment price / Lifetime Single-Point Value 8.2.2.4

Lifetime Both Multi-Family = 11.25 years Laundromat = 7.125 years Weibull distribution 8.2.3.3

Discount Rate Both 5.7% Custom distribution 8.2.4

Energy Price Trend Both AEO 2008 Reference Case Two sensitivities: High & Low Growth Cases 8.2.2.3

Water and Wastewater

Price Trend Both Bureau of Labor Statistics: Water and sewerage CPI Single forecast 8.2.2.3

* Annual use based on electric water heating and electric clothes drying. ** Annual use provided for baseline product only. Annual use decreases with increased product efficiency.

8-10

### 8.2 LIFE-CYCLE COST INPUTS

Life-cycle cost is the total customer expense over the life of an appliance, including purchase expense and operating costs (including energy expenditures). DOE discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase, and sums them over the lifetime of the equipment. DOE defines LCC by the following equation:

N 

### OC

t 

### LCC = IC + 

# ∑

t 

## ( 1 + r 

## )

where: t = 1



### LCC = Life-cycle cost in dollars,

IC = Total installed cost in dollars, ∑ = Sum over the lifetime, from year 1 to year N, N = Lifetime of appliance in years,

OC = Operating cost in dollars,

r = Discount rate, and

t = Year for which operating cost is being determined.

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

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

rate.

8.2.1 Total Installed Cost Inputs

DOE defines the total installed cost using the following equation:

IC = EQP + INST

where:



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



### INST = Installation cost or the customer price to install equipment (i.e., the cost for labor and materials), also in dollars.

The equipment price is based on how the consumer purchases the equipment. As discussed in Chapter 7, Markups for Equipment Price Determination, DOE defined markups and sales taxes for converting manufacturing costs into consumer equipment prices.

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

8-11

### Table 8.2.1 Inputs for Total Installed Cost

Baseline Manufacturer Cost

Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost

Manufacturer Markup

Retailer or Distributor Markup

Sales Tax

Installation Cost



### The 

### baseline manufacturer cost is the cost incurred by the manufacturer to produce equipment meeting existing minimum efficiency standards. 

### Standard-level manufacturer cost

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

level. 

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



### installation cost is the cost to the consumer of installing the equipment and represents all costs required to install the equipment other than the marked-up consumer equipment price. The installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts. Thus, the total installed cost equals the consumer equipment price plus the installation cost. DOE calculated the total installed cost for baseline products based on the following equation:



### IC = EQP + INST BASE BASE BASE



### = COST × MU + INST MFG OVERALL _ BASE BASE



### where:



### IC BASE 

### = Baseline total installed cost, 

### EQP BASE 

### = 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 standard-level products based on the following equation:



### IC = 

### EQP + 

### INST STD STD STD



### = 

# ( EQP + 

### Δ EQP 

# ) + 

# ( INST + 

### Δ INST 

# )

BASE STD BASE STD



### = 

# ( EQP + 

### INST 

# ) + 

# ( Δ

EQP + 

### Δ INST 

# )

BASE BASE STD STD



### = 

### IC + 

# ( Δ COST × 

### MU + 

### Δ INST 

# )

BASE MFG OVERALL _ INCR STD



### where:

8-12

### IC STD 

### = Standard-level total installed cost, 

### EQP STD 

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



### INST STD 

### = Standard-level installation cost, 

### EQP BASE 

### = Consumer equipment price for baseline models,



### Δ EQP STD 

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



### INST BASE 

### = Baseline installation cost,



### Δ INST STD 

### = Change in installation cost for standard-level models,



### IC BASE 

### = Baseline total installed cost,



### Δ COST MFG 

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



### MU OVERALL_INCR 

### = Incremental overall markup (product of manufacturer markup, incremental retailer or distributor markup, and sales tax).

The remainder of this section provides information about each of the above input variables that DOE used to calculate the total installed cost for cooking products, dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and commercial clothes washers.



### 8.2.1.1 Cooking Products – Cooktops

Baseline Manufacturer Cost

DOE used its 1996 

### Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking Products to develop the baseline manufacturer costs for cooktops. 2 

### As shown in Table 8.2.2, DOE developed baseline manufacturer costs for the three cooktop product classes: electric coil, electric smooth, and gas. Also included in Table 8.2.2 are the associated baseline energy factors and cooking efficiencies.



### Table 8.2.2 Cooktops: Baseline Manufacturer Costs

Product Class Baseline Energy Factor Baseline Cooking Efficiency Baseline Manufacturer Cost
(1990$)* (2006$)

Electric, Coil 0.737 73.7% $69.06 $64.72

Electric, Smooth 0.742 74.2% $89.14 $83.54

Gas 0.156 39.9% $89.09 $83.70

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



### The manufacturer cost data reported in DOE’s 1996 

### Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking Products are in 1990$. Because DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analysis in 2006$, it needs to convert all cost data into 2006$. The last column in Table 8.2.2 shows the baseline manufacturer costs in 2006$. To perform the necessary monetary conversion for cooking products, DOE used producer price indexes (PPIs) for household cooking appliance

manufacturers. 3 

### The PPI is a family of indexes that measure changes in price for inputs into production processes, such as labor, raw materials, and purchased parts. Because the PPI measures the price change from the perspective of the manufacturer, DOE used the PPI to convert the manufacturer price (the manufacturer costs multiplied by the manufacturer markup) from 1990$ into 2006$. Specifically, DOE determined the ratio of the 2006 PPI to the 1990 PPI

8-13

### and used it as a multiplicative factor to convert the manufacturer price into 2006$. Table 8.2.3 shows the 1990 and 2006 PPIs for electric and gas cooking appliance manufacturers. Included in

the table is the ratio of the two PPI values.



### Table 8.2.3 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 95.5 111.8

Ratio 0.938 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 8.2.4, 8.2,5, and 8.2.6 summarize the standard-level manufacturer cost increases for electric coil, electric smooth, and gas cooktops, respectively. Also included in each of the tables are the associated baseline energy factors and cooking efficiencies.



### Table 8.2.4 Electric Coil Cooktops: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases

Standard Level Energy

Factor Cooking Efficiency Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increase (2006$)

Baseline 0.737 73.7%

-
1 0.769 76.9% $2.14



### Table 8.2.5 Electric Smooth Cooktops: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases

Standard Level Energy

Factor Cooking Efficiency Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increase (2006$)

Baseline 0.742 74.2%

-
1 0.753 75.3% $155.71



### Table 8.2.6 Gas Cooktops: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases

Standard Level Energy

Factor Cooking Efficiency Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increase (2006$)

Baseline 0.156 39.9%

-
1 0.399 39.9% $11.33

2 0.420 42.0% $30.12

8-14

### Overall Markup
The overall markup is the value determined by multiplying the manufacturer and retailer markups and the sales tax together to arrive at a single markup value. In turn, DOE multiplied the overall markup by the baseline or standard-level manufacturer cost to arrive at the price paid by the consumer for the product. DOE divided the overall markup into a baseline markup (i.e., a markup used to convert the baseline manufacturer cost into a consumer price) and an incremental markup (i.e., a markup used to convert an incremental manufacturer cost due to a standard level into an incremental consumer price). Table 8.2.7 shows the overall markups for electric and gas cooktops. Refer to Chapter 7, Markups for Equipment Price Determination, for details.



### Table 8.2.7 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 1.0677 1.0713

Overall 1.95 1.55 1.96 1.55



### Installation Cost
DOE derived baseline installation costs for cooktops from data in the 

### RS Means Mechanical Cost Data, 2005

. 4 

### This reference provides estimates on the labor required to install residential cooking range equipment. Table 8.2.8 summarizes the nationally representative costs associated with the installation of a 30-inch, free-standing cooking range as presented in 

### RS

Means Mechanical Cost Data . DOE decided that the costs of installing a range are representative of the costs of installing a cooktop. Table 8.2.21 provides both bare costs (i.e., costs before overhead and profit (O&P)) and installation costs including O&P. 

### RS Means provides minimum and maximum costs. DOE used the average of the minimum and maximum labor costs as its estimate of installation costs for cooktops. DOE used the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to convert the costs from 2008$ to 2006$. 5



### Table 8.2.8 Cooking Range: Baseline Installation Costs
Bare Costs (2008$) Including Overhead & Profit (2008$)

Installation Type Material Labor Total Total Material* Labor**

Minimum $270 $48.50 $318.50 $375 $240.50 $78.00

Maximum $1775 $121 $1896 $2175 $1673.50 $222.50

Average (2008$) $150.25
Average (2006$)*** $146.06

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

** DOE derived labor costs including O&P by subtracting material with O&P from total with O&P.
*** Converted to 2006$ by multiplying costs in 2008$ by the ratio of 2006 CPI (201.6) to 2007 CPI (207.3). Used the 2007 CPI due to the unavailability of an annual 2008 CPI value.

Source: RS Means, Mechanical Cost Data, 2008.

8-15

### Based on a supplemental analysis to the 1996 

### Technical Support Document on Residential Cooking Products . DOE determined that only gas cooktops with electronic ignition

devices would incur added installation costs. DOE conducted an assessment of the National Electric Code (NEC) to determine the percent of households with gas cooktops that would require an electrical outlet. 6



### Starting in 1933, the NEC recommended, but did not require, an outlet installation every 15 linear feet. The 1935 NEC required that one outlet be installed in each room. Subsequent versions of the NEC became more stringent in its outlet installation requirements. The 1940 NEC required that each room have an outlet installed every 20 linear feet (as measured horizontally along the wall at the floor line). The 1956 NEC tightened this requirement to 12 linear feet. Finally, the 1959 NEC required that the outlets installed in a room result in no point in any wall space be more than six feet from a receptacle outlet. To determine how to apply the information from the NEC, DOE reviewed the gas cooktop household sample that was developed for the LCC and PBP analysis to establish which households may require an outlet installation. As reported earlier in section 8.1.1, DOE’s household sample was derived from the 2001 RECS and consisted of 1,598 records for gas cooktops. Because RECS specifies the household’s vintage or year made, DOE was able to determine the composition of the household sample by particular vintage groupings. For gas cooktops, DOE determined that almost 26 percent of the sample consisted of households that were built before 1940, almost 28 percent fell in the 1940­ 1959 age group, and the remaining 46 percent were built in 1960 or later. DOE also determined that every household in each sample had an electric refrigerator. Therefore, DOE concluded that every household had at least one electrical outlet in the kitchen. But because prior to 1959 the NEC did not require outlets to be spaced every six feet, DOE assumed that households prior to 1960, representing 54 percent of the gas cooktop sample, may need an additional outlet installed in the kitchen to accommodate a gas cooking product that would need electricity to operate.

To determine the percentage of households that may actually require an outlet installation, DOE utilized the base case efficiency distribution for gas cooktops. As will be discussed in greater detail in section 8.2.6, the base case efficiency distribution identifies the percentage of shipments at certain efficiency levels. For gas cooktops, DOE estimated that 6.8 percent of shipments in 2005 were equipped with standing pilot ignition systems. Obviously, only those households that purchase gas cooking products with standing pilots would possibly be forced into installing an electrical outlet to accommodate products that require electricity to operate. DOE was not able to identify any information to specify the reasons why consumers purchase gas cooktops with standing pilots. For example, it is unknown if consumers only purchase gas cooking products with standing pilots because an electrical outlet is not nearby. Therefore, for purposes of conducting the LCC and PBP analysis, DOE allocated shipments of gas cooking products with standing pilots to all households irrespective of the possible need to install an electrical outlet. DOE allocated these shipments assuming that the percentage of the housing stock purchasing gas cooktops with pilots is equal to the percentage of products still being shipped with standing pilots. Because 54 percent of the gas cooktop household sample is comprised of households built prior to 1960, these households are slightly more likely to be allocated a product with a standing pilot. Because DOE could not conclusively determine

8-16

### whether pre-1960 households would absolutely require the installation of an outlet, DOE assumed that an outlet would need to be installed to accommodate a gas cooking product that would require electricity to operate. Based on the above percentages of shipments with standing pilots and households built prior to 1960, DOE calculated that 3.7 percent of the overall gas cooktop household sample (54 percent of households multiplied by 6.8 percent of shipments) would need to install an electrical outlet to accommodate a gas cooktop that requires electricity

to operate.

DOE based the type of electrical outlet and the cost of installing it on the requirements of the NEC. As noted above, DOE estimated that only pre-1960 households would need to install an electrical outlet to accommodate a gas cooking product that needs electricity to operate. Based on the NEC, not until 1962 were branch electrical circuits required to include a grounding conductor or ground path to which the grounding contacts of the receptacle could be connected. Therefore, because a ground-fault circuit-interrupter (GFCI) outlet may need to be installed, DOE based its installation costs solely on the installation of a GFCI outlet in a finished space. DOE derived its estimates based on the grounding of the outlet to a water pipe in the kitchen rather than back to a fuse box or circuit breaker panel. DOE estimated the costs based on the installation of the following components: (1) a 15-amp GFCI receptacle with 20 feet of electrical metallic tubing; (2) 25 feet of copper wire for grounding; and (3) a bronze clamp for a half-inch diameter water price for grounding. DOE relied on data from the 

### RS Means Mechanical Cost

Data to estimate the installation cost. Table 8.2.9 provides both the bare costs and the total costs including O&P for the installation of a 15-amp GFCI receptacle. Also included in Table 8.2.9 are the costs associated with installing the clamp and wire necessary for grounding, which were

7 

### based on the 2003 version of the 

### RS Means Mechanical Cost Data . DOE used the CPI to convert the costs from 2008$ and 2003$ to 2006$. Because the 

### RS Means Mechanical Cost

Data covers large projects totaling at least $10,000, DOE added an electrician’s trip charge of $21 to the installation cost. 8 

### The resulting installation cost determined by DOE to install an electrical outlet is $235.

8-17

### Table 8.2.9 Installation Cost for an Electrical Outlet

Indiv.

Line # Description Crew Daily Output PersonHours Unit Mat. Labor Equip. Total Total

incl.

O&P

2008 Mechanical Cost Data: 2008 Base Costs

4380 GFI, 15 amp recpt., EMT &

wire 1

Elect 4.71 1.699 Ea. $60.50 $77.50 $0 $138 $182

Average (2006$)* $182

2003 Mechanical Cost Data: 2003 Bare Costs

4020 Clamp, bronze, 1⁄2”

diameter 1 Elect 32 0.25 Ea. $3.81 $9.40 $0 $13.21 $18.25

Average (2006$)** $21.75

4030 Bare copper wire,

#14 solid 1 Elect 14 0.571 C.L.F. $2.75 $21.50 $0 $24.25 $35.00

Average (2006$)** $10.52

Residential Electrician Trip Charge (2006$) $20.84

Total Installation Cost (2006$) $235.12

* Cost in 2008$ assumed to be representative of 2006$.
** Converted to 2006$ by multiplying costs in 2003$ by the ratio of 2006 CPI (201.6) to 2003 CPI (184.0). Bare copper wire costs reduced by 75% to account for installation of 25 feet of wire.

Sources: Bare Costs: RS Means, Mechanical Cost Data, 2008 and 2003. Trip Charge: PAS Publications, 2008.



### As will be discussed later in section 8.2.6, the only gas cooktops that are still shipped with standing pilots are those in gas ranges (comprised of a cooktop and standard oven). Therefore, the cost of any outlet installation is effectively shared between the cooktop and the oven. Thus, the resulting cost for a gas cooktop consumer needing to install an electrical outlet is 1⁄2 of $235 or $118.

As discussed above, DOE estimated that 54 percent value of all households with gas cooktops need to install an electrical outlet to accommodate a gas cooktop that needs electricity to operate. As a result, the 

### average installation cost for households still purchasing gas cooktops with standing pilots is 54 percent of $118 or $63.



### Total Installed Cost
The total installed cost is the sum of the consumer equipment price and the installation cost. Refer back to section 8.2.1 to see the equations DOE used to calculate the total installed cost for baseline and standard-level products.

Tables 8.2.10, 8.2.11, and 8.2.12 present the consumer equipment prices, installation costs, and total installed costs for the electric coil, electric smooth, and gas cooktop product classes, respectively. Prices and costs are presented at the baseline level and each standard level.

8-18

### Table 8.2.10 Electric Coil Cooktops: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and

Total Installed Costs

Standard

Level Energy

Factor Equipment Price (2006$) Installation Cost (2006$) Total Installed

Cost (2006$)

Baseline 0.737 $126.37 $146.06 $272.43

1 0.769 $129.68 $146.06 $275.74



### Table 8.2.11 Electric Smooth Cooktops: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs,

and Total Installed Costs

Standard

Level Energy

Factor Equipment Price (2006$) Installation Cost (2006$) Total Installed

Cost (2006$)

Baseline 0.742 $163.12 $146.06 $309.18

1 0.753 $404.01 $146.06 $550.07



### Table 8.2.12 Gas Cooktops: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and Total

Installed Costs

Standard

Level Energy

Factor Equipment Price (2006$) Installation Cost (2006$) Total Installed

Cost (2006$)

Baseline 0.156 $163.82 $146.06 $309.88

1 0.399 $181.41 $209.15* $390.56

2 0.420 $210.57 $209.15* $419.72

* Added installation cost of $63 is the average cost to gas cooktop consumers that still purchase products with

standing pilots.



### 8.2.1.2 Cooking Products – Ovens

Baseline Manufacturer Cost

DOE used its 1996 

### Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking Products to develop the baseline manufacturer costs for ovens. 2 

### As shown in Table 8.2.13, DOE developedbaseline manufacturer costs for the four oven product classes: electric standard (non-selfcleaning), electric self-cleaning, gas standard, and gas self-cleaning. Also included in Table

8.2.13 are the associated baseline energy factors and cooking efficiencies.

8-19

### Table 8.2.13 Ovens: Baseline Manufacturer Costs

Product Class Baseline Energy Factor Baseline Cooking Efficiency Baseline Manufacturer Cost
(1990$)* (2006$)

Electric, Standard 0.1066 12.2% $146.17 $137.12

Electric, Self-Cleaning 0.1099 13.8% $185.15 $173.69

Gas, Standard 0.0298 5.9% $154.80 $145.43

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

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



### The manufacturer cost data reported in DOE’s 1996 

### Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking Products are in 1990$. Because DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analysis in 2006$, it needs to convert all cost data into 2006$. The last column in Table 8.2.13 shows the baseline manufacturer costs in 2006$. To perform the necessary monetary conversion for cooking products, DOE used PPIs for household cooking appliance manufacturers. 3 

### Refer back to Table 8.2.3 to review the PPIs that DOE used to perform the conversions.



### Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases
DOE developed manufacturer cost increases associated with increases in product standard levels through the use of its 1996 

### Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking

Products . Refer to Chapter 5, Engineering Analysis, for details. Tables 8.2.14 through 8.2.17summarize the standard-level manufacturer cost increases for electric standard, electric selfcleaning, gas standard, and gas self-cleaning ovens, respectively. Also included in each of the tables are the associated baseline energy factors and cooking efficiencies.



### Table 8.2.14 Electric Standard Ovens: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases

Standard Level Energy

Factor Cooking Efficiency Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increase (2006$)

Baseline 0.1066 12.2%

-
1 0.1113 12.8% $1.53

2 0.1163 13.4% $4.54

3 0.1181 13.7% $8.00

4 0.1206 14.0% $45.16

5 0.1209 14.1% $48.49



### Table 8.2.15 Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases

Standard Level Energy

Factor Cooking Efficiency Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increase (2006$)

Baseline 0.1099 13.8%

-
1 0.1102 13.8% $4.10

2 0.1123 14.2% $41.26

8-20

### Table 8.2.16 Gas Standard Ovens: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases

Standard Level Energy

Factor Cooking Efficiency Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increase (2006$)

Baseline 0.0298 5.9%

-
1* 0.0536 5.8% $11.33

2 0.0566 6.1% $14.69

3 0.0572 6.2% $15.71

4 0.0593 6.5% $36.51

5 0.0596 6.5% $38.03

6 0.0600 6.6% $41.44

1a* 0.0583 5.8% $14.09

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

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



### Table 8.2.17 Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases

Standard Level Energy

Factor Cooking Efficiency Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increase (2006$)

Baseline 0.0540 7.1%

-
1 0.0625 8.8% $10.34

2 0.0627 8.8% $14.45

3 0.0632 8.9% $15.60



### Overall Markup
As described earlier for cooktops, the overall markup is the value determined by multiplying the manufacturer and retailer markups and the sales tax together to arrive at a single markup value. Table 8.2.18 shows the overall baseline and incremental markups for electric and gas ovens. Refer to Chapter 7, Markups for Equipment Price Determination, for details.



### Table 8.2.18 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 1.0681 1.0671 1.0714 1.0706

Overall 1.95 1.55 1.95 1.55 1.96 1.55 1.96 1.55



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

baseline installation costs for ovens based on data in the 

### RS Means Mechanical Cost Data, 2008

.

8-21

### Refer back to Table 8.2.8 to review the installation costs DOE used for cooking ranges. DOE used the cooking range installation cost data to estimate its installation costs for ovens.

As it did for cooktops, DOE based its installation costs for oven standard levels on a supplemental analysis to the 1996 

### Technical Support Document on Residential Cooking

Products . In the supplemental analysis, DOE determined that only gas standard ovens with electric or electronic ignition devices would incur added installation costs. DOE used the same methodology and data as described earlier for gas cooktops to estimate the increased installation costs for gas standard ovens.

As discussed previous in section 8.2.1.2 for gas cooktops, DOE used the information from the NEC to determine which gas cooktop households may require the installation of an electrical outlet. DOE applied this same NEC information to the gas standard oven household sample that was developed for the LCC and PBP analysis to establish which households may require an outlet installation. As reported earlier in section 8.1.1, DOE’s household sample was derived from the 2001 RECS and consisted of 1,082 records for gas standard ovens. Because RECS specifies the household’s vintage or year made, DOE was able to determine the composition of the household sample by particular vintage groupings. For gas standard ovens, DOE determined that almost 28 percent of the sample consisted of households that were built before 1940, almost 29 percent fell in the 1940-1959 age group, and the remaining 43 percent were built in 1960 or later. DOE also determined that every household in each sample had an electric refrigerator. Therefore, DOE concluded that every household had at least one electrical outlet in the kitchen. But because prior to 1959 the NEC did not require outlets to be spaced every six feet, DOE assumed that households prior to 1960, representing 57 percent of the gas cooktop sample, may need an additional outlet installed in the kitchen to accommodate a gas cooking product that would need electricity to operate.

To determine the percentage of households that may actually require an outlet installation, DOE utilized the base case efficiency distribution for gas standard ovens. As will be discussed in greater detail in section 8.2.6, the base case efficiency distribution identifies the percentage of shipments at certain efficiency levels. For gas standard ovens, DOE estimated that

17.6 percent of shipments in 2005 were equipped with standing pilot ignition systems. Obviously, only those households that purchase gas cooking products with standing pilots would possibly be forced into installing an electrical outlet to accommodate products that require electricity to operate. DOE was not able to identify any information to specify the reasons why consumers purchase gas standard ovens with standing pilots. For example, it is unknown if consumers only purchase gas cooking products with standing pilots because an electrical outlet is not nearby. Therefore, for purposes of conducting the LCC and PBP analysis, DOE allocated shipments of gas cooking products with standing pilots to all households irrespective of the possible need to install an electrical outlet. DOE allocated these shipments assuming that the percentage of the housing stock purchasing gas standard ovens with pilots is equal to the percentage of products still being shipped with standing pilots. Because 57 percent of the gas standard oven household sample is comprised of households built prior to 1960, these households are slightly more likely to be allocated a product with a standing pilot. Because DOE could not conclusively determine whether pre-1960 households would absolutely require the

8-22

### installation of an outlet, DOE assumed that an outlet would need to be installed to accommodate a gas cooking product that would require electricity to operate. Based on the above percentages of shipments with standing pilots and households built prior to 1960, DOE calculated that 10 percent of the overall gas standard oven household sample (57 percent of households multiplied by 17.6 percent of shipments) would need to install an electrical outlet to accommodate a gas standard oven that requires electricity to operate.

As shown previously in Table 8.2.9, the installation cost of adding an electrical outlet is $235. As will be discussed later in section 8.2.6, the only gas standard ovens that are still shipped with standing pilots are those in gas ranges (comprised of a cooktop and standard oven). Therefore, the cost of any outlet installation is effectively shared between the oven and the cooktop. Thus, the resulting cost for a gas standard oven consumer needing to install an electrical outlet is 1⁄2 of $235 or $118.

As discussed above, DOE estimated that 57 percent value of all households with gas cooktops need to install an electrical outlet to accommodate a gas cooktop that needs electricity to operate. As a result, the 

### average installation cost for households still purchasing gas standard ovens with standing pilots is 57 percent of $118 or $67.



### Total Installed Cost
The total installed cost is the sum of the consumer equipment price and the installation cost. Refer back to section 8.2.1 to review the equations that DOE used to calculate the total installed cost for baseline and standard-level products.

Tables 8.2.19 through 8.2.22 present the consumer equipment price, installation costs,and total installed costs for the electric standard, electric self-cleaning, gas standard, and gas selfcleaning oven product classes. Prices and costs are presented at the baseline level and each

standard level.



### Table 8.2.19	 Electric Standard Ovens: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs,

and Total Installed Costs

Standard

Level Energy

Factor Equipment Price (2006$) Installation Cost (2006$) Total Installed

Cost (2006$)

Baseline 0.1066 $267.58 $146.06 $413.64

1 0.1113 $269.94 $146.06 $416.00

2 0.1163 $274.60 $146.06 $420.66

3 0.1181 $279.96 $146.06 $426.02

4 0.1206 $337.47 $146.06 $483.53

5 0.1209 $342.62 $146.06 $488.68

8-23

### Table 8.2.20 Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs

Standard

Level Energy

Factor Equipment Price (2006$) Installation Cost (2006$) Total Installed

Cost (2006$)

Baseline 0.1099 $338.63 $146.06 $484.69

1 0.1102 $344.97 $146.06 $491.03

2 0.1123 $402.43 $146.06 $548.49



### Table 8.2.21 Gas Standard Ovens: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and

Total Installed Costs

Standard

Level Energy

Factor Equipment Price (2006$) Installation Cost (2006$) Total Installed

Cost (2006$)

Baseline 0.0298 $284.26 $146.06 $430.32

1* 0.0536 $301.85 $212.92** $514.77

2 0.0566 $307.07 $212.92** $519.99

3 0.0572 $308.65 $212.92** $521.57

4 0.0593 $340.94 $212.92** $553.86

5 0.0596 $343.30 $212.92** $556.22

6 0.0600 $348.60 $212.92** $561.52

1a* 0.0583 $306.14 $212.92** $519.06

* Levels 1 and 1a correspond to designs that are utilized for the same purpose—eliminate the need for a standing pilot—but the technologies for each design are different. Level 1 is a hot surface ignition device while level 1a is a spark ignition device. **	 Added installation cost of $67 is the average cost to gas standard oven consumers that still purchase products with standing pilots.



### Table 8.2.22	 Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs,

and Total Installed Costs

Standard

Level Energy

Factor Equipment Price (2006$) Installation Cost (2006$) Total Installed

Cost (2006$)

Baseline 0.0540 $404.17 $146.06 $550.23

1 0.0625 $420.22 $146.06 $566.28

2 0.0627 $426.59 $146.06 $572.65

3 0.0632 $428.36 $146.06 $574.43

8-24

### 8.2.1.3 Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens

Baseline Manufacturer Cost

DOE used its 1996 

### Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking Products to develop the baseline manufacturer costs for microwave ovens. 2 

### 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 8.2.23	 Microwave Ovens: Baseline Manufacturer Costs

Product Class Baseline Energy Factor Baseline Cooking Efficiency Baseline Manufacturer Cost
(1990$)* (2006$)

Microwave Ovens 0.557 55.7% $120.00 $112.57

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



### The manufacturer cost data reported in DOE’s 1996 

### Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking Products are in 1990$. Because DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analysis in 2006$, it needs to convert all cost data into 2006$. The last column in Table 8.2.36 shows the baseline manufacturer costs in 2006$. To perform the necessary monetary conversion for cooking products, DOE used PPIs for household cooking appliance manufacturers. 3 

### Refer back to Table 8.2.3 to review the PPIs that DOE used to perform the conversions.



### Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases
DOE developed manufacturer cost increases associated with increases in product standard levels through the use of its 1996 

### Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking

Products . Refer to Chapter 5, Engineering Analysis, for details. Tables 8.2.24 and 8.2.25

summarize the standard-level manufacturer cost increases for microwave ovens. Table 8.2.24 pertains to cost increases associated with energy factor increases while Table 8.2.25 pertains to cost increase associated with limits on standby power consumption.



### Table 8.2.24	 Microwave Ovens: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases for Energy

Factor Levels

Standard Level Energy

Factor Cooking Efficiency Standard-Level

Manufacturer Cost Increase (2006$)

Baseline 0.557 55.7%

-
1a 0.586 58.6% $8.14

2a 0.588 58.8% $16.84

3a 0.597 59.7% $30.52

4a 0.602 60.2% $47.95

8-25

### Table 8.2.25 Microwave Ovens: Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increases for Standby Power Levels

Standard Level Standby Power (W) Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost Increase (2006$)

Baseline 4.0

-
1b 2.0 $0.28

2b 1.5 $0.63

3b 1.0 $1.38

4b 0.02 $4.81



### Overall Markup
As described earlier for cooktops, the overall markup is the value determined by multiplying the manufacturer and retailer markups and the sales tax together to arrive at a single markup value. Table 8.2.26 shows the overall baseline and incremental markups for microwave ovens. Refer to Chapter 7, Markups for Equipment Price Determination, for details.



### Table 8.2.26 Microwave Ovens: Overall Markups

Markup Baseline Incremental

Manufacturer 1.26

Retailer 1.45 1.15

Sales Tax 1.0689

Overall 1.95 1.55



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

### Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking Products are in 1990$. Because DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analysis in 2006$, it needs to covert all cost data into 2006$. To perform the necessary monetary conversion for cooking products, DOE used PPIs that are applicable to household cooking appliance manufacturers. Refer back to Table 8.2.3 to review the 1990 and 2006 PPIs for electric cooking appliance manufacturers that DOE used to convert manufacturer microwave oven prices from 1990$ to 2006$.



### Installation Cost

Based on its 1996 

### Technical Support Document on Residential Cooking Products , DOE did not allocate any installation costs for baseline and standard-level microwave ovens.



### Total Installed Cost
The total installed cost is the sum of the consumer equipment price and the installation cost. Refer back to section 8.2.1 to see the equations that DOE used to calculate the total installed cost for baseline and standard-level products.

Tables 8.2.27 and 8.2.28 present the consumer equipment prices, installation costs, and total installed costs for microwave ovens. Table 8.2.27 pertains to efficiency levels that increase

8-26

### the energy factor while Table 8.2.28 pertains to efficiency levels that limit standby power consumption. Prices and costs are presented at the baseline level and each standard level.



### Table 8.2.27	 Microwave Ovens: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs for Energy Factor Levels

Standard

Level Energy

Factor Equipment Price (2006$) Installation Cost (2006$) Total Installed

Cost (2006$)

Baseline 0.557 $219.85 $0.00 $219.85

1a 0.586 $232.46 $0.00 $232.46

2a 0.588 $245.93 $0.00 $245.93

3a 0.597 $267.12 $0.00 $267.12

4a 0.602 $294.11 $0.00 $294.11



### Table 8.2.28 Microwave Ovens: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs for Standby Power Levels

Standard

Level Standby Power (W) Equipment Price (2006$) Installation Cost (2006$) Total Installed

Cost (2006$)

Baseline 4.0 $219.85 $0.00 $219.85

1b 2.0 $220.31 $0.00 $220.31

2b 1.5 $220.89 $0.00 $220.89

3b 1.0 $222.13 $0.00 $222.13

4b 0.02 $227.80 $0.00 $227.80



### 8.2.1.4 Commercial Clothes Washers

Baseline Manufacturer Cost
DOE used residential clothes washer data from AHAM’s 2005 Fact Book to develop the baseline manufacturer costs for top-loading commercial clothes washers. 9 

### According to the AHAM 2005 Fact Book, in the year 2005, total clothes washer sales equaled $3,373,042 million while total industry shipments equaled 9,394 million. DOE divided total sales by total shipments to arrive at an average manufacturer price of $359.06. Based on a manufacturer markup of 1.26, as determined in section 7.2 of Chapter 7, Markups for Equipment Price Determination, DOE arrived at a baseline manufacturer cost of $284.97. As detailed in Chapter 5, Engineering Analysis, DOE estimated the cost difference between top-loading and front-loading washers to arrive at the baseline manufacturer cost for front-loading washers. Table 8.2.29 presents the baseline manufacturer cost as well as the associated baseline modified energy factor and water

factor.

8-27

### Table 8.2.29 Commercial Clothes Washers: Baseline Manufacturer Costs

Product Class Baseline Modified Energy Factor (cu.ft./kWh/cyc) Baseline

Water Factor

(gal/cu.ft.) Baseline Manufacturer

Cost (2006$)

Top-Loading 1.26 9.50 $284.97

Front-Loading 1.72 8.00 $587.65

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 commercial clothes washer manufacturer cost increases associated with increases in product standard levels. Refer to Chapter 5, Engineering Analysis, for details. Tables 8.2.30 and 8.2.31 present the standard-level manufacturer cost increases as well as the associated modified energy factors and water factors for top-loading and front-loading washers, respectively.



### Table 8.2.30	 Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers: Standard-Level Manufacturer

Cost Increases

Standard Level Modified Energy Factor (cu.ft./kWh/cyc) Water

Factor (gal/cu.ft.) Standard-Level

Manufacturer Cost Increase (2006$)

Baseline 1.26 9.50

-
1 1.42 9.50 $74.63

2 1.60 8.50 $129.83

3 1.76 8.30 $144.43



### Table 8.2.31 Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers: Standard-Level Manufacturer

Cost Increases

Standard Level Modified Energy Factor (cu.ft./kWh/cyc) Water

Factor (gal/cu.ft.) Standard-Level

Manufacturer Cost Increase (2006$)

Baseline 1.72 8.00

-
1 1.80 7.50 $0.00

2 2.00 5.50 $13.67

3 2.20 5.10 $37.84

4 2.35 4.40 $63.63



### 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 8.2.32 shows the overall baseline and incremental markups for commercial clothes washers. Refer to Chapter 7, Markups for Equipment Price Determination, for details.

8-28

### Table 8.2.32 Commercial Clothes Washers: Overall Markups

Markup Baseline Incremental

Manufacturer 1.26

Distributor 1.43 1.18

Sales Tax 1.0690

Overall 1.93 1.59



### Installation Cost

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

### RS Means Mechanical Cost Data, 2008

. 4 

### This book provides estimates on the labor required to install commercial clothes washers. Table 8.2.33 summarizes the nationally representative average costs associated with the installation of a four-cycle, coin operating, commercial clothes washer as presented in 

### RS Means Mechanical Cost Data . Table 8.2.32 provides both bare costs (i.e., costs before O&P) and installation costs including O&P. DOE used Gross domestic product (GDP) price deflators to convert the costs from 2008$ to 2006$. 10 

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



### Table 8.2.33 Commercial Clothes Washers: Baseline Installation Costs
Bare Costs (2005$) Including Overhead & Profit (2005$)

Installation Type Material Labor Total Total Material* Labor**

Average $1,100 $125 $1,225 $1,400 $1,210 $190

Average (2008$) $190
Average (2006$)*** $185.92

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

** DOE derived labor cost including O&P by subtracting material with O&P from total with O&P.
*** Converted to 2006$ by multiplying costs in 2008$ by the ratio of 2006 GDP (1.1475) to 2007 GDP (1.1727). Used the 2007 GDP due to the unavailability of an annual 2008 GDP value.

Source: RS Means, Mechanical Cost Data, 2008.



### Total Installed Cost
The total installed cost is the sum of the consumer equipment price and the installation cost. Refer back to section 8.2.1 to see the equations that DOE used to calculate the total installed cost for baseline and standard-level products.

Tables 8.2.34 and 8.2.35 present the consumer equipment price, installation costs, and total installed costs for top-loading and front-loading washers, respectively. Prices and costs are presented at the baseline level and each standard level.

8-29

### Table 8.2.34 Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs

Standard

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 $548.88 $185.92 $734.80

1 1.42 9.50 $667.50 $185.92 $853.42

2 1.60 8.50 $755.23 $185.92 $941.15

3 1.76 8.30 $778.44 $185.92 $964.36



### Table 8.2.35 Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers: Consumer Equipment Prices, Installation Costs, and Total Installed Costs

Standard

Level Modified Energy Factor (cu.ft./kWh/cyc) Water

Factor (gal/cu.ft.) Equipment

Price (2006$) Installation

Cost (2006$) Total Installed

Cost (2006$)

Baseline 1.72 8.00 $1,131.88 $185.92 $1,317.80

1 1.80 7.50 $1,131.88 $185.92 $1,317.80

2 2.00 5.50 $1,153.61 $185.92 $1,339.53

3 2.20 5.10 $1,192.02 $185.92 $1,377.94

4 2.35 4.40 $1,233.02 $185.92 $1,418.93



### 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,



### WC = For dishwashers and commercial clothes washers, the water expenditure associated with operating the equipment,



### RC = Repair cost associated with component failure, and



### MC = Service cost for maintaining equipment operation.

Table 8.2.36 shows the inputs for determining the operating costs. The inputs listed in Table 8.2.34 are also necessary for determining lifetime operating expenses, which include the energy price trends (and water price trends), product lifetime, discount rate, and effective date of

the standard.

8-30

### Table 8.2.36 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 commercial clothes washers, is the site water use associated with operating the equipment. The annual energy (and water) consumption vary with the product efficiency. That is, the energy and water consumption associated with standard-level equipment (i.e., equipment with efficiencies greater than baseline equipment) are less than the consumptions associated with baseline equipment. 

### Energy and water prices are the prices paid by consumers for energy (i.e., electricity, gas, or oil) and water. Multiplying the annual energy and water consumption by the energy and water prices yields the annual energy cost and water cost, respectively. 

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

### Maintenance costs are associated with maintaining the operation of the equipment. DOE used 

### energy and water price trends to forecast energy and water prices into the future and, along with the product lifetime and discount rate, to establish the lifetime energy and water costs. The 

### product lifetime is the age at which the equipment is retired

from service. The 

### discount rate is the rate at which DOE discounted future expenditures to establish their present value. DOE calculated the operating cost for baseline products based on the following equation:

OC = EC + WC + RC + MC BASE BASE BASE BASE BASE



### = AEC × PRICE + AWC × PRICE + RC + MC BASE ENERGY BASE WATER BASE BASE



### where:



### OC BASE 

### = Baseline operating cost,



### EC BASE 

### = Energy expenditure associated with operating the baseline equipment,



### WC BASE 

### = For commercial clothes 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 maintaining baseline equipment operation,



### AEC BASE 

### = Annual energy consumption for baseline equipment,



### PRICE ENERGY 

### = Energy price,



### AWC BASE 

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

8-31__ __ 

### PRICE WATER 

### = Water price.

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



### EC + RC OC STD 

### = STD 

### WC STD 

### + STD 

### + MC STD



### × PRICE × PRICE + MC = AEC STD ENERGY 

### + AWC STD WATER 

### + RC STD STD



### = 

# ( AEC Δ AEC 

# ) × PRICE + 

# ( AWC Δ AWC 

# ) × PRICE BASE STD ENERGY BASE STD WATER



### + 

# ( RC + Δ RC 

# ) + 

# ( MC + Δ MC 

# )

BASE STD BASE STD



### where:



### OC STD 

### = Standard-level operating cost,



### EC STD 

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



### WC STD 

### = For 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 for standard-level equipment,



### PRICE ENERGY 

### = Energy price,



### AWC STD 

### = Annual water consumption for standard-level equipment,



### PRICE WATER 

### = Water price,



### Δ

AEC STD 

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



### Δ

AWC STD 

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



### Δ RC STD 

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



### Δ 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 operating costs for cooking products, dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and commercial clothes washers.



### 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, DOE developed a sample of individual households that use each of the appliances. By developing household samples, DOE was able to perform the LCC and PBP calculations for each household to account for the variability in both energy use and energy price associated with each household. DOE used EIA’s 2001 RECS to develop the household samples

8-32

### and, in turn, to establish the variability in both annual energy consumption and energy pricing. Refer back to Chapter 6, sections 6.2.1.4 and 6.2.2.4, and 6.3.3 to review the variability of annual energy consumption for cooktops and ovens and microwave ovens, respectively.

For commercial clothes washers, DOE was unable to develop a consumer sample since neither RECS nor EIA’s CBECS provided the necessary data to develop one. As a result, DOE was not able to use a consumer sample to establish the variability in energy use (and water use) and energy pricing (and water pricing) for commercial clothes washers. Similar to dehumidifiers, DOE characterized the variability of commercial clothes washer usage based on several studies. For multi-family product applications, DOE equally weighted each study to establish the variability. For laundromat applications, DOE used a range of values varying from three to eight cycles per day. Refer back to Chapter 6, section 6.3.3 to review how DOE characterized commercial clothes washer usage variability.

The tables presented below are based on the energy and water use determination analysis described in Chapter 6. Keep in mind that the annual energy and water consumption values in the tables below are averages. DOE captured the variability in energy (and water) consumption was captured by DOE when it conducted its LCC and PBP analysis.

Cooking Products – Cooktops
Tables 8.2.37, 8.2.38, and 8.2.39 provide the average annual energy consumption by efficiency level for electric coil, electric smooth, and gas cooktops. Refer back to section 6.2.1.3 from Chapter 6 for more details on how DOE determined the annual energy consumption for cooktops.

8-33

### Table 8.2.37 Electric Coil Cooktops: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level

Standard Level Energy Factor Annual Energy Consumption

kWh/year

Baseline 0.737 128.2

1 0.769 122.9



### Table 8.2.38 Electric Smooth Cooktops: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level

Standard Level Energy Factor Annual Energy Consumption

kWh/year

Baseline 0.742 128.2

1 0.753 126.3



### Table 8.2.39 Gas Cooktops: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level

Standard Energy Cooking Cooking Pilot* Total

Level Factor Efficiency 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 8.2.40, 8.2.41, 8.2.42, and 8.2.43 provide the average annual energy consumption by efficiency level for electric standard, electric self-cleaning, gas standard, and gas self-cleaning ovens. Refer back to section 6.2.1.3 from Chapter 6 for more details on how DOE determined the annual energy consumption for ovens.



### Table 8.2.40 Electric Standard Ovens: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level

Standard Energy Cooking Cooking Clock † Total

Level Factor Efficiency kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year

Baseline 0.1066 12.2% 132.4 34.2 166.5

1 0.1113 12.8% 125.9 34.2 160.1

2 0.1163 13.4% 119.7 34.2 153.9

3 0.1181 13.7% 117.6 34.2 151.8

4 0.1206 14.0% 70.7 34.2 149.0

5 0.1209 14.1% 70.6 34.2 148.6

† Clock energy consumption based on clock power of 3.9 Watts.

8-34

### Table 8.2.41 Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency

Level

Standard Energy Cooking Cooking Self-Clean* Clock † Total

Level Factor Efficiency 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 8.2.42 Gas Standard Ovens: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level

Standard Energy Cooking Cooking* Ignition** Total

Level Factor Efficiency MMBtu/yr kWh/yr MMBtu/yr kWh/yr MMBtu/yr kWh/yr

Baseline 0.0298 5.9% 0.82

- 1.01

- 1.83 0.0

1 *** 0.0536 5.8% 0.84

- - 21.1 0.84 21.1

2 0.0566 6.1% 0.80

- - 21.1 0.80 21.1

3 0.0572 6.2% 0.79

- - 21.1 0.79 21.1

4 0.0593 6.5% 0.75 1.8

- 21.1 0.75 22.9

5 0.0596 6.5% 0.75 1.8

- 21.1 0.75 22.9

6 0.0600 6.6% 0.74 1.8

- 21.1 0.74 22.9

1a *** 0.0583 5.8% 0.84

- - - 0.84 0.0

* Electrical energy consumption for cooking due to forced convection fan. Measured test energy use of 15 W-hr.

** Gas energy consumption for ignition based on use of one pilot light that uses 115 Btu/hr. Electrical energy consumption due to hot surface ignition device. Measured test energy use of 176 W-hr.

*** Levels 1 and 1a correspond to designs that are utilized for the same purpose—eliminate the need for a standing pilot—but the technologies for each design are different. Level 1 is a hot surface ignition device while level 1a is a spark ignition device.



### Table 8.2.43 Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens: Annual Energy Consumption by Efficiency Level

Std Energy Cooking Cooking* Self-Clean** Ignition*** Clock † Total

Level Factor Effcy MMBtu/yr kWh/yr MMBtu/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr kWh/yr MMBtu/yr kWh/yr

Baseline 0.0540 7.1% 0.68

- 0.17 0.7 21.1 31.5 0.86 53.3

1 0.0625 8.8% 0.56 1.8 0.17 0.7 21.1 31.5 0.73 55.1

2 0.0627 8.8% 0.55 1.8 0.17 0.7 21.1 31.5 0.73 55.1

3 0.0632 8.9% 0.55 1.8 0.17 0.7 21.1 31.5 0.72 55.1

* Electrical energy consumption for cooking due to forced convection fan. Measured test energy use of 15 W-hr.

** Self-cleaning energy consumption based on gas use of 43,158 Btu/cycle, electrical use of 0.171 kWh/cycle, and 4 self-cleaning cycles per year.

*** Electrical energy consumption due to hot surface ignition device. Measured test energy use of 176 W-hr.

† Clock energy consumption based on clock power of 3.6 Watts.

8-35

### Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens
Tables 8.2.44 and 8.2.45 provide the average annual energy consumption by efficiency level for microwave ovens. Table 8.2.44 pertains to efficiency levels that increase the energy factor while Table 8.2.45 pertains to efficiency levels that limit standby power consumption. Refer back to section 6.2.2.3 from Chapter 6 for more details on how DOE determined the annual energy consumption for microwave ovens.



### Table 8.2.44 Microwave Ovens: Annual Energy Consumption by Energy Factor Level

Standard Energy Cooking Consumption Standby Power Consumption Total Energy Consumption Energy Use Standby Power Energy Use*

Level Factor Efficiency kWh/year W kWh/year kWh/year

Baseline 0.557 55.7% 131.0 4.0 34.8 165.8

1a 0.586 58.6% 124.5 4.0 34.8 159.3

2a 0.588 58.8% 124.1 4.0 34.8 158.8

3a 0.597 59.7% 122.2 4.0 34.8 157.0

4a 0.602 60.2% 121.2 4.0 34.8 156.0

* Annual standby power energy consumption based on 8689 standby hours per year.



### Table 8.2.45 Microwave Ovens: Annual Energy Consumption by Standby Power Level

Standard Energy Cooking Consumption Standby Power Consumption Total Energy Consumption Energy Use Standby Power Energy Use*

Level Factor Efficiency kWh/year W kWh/year kWh/year

Baseline 0.557 55.7% 131.0 4.0 34.8 165.8

1b 0.557 55.7% 131.0 2.0 17.4 148.4

2b 0.557 55.7% 131.0 1.5 13.0 144.0

3b 0.557 55.7% 131.0 1.0 8.7 139.7

4b 0.557 55.7% 131.0 0.02 0.2 131.2

* Annual standby power energy consumption based on 8689 standby hours per year.



### Commercial Clothes Washers
Tables 8.2.46 and 8.2.47 provide the average annual energy and water consumption by efficiency level for top-loading commercial clothes washers. Tables 8.2.48 and 8.2.49 provide the average annual energy and water consumption by efficiency level for front-loading commercial clothes washers. Although commercial clothes washers are characterized under a single product class, DOE presents annual consumption based on two applications: multi-family housing and laundromats. The tables below are similar to Tables 6.3.5 through 6.3.8 in section

6.3.2 from Chapter 6 with the exception that, in the tables below, the electric and gas water heating and drying consumptions take into account the percentage of buildings in the U.S. that use electric and gas water heaters and dryers. In others words, the electric and gas water heating and drying consumption in Tables 8.2.46 through 8.2.49 are weighted by the share of buildings that use electric and gas water heaters and dryers. Based on data from the Consortium for

8-36

### Energy Efficiency (CEE), the shares of electric and gas water heating and drying in multi-family applications are: 20 percent and 80 percent electric and gas water heating, respectively, and 40 percent and 60 percent electric and gas drying, respectively. Also based on CEE data, 100 percent of laundromats use gas water heating and drying.



### Table 8.2.46	 Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application: Annual Energy and Water Use by Efficiency Level

Standard MEF WF Annual Energy Use*

Annual

Water Use Water Heating** Drying***

Machine Electric Gas Electric Gas

Level 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 1.76 8.30 101 1.84 534 3.06 142 29.0

* Annual usage based on 3.4 cycles per day (1241 cycles per year).

** Electric and gas water heating based on water heater efficiencies of 100% for electric and 75% for gas. Water heater consumption is weighted by the share of buildings with electric (20%) and gas (80%) water heaters.

*** Dryer consumption is weighted by the share of buildings with electric (40%) and gas (60%) dryers.



### Table 8.2.47	 Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat Application: Annual Energy and Water Use by Efficiency Level

Standard MEF WF Annual Energy Use*

Annual

Water Use Water Heating** Drying***

Machine Electric Gas Electric Gas

Level 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 4.04 0 8.96 250 50.9

* Annual usage based on 6 cycles per day (2190 cycles per year).

** Electric and gas water heating based on water heater efficiencies of 100% for electric and 75% for gas. Water heater consumption is weighted by the share of buildings with electric (0%) and gas (100%) water heaters.

*** Dryer consumption is weighted by the share of buildings with electric (0%) and gas (100%) dryers.

8-37

### Table 8.2.48 Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application: Annual Energy and Water Use by Efficiency Level

Standard MEF WF Annual Energy Use*

Annual

Water Use Water Heating** Drying***

Machine Electric Gas Electric Gas

Level cu.ft./kWh/cyc gal/cu.ft. kWh/yr MMBtu/yr kWh/yr MMBtu/yr kWh/yr 1000 gal/year

Baseline 1.72 8.00 106 1.94 542 3.11 142 27.9

1 1.80 7.50 96 1.75 526 3.01 142 26.2

2 2.00 5.50 77 1.41 486 2.79 142 19.2

3 2.20 5.10 66 1.19 446 2.56 142 17.8

4 2.35 4.40 60 1.10 417 2.39 142 15.4

* Annual usage based on 3.4 cycles per day (1241 cycles per year).

** Electric and gas water heating based on water heater efficiencies of 100% for electric and 75% for gas. Water heater consumption is weighted by the share of buildings with electric (20%) and gas (80%) water heaters.

*** Dryer consumption is weighted by the share of buildings with electric (40%) and gas (60%) dryers.



### Table 8.2.49	 Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat Application: Annual Energy and Water Use by Efficiency Level

Standard MEF WF Annual Energy Use*

Annual

Water Use Water Heating** Drying***

Machine Electric Gas Electric Gas

Level cu.ft./kWh/cyc gal/cu.ft. kWh/yr MMBtu/yr kWh/yr MMBtu/yr kWh/yr 1000 gal/year

Baseline 1.72 8.00 0 4.25 0 9.10 250 49.1

1 1.80 7.50 0 3.85 0 8.83 250 46.0

2 2.00 5.50 0 3.10 0 8.16 250 33.7

3 2.20 5.10 0 2.62 0 7.49 250 31.3

4 2.35 4.40 0 2.41 0 6.99 250 27.0

* Annual usage based on 6 cycles per day (2190 cycles per year).

** Electric and gas water heating based on water heater efficiencies of 100% for electric and 75% for gas. Water heater consumption is weighted by the share of buildings with electric (0%) and gas (100%) water heaters.

*** Dryer consumption is weighted by the share of buildings with electric (0%) and gas (100%) dryers.



### 8.2.2.2 Energy and Water Prices

DOE derived energy prices for 13 geographic areas in the U.S. and derived water prices for the four Census regions. Using these data, DOE analyzed the variability of energy and water prices at the regional level for cooking products and commercial clothes washers.

For cooking products, DOE used RECS to develop a sample of individual households that use each of the appliances. By developing household samples, DOE was able to perform the

8-38

### LCC and PBP calculations for each household to account for the regional variability in energy and water prices associated with each household.

For commercial clothes washers, DOE was unable to develop a consumer sample, since neither RECS nor EIA’s CBECS provided the necessary data to develop one. Thus, DOE characterized energy and water price regional variability with probability distributions. It based the probability associated with each regional energy and water price on the population weight of each region.

The methodology that DOE used for deriving the energy and water prices is presented below. Included are tables that summarize the regional energy and water prices for each product.

Energy Prices
DOE derived average energy prices from data from EIA. DOE calculated prices for each of 13 geographic areas: the nine U.S. Census divisions, with four large States (New York, Florida, Texas, and California) treated separately. For Census divisions containing one of these large States, DOE calculated the regional average values leaving out data for the large State—for example, the Pacific region average does not include California, and the West South Central does

not include Texas.

Residential Electricity Prices


### DOE estimated electricity prices for residential consumers in each of the above geographic areas using EIA Form 861 data. 11 

### These data are published annually and include annual electricity sales in kilowatt hours (kWh), revenues from electricity sales, and number of consumers, for the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, for every utility serving final consumers. The calculation of an average residential electricity price proceeds in two steps:

1. For each utility, estimate an average residential price by dividing the residential revenues by residential sales.

2. Calculate a regional average price, weighting each utility with customers in a region by the number of residential consumers served in that region.

Table 8.2.50 shows the results for each geographic region.

8-39

### Table 8.2.50 Average Residential Electricity Prices in 2006

Geographic Area Average Price (2006$/kWh)

New England $0.160

Middle Atlantic (excludes NY) $0.114

East North Central $0.093

West North Central $0.083

South Atlantic (excludes FL) $0.090

East South Central $0.082

West South Central (excludes TX) $0.089

Mountain $0.090

Pacific (excludes CA) $0.090

New York $0.175

Florida $0.114

Texas $0.128

California $0.144

Source: EIA Form 861.



### Table 8.2.51 shows the national average residential electricity prices for cooking products based on the relative residential consumer weight of each geographic area. DOE determined the weighting of each geographic area based on the saturation of each appliance in the U.S. DOE

used saturation data from the 2001 RECS to determine how the national saturation of each cooking appliance was distributed over the 13 geographic areas. Because DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analysis in 2006$, all electricity prices are in 2006$.

8-40

### Table 8.2.51 Average Residential Electricity Prices for Cooking Products in 2006

Average Price Saturations*

Elec Gas Elec Std Elec SC Gas Std Gas SC MW Geographic Area (2006$/kWh)** Cooktops Cooktops Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens Ovens

New England $0.160 5.2% 4.2% 3.4% 6.7% 4.4% 4.2% 4.3%

Middle Atlantic (excludes NY) $0.114 6.5% 9.0% 6.1% 7.3% 7.9% 11.9% 6.6%

East North Central $0.093 14.4% 19.2% 13.3% 16.4% 18.1% 23.1% 16.7%

West North Central $0.083 7.3% 5.6% 6.8% 7.5% 5.7% 6.9% 7.5%

South Atlantic (excludes FL) $0.090 14.7% 10.4% 16.7% 13.4% 10.9% 9.1% 13.6%

East South Central $0.082 8.1% 3.0% 9.5% 6.7% 3.0% 2.3% 6.7%

West South Central (excludes TX) $0.089 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) $0.090 5.9% 0.6% 7.5% 4.9% 0.3% 0.5% 4.1%

New York $0.175 3.8% 11.1% 3.0% 4.3% 10.7% 13.0% 5.6%

Florida $0.114 8.7% 1.2% 6.3% 10.3% 1.4% 1.4% 5.9%

Texas $0.128 7.3% 7.6% 9.0% 5.4% 7.8% 3.5% 7.2%

California $0.144 7.0% 19.2% 8.3% 6.3% 19.2% 18.0% 10.9%

National Average Price (2006$/kWh) - $0.106 $0.118 $0.105 $0.107 $0.118 $0.118 $0.109

* Saturations based on 2001 RECS.

Commercial Electricity Prices


### DOE also estimated electricity prices for commercial consumers using EIA’s Form 861 data. The calculation is identical to that for residential consumers, except that DOE used

commercial sector data. Table 8.2.52 shows the results.

8-41

### Table 8.2.52 Average Commercial Electricity Prices in 2006

Geographic Area Average Price (2006$/kWh)

New England $0.148

Middle Atlantic (excludes NY) $0.101

East North Central $0.080

West North Central $0.070

South Atlantic (excludes FL) $0.078

East South Central $0.081

West South Central (excludes TX) $0.081

Mountain $0.079

Pacific (excludes CA) $0.089

New York $0.158

Florida $0.133

Texas $0.118

California $0.100

Source: EIA Form 861.



### Table 8.2.53 shows the national average commercial electricity prices for commercial clothes washers based on the relative residential consumer weight of each geographic area. DOE used 2006 population estimates from the U.S. Census as a proxy to estimate how the national saturation of commercial clothes washers was distributed over the 13 geographic areas. 12 

### Because DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analysis in 2006$, all electricity prices are in 2006$.

8-42

### Table 8.2.53 Average Commercial Electricity Prices for Commercial Clothes Washers in

2006

Geographic Area Average Price (2006$/kWh) Saturations*

New England $0.148 4.8%

Middle Atlantic (excludes NY) $0.101 7.1%

East North Central $0.080 15.5%

West North Central $0.070 6.7%

South Atlantic (excludes FL) $0.078 13.0%

East South Central $0.081 5.9%

West South Central (excludes TX) $0.081 3.6%

Mountain $0.079 7.0%

Pacific (excludes CA) $0.089 4.0%

New York $0.158 6.4%

Florida $0.133 6.0%

Texas $0.118 7.9%

California $0.100 12.2%

National Average Price (2006$/kWh) $0.100

-

* Saturations based on 2006 population estimates from Census.

Residential Natural Gas Prices


### DOE obtained the data for the natural gas price calculation from the EIA publication 

### Natural Gas Monthly

. 13 

### 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 2006 to calculate an average annul price for each area. The calculation of average prices proceeds in two steps:

1. Calculate the annul price for each State using a simple average over the appropriate

months.

2. Calculate a regional price, weighting each State in a region by its population.

This method differs from the method used to calculate electricity prices because EIA does not provide consumer- or utility-level data on gas consumption and prices. The residential price units in Table 8.2.54 are in dollars per thousand cubic feet ($/tcf).

8-43

### Table 8.2.54 Average Residential Natural Gas Prices in 2006

Geographic Area Average Price (2006$/tcf)

New England $17.68

Middle Atlantic (excludes NY) $16.82

East North Central $12.97

West North Central $13.67

South Atlantic (excludes FL) $18.42

East South Central $16.55

West South Central (excludes TX) $15.52

Mountain $14.12

Pacific (excludes CA) $16.19

New York $15.96

Florida $21.88

Texas $14.23

California $11.51

Source: EIA Natural Gas Monthly

.



### Table 8.2.55 shows the national average residential natural gas prices for gas cooking products based on the relative residential consumer weight of each geographic area. 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$, all natural gas prices are in 2006$.

8-44

### Table 8.2.55 Average Residential Natural Gas Prices for Cooking Products in 2006

Geographic Area Average Price (2006$/MMBtu)** Saturations*

Gas Cooktops Gas Std Ovens Gas SC Ovens

New England $17.15 4.2% 4.4% 4.2%

Middle Atlantic (excludes NY) $16.31 9.0% 7.9% 11.9%

East North Central $12.58 19.2% 18.1% 23.1%

West North Central $13.26 5.6% 5.7% 6.9%

South Atlantic (excludes FL) $17.86 10.4% 10.9% 9.1%

East South Central $16.05 3.0% 3.0% 2.3%

West South Central (excludes TX) $15.05 4.5% 5.5% 2.9%

Mountain $13.70 4.4% 5.0% 3.3%

Pacific (excludes CA) $15.70 0.6% 0.3% 0.5%

New York $15.48 11.1% 10.7% 13.0%

Florida $21.23 1.2% 1.4% 1.4%

Texas $13.81 7.6% 7.8% 3.5%

California $11.17 19.2% 19.2% 18.0%

National Average Price (2006$/MMBtu) - $14.23 $14.27 $14.24

* Saturations based on 2001 RECS.
** 1 tcf gas = 1.03 MMBtu.

Commercial Natural Gas Prices


### DOE also estimated natural gas prices for commercial consumers using data from EIA’s 

### Natural Gas Monthly . The calculation is identical to that for residential consumers, except that

DOE used commercial sector data. Table 8.2.56 shows the results.

8-45

### Table 8.2.56 Average Commercial Natural Gas Prices in 2006

Geographic Area Average Price (2006$/tcf)

New England $14.44

Middle Atlantic (excludes NY) $13.11

East North Central $11.04

West North Central $11.10

South Atlantic (excludes FL) $13.49

East South Central $13.27

West South Central (excludes TX) $11.66

Mountain $10.94

Pacific (excludes CA) $13.73

New York $11.35

Florida $13.73

Texas $10.09

California $10.15

Source: EIA Natural Gas Monthly

.



### Table 8.2.57 shows the national average commercial natural gas prices for commercial clothes washers based on the relative commercial consumer weight of each geographic area. DOE used 2006 population estimates from the U.S. Census as a proxy to estimate how the national saturation of commercial clothes washers was distributed over the 13 geographic areas. Because DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analysis in 2006$, all natural gas prices are in 2006$.

8-46

### Table 8.2.57 Average Commercial Natural Gas Prices for Commercial Clothes Washers

in 2006

Geographic Area Average Price (2006$/MMBtu)** Saturations*

New England $14.00 4.8%

Middle Atlantic (excludes NY) $12.72 7.1%

East North Central $10.71 15.5%

West North Central $10.77 6.7%

South Atlantic (excludes FL) $13.08 13.0%

East South Central $12.87 5.9%

West South Central (excludes TX) $11.31 3.6%

Mountain $10.61 7.0%

Pacific (excludes CA) $13.32 4.0%

New York $11.00 6.4%

Florida $13.32 6.0%

Texas $9.79 7.9%

California $9.84 12.2%

National Average Price (2006$/MMBtu) $11.57

-

* Saturations based on 2005 population estimates from U.S. Census.

** 1 tcf gas = 1.03 MMBtu.



### Water Prices
DOE obtained water price data from the year 2006 from the 

### Water and Wastewater Rate Survey conducted by Raftelis Financial Consultants and the American Water Works

Association. 14 

### The survey covers approximately 216 water utilities and 153 wastewater utilities, with each industry analyzed separately. The water survey includes, for each utility, the cost to consumers of purchasing a given volume of water. In this case, the data include a division of the total consumer cost into fixed and volumetric charges. The calculations use only the volumetric charge to calculate water prices, since only this charge would be affected by a change in water consumption. Including the fixed charge in the average would lead to a slightly higher water price.

The 

### Water and Wastewater Rate Survey provides prices separately for residential and non-residential customers. For wastewater utilities, the format is similar, but the cost refers to the cost of treating a given volume of wastewater. In both surveys, the non-residential sector is divided into four sub-sectors based on the average monthly volume of water delivered or, equivalently, the size of the delivery pipe. The sub-sectors are named non-manufacturing, commercial, industrial 1, and industrial 2. DOE’s analysis uses the commercial category to estimate prices for commercial consumers.

A sample of 216 utilities is not large enough to calculate regional prices for all U.S. Census divisions and large States (for comparison, the EIA Form 861 data include more than

8-47

### 3000 utilities). For this reason, DOE calculated regional values at the Census region level (Northeast, South, Midwest, and West). The calculation of average per-unit-volume prices proceeds in three steps:

1. For each utility, calculate the per-unit-volume price by dividing the total volumetric cost by the volume delivered.

2. Calculate a State-level average price by weighting each utility in a given State by the number of consumers it serves (either residential or commercial).

3. Calculate a regional average by combining the State-level averages, weighting each by the population of that State. This third step helps reduce any bias in the sample that may occur due to relative under-sampling of large States.

The results of the calculation for the commercial sector are presented in Table 8.2.58. The price units in the table are dollars per thousand gallons ($/tg).



### Table 8.2.58 Average Per-Unit-Volume Water Prices in 2006

Commercial

Region 2005$/tg Water 2005$/tg Wastewater

Northeast 2.28 2.18

Midwest 1.30 1.11

South 1.98 2.00

West 1.87 1.68



### Table 8.2.59 shows the national average commercial water and wastewater prices for commercial clothes washers based on the relative commercial consumer weight of each region. DOE used 2006 population estimates from the U.S. Census as a proxy to estimate how the national saturation of commercial clothes washers was distributed over the four regions. Because DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analysis in 2006$, it needed to convert all water prices into 2006$. To perform the necessary monetary conversion, DOE used the GDP to convert the water and wastewater prices from 2005$ to 2006$. 10

8-48

### Table 8.2.59 Average Per-Unit-Volume Water Prices for Commercial Clothes Washers in

2006

Region 2006$/tg Water** 2006$/tg Wastewater** Saturations*

Northeast $2.08 $3.14 18.3%

Midwest $1.66 $2.36 22.1%

South $2.05 $2.33 36.4%

West $2.05 $2.60 23.2%

National $1.97 $2.55

-

* Saturations based on 2006 population estimates from Census.
** Converted to 2006$ by multiplying costs in 2005$ by the ratio of 2006 GDP (1.1475) to 2004 GDP (1.1193).



### 8.2.2.3 Energy and Water Price Trends

DOE used price forecasts by the EIA to estimate the trends in natural gas, oil, and electricity prices. To arrive at prices in future years, it multiplied the average prices described in the preceding section (section 8.2.2.2) by the forecast of annual average price changes in EIA’s



### AEO 2008

. 15 

### 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 during 2020–2030.

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 and 8.2.2 show the residential and commercial electricity and natural gas price trends, respectively, based on the three 

### AEO 2008 projections. For the LCC results presented in section 8.4, DOE used only the energy price forecasts from the AEO reference case.

8-49Price Trend (2006 = 1) 1.10 High Growth - Res

Reference - Res

1.08 Low-Growth - Res

1.06 High Growth - Comm

Reference - Comm

1.04 Low Growth - Comm

1.02

1.00

0.98

0.96

0.94

0.92

0.90

0.88

0.86

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Year



### Figure 8.2.1 Electricity Price Trends

1.25 High Growth - Comm

1.20 Reference - Comm

1.15 Low Growth - CommPrice Trend (2006 = 1)

1.05 1.10 High Growth - Res

Reference - Res

Low-Growth - Res

1.00

0.95

0.90

0.85

0.80

2005 2010 2015 2020

Year 2025 2030 2035 2040



### Figure 8.2.2 Natural Gas Price Trends

8-50

### To estimate the future trend for water and wastewater prices, DOE used data on the historic trend in the national water price index (U.S. city average) from 1970 through 2007. 16 

### It extrapolated a future trend based on the linear growth over the 1970–2007 time period. Figure

8.2.3 shows the historical and projected water price trend data. DOE used the forecasted data to estimate water and wastewater prices for commercial clothes washers.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

YearWater CPI Water CPI

Liinear Extapolation



### Figure 8.2.3 Water Price Trend

8.2.2.4 Repair and Maintenance Costs

Typically, small incremental changes in product efficiency incur no, or only very small, changes in repair and maintenance costs over baseline products. However, equipment with efficiencies that are significantly higher than the baseline are more likely to incur higher repair and maintenance costs because its higher complexity and higher part count typically increases the cumulative probability of failure.

Cooking Products
For all electric cooking products, including microwave ovens, DOE did not include any changes in repair and maintenance costs for products more efficient than baseline products.

For gas cooking products, DOE did determine the repair and maintenance costs associated with different types of ignition systems. DOE contacted six contractors, one each in Arizona, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Texas, to estimate whether repair and maintenance costs differ between standing pilot and non-standing pilot ignition systems. Table 8.2.60 summarizes the findings from the discussions with the six contractors.

8-51

### Table 8.2.60 Repair/Maintenance Findings for Gas Cooking Product Ignition Systems
Ignition System Findings

Standing Pilot • Rare but found in some apartments, rentals, lowbudget kitchens.

• Very reliable; repair frequency ranges from 10

years to rare.

• Cleaning is most common issue; valves get dirty

from grease and impurities in gas.

• Estimated costs for cleaning: $85-120 for labor.

• Estimated costs for valve replacement: $150.

• Average repair/maintenance cost = $126.

Glo-bar/hot surface • Found in approx. 90% of gas ovens (the remaining fraction use standing pilots or more-efficient spark ignitions).

• Fragile, typically last only 5 years.

• Reasons for failure include burn out, cleaning

sprays, jostling, oxidation.

• Estimated repair costs range from $125 to $180.

• Average repair cost = $147.

Electronic spark • Found in almost all gas cooktops.

• Definitely longer-lasting than Glo-bar igniters, but

harder to gauge performance statistically. Modules can break after 5 years, while some last the lifetime of the appliance. Average 10 years. Electrodes rarely have problems.

• Reasons for failure of spark module include power

outage, pinched wire, humidity issues.

• Reasons for failure of spark electrode include

physical abuse from pots and pans

• Estimated repair costs range from $160 to $195.

• Average repair cost = $178.



### Based on the contractors’ input, DOE determined that standing pilots are less costly to repair and maintain than either electric glo-bar/hot surface ignition systems (used in most gas ovens) or electronic spark ignition systems (used in gas cooktops and a small percentage of gas ovens). For standing pilot ignition systems, DOE determined that repair and maintenance are needed once every 10 years to clean valves. For electric glo-bar/hot surface ignition systems, the glo-bar requires replacement approximately every five years. In the case of electronic ignition systems, control modules tend to last 10 years. The electrodes/igniters can fail due to hard contact from pots or pans, although failures are rare. Based on the above findings, DOE included repair and maintenance costs for gas cooking product ignition systems (see Table 8.2.61).

8-52

### Table 8.2.61 Repair/Maintenance Costs for Gas Cooking Product Ignition Systems

Ignition System Repair/Maintenance Cost Occurrence

Standing Pilot* $126 Once—In the 10 th year of Cooking Product’s Life

Glo-bar/hot surface** $147 Every 5 th year of Cooking Product’s Life

Electronic spark*** $178 Once—In the 10 th year of Cooking Product’s Life

* Applicable to baseline level equipment for gas cooktops and gas standard ovens.

** Applicable to standard level 1 for gas standard ovens and the baseline level for gas self-clean ovens.

*** Applicable to standard level 1 for gas cooktops and standard level 1a for gas standard ovens.



### Commercial Clothes Washers
The Whirlpool Corporation estimates that the unit shipments of horizontal-axis

commercial clothes washers are less than half that of vertical-axis machines while their inwarranty repair costs are double that of vertical-axis machines. 17 

### This suggests that the repair ofhorizontal-axis machines is four times as costly as that of vertical-axis machines. Because inwarranty repair costs, based on Whirlpool’s experience, are greater for horizontal-axis machines that vertical-axis machines, DOE estimated that commercial clothes washer repair costs would increase as a function of equipment efficiency. DOE utilized an algorithm developed for central air conditioners and heat pumps to estimate repair cost increases. 18 

### This algorithm calculates annualized repair costs by dividing the half the equipment retail price by the equipment lifetime as show in the expression below:

0.5 × 

### EQP RC = ANNUAL 

### LIFE



### where:

RC ANNUAL 

### = Annualized repair cost associated with equipment, EQP = Consumer equipment price, and

LIFE = Product lifetime.

Table 8.2.62 shows for each product application (multi-family buildings and laundromats) the annualized repair costs for the commercial clothes washer baseline and efficiency levels. Annualized repair costs for each product application differ because commercial clothes washer lifetime is different for each application. (Product lifetimes are presented below is section 8.2.3.) The table also presents the consumer equipment prices for the baseline level and each efficiency level.

8-53

### Table 8.2.62 Commercial Clothes Washer Annualized Repair Costs

Level Modified Energy Factor (cu.ft./kWh/cyc) Water

Factor (gal/cu.ft.) Equipment

Price (2006$) Annualized Repair Cost (2006$)

Multi-Family* Laundromat*

Baseline 1.26 9.50 $548.88 $24.39 $38.52

1 1.42 9.50 $667.50 $29.67 $46.84

2 1.60 8.50 $750.42 $33.35 $52.66

3 1.72 8.00 $966.73 $42.97 $67.84

4 1.80 7.50 $1,031.37 $45.84 $72.38

5 2.00 5.50 $1,051.69 $46.74 $73.80

6 2.20 5.10 $1,099.96 $48.89 $77.19

* Average product lifetime: Multi-family = 11.3 years; Laundromat = 7.1 years.



### 8.2.3 Product Lifetime

DOE used only primary sources of data to estimate product lifetimes. For example, the Federal government’s Energy Star web site provides lifetime estimates for dishwashers and dehumidifiers, but the estimates are actually based on data from Appliance Magazine . Because, in this case, Appliance Magazine is the primary source of data, DOE did not use the Energy Star web site to estimate product lifetimes. The sources DOE used to estimate product lifetimes for cooking products and commercial clothes washers are presented below.



### 8.2.3.1 Cooking Products – Cooktops and Ovens

For cooktops and ovens, DOE considered the sources listed in Table 8.2.63 to estimate product lifetimes.



### Table 8.2.63 Cooktops and Ovens: Product Lifetime Estimates and Sources

Lifetime (years) Source

Gas Ranges*: Mean = 15; Low = 12; High = 18 Electric Ranges*: Mean = 13; Low = 10; High = 16 Appliance Magazine (2005) 19

Gas & Electric Cooking Products: 19 DOE TSD (1996) 2

Gas Ranges: 20** CALMAC (2000) 20

* Estimates are first-ownership length, not full product lifetime.

** Based on engineering judgment.



### The estimates from Appliance Magazine are “based on first-owner use of the product and does not necessarily mean the appliance is worn out.” In other words, Appliance Magazine ’s lifetime estimates underestimate the actual lifetime of the products in those cases where the product is used by two or more users. As a result, DOE used the 19-year estimate from its 1996 Technical Support Document (TSD) for Cooking Products to estimate the average product lifetime for both electric and gas cooktops and ovens. DOE used the low estimates from

8-54

### Appliance Magazine to establish the minimum product lifetime. To establish the maximum product lifetime, DOE took the difference between the minimum and average values (nine years for electric products and seven years for gas products) and added them to the average product lifetime. The minimum, average, and maximum lifetime estimates are shown in Table 8.2.64.



### Table 8.2.64 Cooktops and Ovens: Average, Minimum, and Maximum Product Lifetimes

Minimum Average Maximum

Product years years 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



### DOE characterized the cooktop and oven product lifetimes with Weibull distributions. Appendix 8C presents the Weibull distributions of electric and gas cooktops and ovens that DOE used in the LCC and PBP analysis.



### 8.2.3.2 Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens

For microwave ovens, DOE considered the sources listed in Table 8.2.65 to estimate product lifetime.



### Table 8.2.65 Microwave Ovens: Product Lifetime Estimates and Sources

Lifetime (years) Source

Mean* = 9; Low* = 7; High* = 10 Appliance Magazine (2005) 19

10 DOE TSD (1996) 2

* Estimates are first-ownership length, not full product lifetime.



### As discussed above for ovens and cooktops, the estimates from Appliance Magazine are “based on first-owner use of the product and does not necessarily mean the appliance is worn out.” In other words, Appliance Magazine ’s lifetime estimates underestimate the actual lifetime of the products in those cases where the product is used by two or more users. As a result, DOE considered using the 10-year estimate from its 1996 TSD for Cooking Products to estimate the average product lifetime. However, because the 10-year lifetime estimate from DOE’s 1996 TSD is the same as the high estimate from Appliance Magazine , DOE decided to use only the

estimates from Appliance Magazine to establish the distribution of product lifetimes. DOE used the low, average, and high estimates from Appliance Magazine to establish the minimum, average, and maximum product lifetimes as shown in Table 8.2.66.

8-55

### Table 8.2.66 Microwave Ovens: Average, Minimum, and Maximum Product Lifetimes

Minimum Average Maximum

Product years years years

Microwave Ovens 7.0 9.0 10.0



### DOE characterized microwave oven product lifetimes with Weibull distributions. Appendix 8C presents the Weibull distributions of microwave ovens that DOE used in the LCC and PBP analysis.



### 8.2.3.3 Commercial Clothes Washers

For commercial clothes washers, DOE considered the sources listed in Table 8.2.67 to estimate product lifetime.



### Table 8.2.67 Commercial Clothes Washers: Product Lifetime Estimates and Sources

Lifetime (years) Source

7 to 10 CEE (1998) 21

Top-Loading (12 to 14 lbs.): 5 to 8* Front-Loading (18 to 50 lbs.): 10 to 15** CLA 22

8 to 9*** ACEEE (2001) 23

5 (high-use)* to 13 (low-use)** Southern California Edison (2000) 24

15** † CALMAC (2000) 20

* Used to establish laundromat lifetime only.

** Used to establish multi-family lifetime only.

*** Depending on the usage rate, the life can be shorter.

† Based on engineering judgment.



### Because DOE conducted the LCC analysis based on analyzing two product applications—multi-family and laundromats—it established separate lifetimes for each product application. Because clothes washers in multi-family applications are used less frequently than in laundromats, DOE decided to use only those sources that indicated lifetimes of seven years or greater for multi-family applications. For laundromats applications, where clothes washers receive heavier use, DOE decided to use only those sources that indicated lifetimes of 10 years or less. DOE then took an average of the lifetime estimates that met the above criteria. For multi-family applications the average lifetime turned out to be 11.3 years, while the average lifetime for laundromats was 7.1 years. DOE used the low estimate for the above applicable sources to establish the minimum product lifetime for each product application. For multi-family applications the minimum estimate is 7 years and for laundromats it is 5 years. To establish the maximum product lifetime, DOE took the difference between the minimum and average values (4.3 years for multi-family and 2.1 years for laundromats) and added it to the average product lifetime. The minimum, average, and maximum lifetime estimates for each product application

are shown in Table 8.2.68.

8-56

### Table 8.2.68 Commercial Clothes Washers: Average, Minimum, and Maximum Product

Lifetimes

Minimum Average Maximum

Product years years years Multi-Family 7.0 11.3 15.5

Laundromats 5.0 7.1 9.3



### DOE characterized the clothes washer product lifetimes for each product application with Weibull distributions. Appendix 8C presents the Weibull distributions commercial clothes washers that DOE used in the LCC and PBP analysis.



### 8.2.4 Discount Rates

DOE derived the discount rates for the LCC and PBP analysis from estimates of the finance cost of purchasing the considered products. Following financial theory, the finance cost of raising funds to purchase appliances can be interpreted as: (1) the financial cost of any debt incurred to purchase equipment, or (2) the opportunity cost of any equity used to purchase equipment. For the residential products, the purchase of equipment for new homes entails different finance costs for consumers than the purchase of replacement equipment. Thus, DOE used different discount rates for new construction and replacement installations.



### 8.2.4.1 Discount Rate for New Housing Equipment

New-housing equipment is purchased as part of the home, which is almost always financed with a mortgage loan. The Department estimated discount rates for new-housing equipment using the effective real (after-inflation) mortgage rate for homebuyers. This rate corresponds to the interest rate after deduction of mortgage interest for income tax purposes and after adjusting for inflation (using the Fisher formula). a 

### For example, a six-percent nominal mortgage rate has an effective nominal rate of 4.5 percent for a household at the 25-percent marginal tax rate. When adjusted for inflation of two percent, the effective real rate becomes

2.45 percent.

The data source DOE used for mortgage interest rates is the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) in 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2004. 25 

### 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 8.2.69). In cases where the effective interest rate is equal to or below the inflation rate (resulting in a negative real interest rate), DOE set the real effective interest rate to zero.

The average nominal mortgage rate carried by homeowners in these six years was 8.1 percent. Since the mortgage rates carried by households in these years were established over a range of time, DOE believes they are representative of rates that may be in effect in 2012 (the

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

8-57

### assumed effective date of new efficiency standards – see Section 8.2.5). After adjusting for inflation and interest tax deduction, effective real interest rates on mortgages across the six surveys averaged 3.2 percent.



### Table 8.2.69 Data Used to Calculate Real Effective Mortgage Rates

Year Average

Nominal Interest Rate (%) Inflation Rate 26
(%) Marginal Tax Rate applicable to Mortgage

Interest 27 (%)* Average Real

Effective Interest Rate (%)

1989 9.7 4.82 23.7 2.5

1992 9.1 3.01 22.9 3.9

1995 8.2 2.83 23.8 3.4

1998 7.9 1.56 23.7 4.4

2001 7.6 2.85 22.6 3.0

2004 6.2 2.66 19.6 2.3

Average 8.1 3.2

* The values given are the inverse of the marginal tax rate on mortgage interest.



### To account for variation among new households, DOE sampled a rate for each household from a distribution of rates. DOE developed a probability distribution of interest rates based on

the SCF data. Appendix 8D presents the probability distribution of interest rates that DOE used in the LCC and PBP analysis.



### 8.2.4.2 Discount Rate for Residential Replacement Equipment

Households use a variety of methods to finance replacement equipment. In principle, one could estimate the interest rates on the actual financing vehicles used to purchase replacement equipment. The shares of different financing vehicles in total replacement equipment purchases are unknown, however.

DOE’s approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase replacement equipment, including household assets that might be affected indirectly. b 

### DOE did not include debt from primary mortgages and equity of assets considered non-liquid (such as retirement accounts), since these would likely not be affected by replacement equipment purchases. DOE estimated the average shares of the various debt and equity classes in the average U.S. household equity and debt portfolios using SCF data for 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2004. Table 8.2.70 shows the average shares of each considered class. DOE used the mean share of each class across the six years as a basis for estimating the effective financing of replacement equipment.

b 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.

8-58

### Table 8.2.70 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



### DOE estimated interest or return rates associated with each type of equity and debt. The data source for the interest rates for loans, credit cards, and lines of credit is the Federal Reserve

Board’s SCF in 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2004. Table 8.2.71 shows the average nominal rates in each year, and the inflation rates used to calculate real rates. For home equity loans, DOE calculated effective interest rates in a similar manner as for mortgage rates, since interest on such loans is tax deductible. Table 8.2.72 shows the average effective real rates in each year and the mean rate across the years. Since the interest rates for each debt carried by households in these years were established over a range of time, DOE believes they are representative of rates that may be in effect in 2012.



### Table 8.2.71 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.

8-59

### Table 8.2.72 Average Real Effective Interest Rates for Household Debt Classes (percent)

Type 1989

SCF 1992

SCF 1995

SCF 1998

SCF 2001

SCF 2004

SCF Mean (%)

Home equity loans 3.8 4.3 4.4 5.8 3.8 1.9 4.0

Credit cards*

- - 11.0 12.7 11.1 9.1 11.0

Other installment loans 4.9 5.8 7.0 6.6 6.1 5.4 6.0

Other residential loans 4.0 4.7 4.8 6.0 4.6 3.3 4.6

Other line of credit 9.6 9.4 9.3 10.2 7.3 6.0 8.7

* No interest rate data available for credit cards in 1989 or 1992.



### To account for variation among new households, DOE sampled a rate for each household from a distribution of rates for each of the above debt classes. DOE developed a probability

distribution of interest rates for each debt class based on the SCF data. Appendix 8D 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), 28 

### savings bonds, 29 

### and bonds (AAA corporate bonds) 30 

### are from Federal Reserve Board time-series data covering 1977–2007. DOE assumed rates on checking accounts to be zero. Rates on savings and money market accounts are from Cost of Savings Index data covering 1984–2007. 31 

### The rates for stocks are the annual returns on the Standard and Poor’s (S&P) 500 in the 1977–2007 period. 32 

### 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 1977–2007 period. DOE adjusted the nominal rates to real rates using the annual inflation rate in each year. Average nominal and real interest rates for the classes of assets are shown in Table 8.2.73. Since the interest and return rates for each asset type cover a range of time, DOE believes they are representative of rates that may be in effect in 2012.



### Table 8.2.73 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 5.4 2.3

CDs 6.8 2.4

Savings bonds 7.8 3.4

Bonds 8.6 4.1

Stocks 13.2 8.6

Mutual funds 11.4 6.8



### To account for variation among new households, DOE sampled a rate for each household from a distribution of rates for each of the above asset types. DOE developed a normal probability distribution of interest rates for each asset type by using the mean value and standard

8-60

### deviation from the distribution. Appendix 8D presents the probability distribution of interest rates for each asset type that DOE used in the LCC and PBP analysis.

Table 8.2.74 summarizes the mean real effective rates of each type of equity or debt. DOE determined the average share of each debt and asset using SCF data for 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2004. Each year of SCF data provides the debt and asset shares for U.S. households. DOE averaged the debt and asset shares over the six years of survey data to arrive at the shares shown in Table 8.2.74 below. The average rate across all types of household debt and equity, weighted by the shares of each class, is 5.5 percent.



### Table 8.2.74	 Shares and Interest or Return Rates Used for Household Debt and Equity Types

Type Average Share of Household Debt plus Equity (%)* Mean Effective Real Rate (%)**

Home equity loans 3.6 4.0

Credit cards 2.0 11.0

Other installment loans 1.7 6.0

Other residential loans 4.9 4.6

Other line of credit 0.5 8.7

Checking accounts 4.5 0.0

Savings and money market accounts 15.7 2.3

CDs 9.0 2.4

Savings bonds 1.5 3.4

Bonds 10.0 4.1

Stocks 29.1 8.6

Mutual funds 17.5 6.8

Total/Weighted-average discount rate 100 5.5

* Not including primary mortgage or retirement accounts.

** Adjusted for inflation and, for home equity loans, loan interest tax deduction.



### 8.2.4.3 Discount Rates for Commercial Clothes Washers

For commercial clothes washers, DOE derived the discount rate from the cost of capital of publicly traded firms in the sectors that purchase commercial clothes washers. 33 

### These companies typically finance equipment purchases through debt and equity capital. DOE estimated the cost of capital of these firms as the weighted average of the cost of equity financing and the cost of debt financing.

The costs of debt and equity financing are usually obtainable from publicly available data about the following types of companies in the sectors that purchase commercial clothes washers:

• 

### personal services (including laundromats),

8-61• 

### educational services (which buy washers for dormitories),

• 

### hotels, and

• 

### real estate investment trusts (REITs) (i.e., building owners, including owners of apartment complexes).

Damodaran Online is a widely used source of information about company debt and equity financing for most types of firms, and was the source of data for this analysis on educational services, hotels, and REITs. 34 

### Since Damodaran Online does not include data for firms in the personal services sector (SIC 7200), DOE used data from Ibbotson’s Associates for

this sector. 35 

### Ibbotson Associates is a leading authority on asset allocation with expertise in capital market expectations and portfolio implementation.

DOE estimated the cost of equity using the capital asset pricing model (CAPM). 36 

### The CAPM assumes that the cost of equity ( k

e 

### ) 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 price variability in the stock market. The expected return on risk-free assets is defined by the yield on long-term government bonds. The ERP represents the difference between the expected stock market return and the risk-free rate. The cost of equity financing is estimated using the following equation, where the variables are

defined as above:

k

e 

### = R f 

### + 

## ( β × ERP 

## )

where:



### k

e 

### = 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 = R + R

di f 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

.

8-62

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

WACC = k × w + k × w e e d	 d



### where:



### WACC = Weighted average cost of capital,



### w e 

### = Proportion of equity financing, and



### w d 

### = Proportion of debt financing.

The values of the parameters used in the calculations are shown in Table 8.2.75 below.



### Table 8.2.75	 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 the data in Table 8.2.75, Table 8.2.76 shows the WACC for each of the four sectors that purchase commercial washers.



### Table 8.2.76	 Weighted Average Cost of Capital for Sectors that Purchase Commercial

Clothes Washers

Sector Weighted-Average Cost of Capital

Personal Services 6.9%

Educational Services 10.6%

Hotels 8.5%

REIT 8.4%



### The WACC provides an estimate of the nominal cost of capital for firms that purchase commercial clothes washers. The real WACC is calculated by adjusting the cost of capital by the expected rate of inflation using the following formula:

1+ WACC WACC = 1

r 

### 1 + 

### r _



### where:



### WACC

r 

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

8-63

### WACC = Weighted-average cost of capital, and



### r = Inflation rate.

DOE applied this formula to the costs of capital shown in Table 8.2.76 which yielded the discount rates for each of the sectors given in Table 8.2.77. For the calculation of the discount rates, DOE assumed an inflation rate of 2.5 percent (the average of inflation rates over the 2001– 2005 time period). 37 

### Because DOE performed the discount rate calculation on companies or firms that typically purchase commercial clothes washers, a distribution of discount rates were generated within each sector. The standard deviation of the distribution for each sector is provided in Table 8.2.77. To obtain an average discount rate value for the entire commercial clothe washer industry, DOE analyzed additional data from the CEE. The CEE estimates that there are up to 3,000,000 commercial clothes washers in use in the United States, 2,000,000 of these in multi-family housing and 420,000 in laundromats. 23 

### DOE assumed that the remaining 580,000 washers are used in universities and educational institutions. Using these proportions, DOE derived weights of 14 percent, 19.4 percent, and 66.6 percent for personal services, educational services, and REIT, respectively. In the absence of any data regarding hotels, DOE assumed the weight for educational services was applicable to hotels as well. Weighting each sector by its market share, DOE estimated the average discount rate for companies that purchase commercial washers to be 5.7 percent, assuming an inflation rate of 2.5 percent (the average of inflation rates over the 2001–2005 time period). 38



### Table 8.2.77 Discount Rates for Commercial Clothes Washers

Discount Rate



### Sector Average Std Deviation Share

Personal Services 4.3% 1.8% 14.0%

Educational Services 7.9% 5.7% 9.7%

Hotels 5.8% 2.0% 9.7%

REIT 5.7% 2.2% 66.6%

Average 5.7%

- 100%



### To account for variation in the discount rates within each of the sectors, DOE used the average values and standard deviations in the table above to characterize the discount rates for each sector with a normal probability distribution. Because the use of the above standard deviations yield distributions with negative values, DOE truncated the lower end of the normal distribution at a discount rate of zero. DOE also truncated the higher end of the normal distribution in equal proportion to the truncation at the lower end to maintain the average

discount rates shown above in Table 8.2.77.



### 8.2.5 Effective Date of Standard

The effective date is the future date when a new standard becomes operative. Based on DOE’s implementation report for energy conservation standards activities submitted pursuant to Section 141 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a final rule for the home appliances being

8-64

### considered for this standards rulemaking is scheduled for completion in March 2009. 38


### Therefore, the effective date of any new energy efficiency standards for these products will be three years after the final rule is published, which is March 2012. The Department calculated the LCC for all consumers as if they each would purchase a new piece of equipment in the year the

standard takes effect.



### 8.2.6 Equipment Assignment for the Base Case

For purposes of conducting the LCC analysis, DOE analyzed standard levels relative to a baseline efficiency level. However, some consumers already purchase products with efficiencies greater than the baseline levels. Thus, to accurately estimate the percentage of consumers that would be affected by a particular standard level, DOE took into account the distribution of product efficiencies currently in the marketplace. In other words, rather than analyzing the impacts of a particular standard level assuming that all consumers are currently purchasing products at the baseline level, DOE conducted the analysis by taking into account the full breadth of product efficiencies that consumers purchase under the base case (i.e., the case without new energy efficiency standards).

As noted in section 8.1.1, DOE’s approach for conducting the LCC analysis for residential products (i.e., cooking products, dishwashers, and dehumidifiers) relied on developing samples of households that use each of the products. DOE used a Monte Carlo simulation technique to perform the LCC calculations on the households in the sample. Using the current distribution of product efficiencies, DOE assigned each household in the sample aunique product efficiency. Because it performed the LCC calculations on a household-byhousehold basis, DOE based the LCC for a particular standard-level on the efficiency of the product in the given household. For example, if a household was assigned a product efficiency that is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the standard level under consideration, the LCC calculation would reveal that this household is not impacted by an increase in product efficiency that is equal to the standard level.

For commercial clothes washers, DOE was unable to develop a consumer sample. However, it took into account the mix of commercial clothes washer efficiencies by characterizing the current mix of product efficiencies as a probability distribution. In other words, as DOE performed the Monte Carlo simulation, each standard level analyzed was evaluated against the distribution of product efficiencies in the base case.

The product efficiency distributions that DOE used for cooking products, dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and commercial clothes washers in the LCC analysis are discussed in detail

below.

8-65

### 8.2.6.1 Cooking Products – Cooktops

Because DOE currently does not regulate cooktop efficiency with an energy efficiency descriptor, very little is known regarding the distribution of product efficiencies that consumers in the United States currently purchase.

As discussed in Section 3.14.3 of Chapter 3, Market and Technology Assessment, Natural Resources Canada (NRCanada) does publish the efficiency of electric cooking products sold in Canada. Although the range in electric cooktop efficiency is relatively wide, the distribution is based on the number of models being sold rather than the percent of shipments being sold. Thus, because it is unknown how representative NRCanada’s electric cooktop efficiency distribution is of actual shipments sold in the U.S., DOE did not use NRCanada’s data for the LCC analysis. Instead, DOE conducted the LCC analysis for electric cooktops assuming that 100 percent of consumers currently purchase products at the baseline efficiency level.

For gas cooktops, even less is known about model efficiency, since neither NRCanada nor AHAM publish any data on gas cooktop efficiencies. However, data are available that establish the percent of gas cooktops that are shipped with standing pilots. Based on shipments data submitted by AHAM for the years 2003–2005, gas standard (i.e., non-self-cleaning) ranges are the only product type that are still shipped with standing pilots. 39 

### In other words, all shipments of built-in gas cooktops, built-in ovens, and gas self-cleaning ranges use pilotless ignition systems. Table 8.2.73 shows the historical percentage of gas standard range and gas built-in cooktop shipments with pilots. The historical percentages from 1988 to 1996 are based on data from DOE’s supplemental analysis to its 1996 TSD on Cooking Products. 6 

### Data for the years 1997, 2000, and 2004 are based on information from the Appliance Recycling Information Center (ARIC). 40 

### The ARIC states that approximately 690,000, 620,000, and 250,000 gas ranges were shipped with standing pilot ignition systems for the years 1997, 2000, and 2004, respectively. Figure 8.2.4 plots the data in Table 8.2.78 to graphically depict the decreasing percentage in gas cooktops with pilots.

8-66

### Table 8.2.78 Gas Cooktops: Percent of Shipments with Pilots

Year Percent Shipments with Gas Pilots*

Built-In Cooktops Standard Ranges All Cooktops (Built-In and Ranges)

1988 16.5% 48.1% 32.4%

1989 15.4% 44.1% 30.8%

1990 9.7% 38.2% 26.4%

1991 8.1% 36.5% 24.5%

1992 10.4% 37.6% 25.1%

1993 8.3% 34.3% 21.7%

1994 12.6% 39.9% 26.4%

1995 3.3% 38.5% 23.2%

1996 NA 36.4% NA

1997 0.0% 47.0% 25.8%

2000 0.0% 42.8% 20.0%

2004 0.0% 18.2% 6.8%

* Source: 1988-1996: U.S. Department of Energy, Supplemental Analysis for Ranges and Ovens , Supplemental

Chapter 4, 1998. 1997, 2000, 2004, Standard Ranges: Appliance Recycling Information Center, 2005. 2004, Cooktops: AHAM data submittal, 2006.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

YearPercent Shipments with Pilots Gas Standard Ranges

All Gas Cooktops

Gas Built-In Cooktops



### Figure 8.2.4 Gas Cooktops: Percent of Shipments with Pilots

Based on the data presented in Table 8.2.73, DOE conducted the LCC analysis for gas cooktops assuming that only 6.8 percent of consumers currently purchase products at the

8-67

### baseline efficiency level. DOE assumed that the remaining 93.2 percent of consumers purchased gas cooktops with pilotless ignition systems.

Table 8.2.79 presents the market shares of the efficiency levels in the base case for each of the cooktop product classes. The market shares represent the equipment that households would have purchased in the year 2012 in the absence of new standards.



### Table 8.2.79 Cooktops: Base Case Market Shares

Electric Coil Electric Smooth Gas

Standard Market Standard Market Standard Market

Level EF Share Level EF Share Level EF Share

Baseline 0.737 100% Baseline 0.742 100% Baseline 0.156 6.8%

1 0.769 0% 1 0.753 0% 1 0.399 93.2%

2 0.420 0%



### 8.2.6.2 Cooking Products – Ovens

Like cooktops, because DOE does not currently regulate oven efficiency with an energy efficiency descriptor, very little is known regarding the distribution of product efficiencies that consumers currently purchase.

As discussed in Section 3.14.3 of Chapter 3, Market and Technology Assessment, NRCanada does publish the efficiency of electric oven products sold in Canada. Although the range in electric oven efficiency is relatively wide, the distribution is based on the number of models being sold rather than the percent of shipments being sold. Thus, because it is unknown how representative NRCanada’s electric oven efficiency distribution is of actual shipments sold in the U.S., DOE did not use NRCanada’s data for this analysis. Instead, DOE conducted the LCC analysis for electric ovens assuming that 100 percent of consumers currently purchase products at the baseline efficiency level.

As discussed above for gas cooktops, little is known about gas oven model efficiency, since neither NRCanada nor AHAM publish any data on gas oven efficiencies. However, data are available that establish the percent of gas ovens that are shipped with standing pilots. Basedon shipments data that AHAM submitted for the years 2003–2005, gas standard (i.e., non-selfcleaning) ranges are the only product type that are still shipped with standing pilots. 42 

### Table

8.2.80 shows the historical percentage of gas standard range and gas built-in oven shipments with pilots. DOE based the historical percentages from 1988 to 1996 on data from DOE’s supplemental analysis to its 1996 TSD on Cooking Products. 6 

### Data for the years 1997, 2000,

and 2004 are based on information from ARIC. 43 

### Figure 8.2.5 plots the data in Table 8.2.80 to graphically depict the decreasing percentage in gas ovens with pilots.

8-68

### Table 8.2.80 Gas Standard Ovens: Percent of Shipments with Pilots

Year Percent Shipments with Gas Pilots*

Built-In Standard

Ovens Standard Ranges All Standard Ovens (Built-In and Ranges)

1988 1.7% 48.1% 44.6%

1989 3.1% 44.1% 41.6%

1990 5.6% 38.2% 36.5%

1991 0.0% 36.5% 34.8%

1992 0.0% 37.6% 35.9%

1993 0.0% 34.3% 32.9%

1994 0.0% 39.9% 38.4%

1995 0.0% 38.5% 37.0%

1996 NA 36.4% 34.9%

1997 0.0% 47.0% 45.4%

2000 0.0% 42.8% 41.3%

2004 0.0% 18.2% 17.6%

* Source: 1988-1996: U.S. Department of Energy, Supplemental Analysis for Ranges and Ovens , Supplemental

Chapter 4, 1998. 1997, 2000, 2004, Standard Ranges: Appliance Recycling Information Center, 2005. 2004, Ovens: AHAM data submittal, 2006.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

YearPercent Shipments with Pilots Gas Standard Ranges

All Gas Ovens

Gas Built-In Ovens



### Figure 8.2.5 Gas Standard Ovens: Percent of Shipments with Pilots

8-69

### Based on the data presented in Table 8.2.80, DOE conducted the LCC analysis for gas ovens assuming that only 17.6 percent of consumers currently purchase products at the baseline efficiency level. DOE assumed that the remaining 82.4 percent of consumers purchase gas ovens with pilotless ignition systems (i.e., products at efficiency level 1—glo-bar ignition systems or efficiency level 1a—electronic spark ignition systems). Based on information collected during the course of DOE’s contacts with contractors to establish the repair and maintenance costs of gas cooking product ignition systems (see section 8.2.2.4), DOE estimates 90 percent of pilotless ignition systems utilize glo-bar igntion while the remaining ten percent utilize spark ignition

systems.

All gas self-cleaning ovens already have pilotless ignition systems (i.e., the baseline efficiency level uses pilotless ignition). Because virtually nothing is known about the distribution of gas self-cleaning oven product efficiencies, DOE conducted the LCC analysis for gas self-cleaning ovens assuming that 100 percent of consumers currently purchase products at the baseline efficiency level.

Table 8.2.81 presents the market shares of the efficiency levels in the base case for each of the oven product classes. The market shares represent the equipment that households would have purchased in the year 2012 in the absence of new standards.



### Table 8.2.81 Ovens: Base Case Market Shares

Electric Standard Electric Self-Clean Gas Standard Gas Self-Clean

Std

Level EF Market

Share Std

Level EF Market

Share Std

Level EF Market

Share Std

Level EF Market

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 74.2% 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 8.2%

* For gas standard ovens, levels 1 and 1a correspond to designs that are utilized for the same purpose—eliminate

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



### 8.2.6.3 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.

8-70

### As discussed in Section 3.14.3 of Chapter 3, Market and Technology Assessment, AHAM did provide limited data on microwave oven efficiency. Oven efficiencies (i.e., energy factor) 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. During the course of DOE’s investigation of microwave oven standby power consumption, DOE and AHAM tested a combined total of 52 units. Based on these tests, DOE determined the percent at each of the standby power levels identified in the engineering analysis (see Chapter 5). Since no other data were available, DOE used the test data to develop the market shares of standby power consumption in the base case.

Tables 8.2.82 and 8.2.83 present the market shares of the efficiency levels in the base case for microwave ovens. Table 8.2.82 presents the market shares by energy factor while Table

8.2.83 presents the market shares by standby power level. While DOE conducted separate LCC and PBP analyses for the energy factor and standby power, the base case efficiency distributions have been developed to account for the percentage of the market that are represented by efficiency levels in both the ‘energy factor’ and ‘standby power’ groupings. Specifically, the baseline efficiency level represents 46.2 percent of the market and is comprised of an energy factor of 0.557 and standby power consumption of 4.0 watts with a corresponding annual energy consumption of 165.8 kWh/year. Because all efficiency levels under consideration to improve the energy factor have an annual energy use which is greater than all of the efficiency levels under consideration to limit standby power, DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analysis on the energy factor by retaining the base case market share assignments for standby power. For example, in analyzing standard level 1a, DOE specified that 46.2 percent of consumers would purchase microwave ovens with an energy factor of 0.586. For those consumers already purchasing products with a standby power consumption of 2.0 Watts (34.6 percent market share at standard level 1b) and 1.5 Watts (19.2 market share at standard level 2b), DOE estimated that these consumers would be unaffected as they already owned microwave ovens with an energy consumption lower than standard level 1a.



### Table 8.2.82 Microwave Ovens: Base Case Market Shares by Energy Factor Level

Standard Level EF Annual Energy Use (kWh/yr) Market Share

Baseline 0.557 165.8 46.2%

1a 0.586 159.3 0%

2a 0.588 158.8 0%

3a 0.597 157.0 0%

4a 0.602 156.0 0%

8-71

### Table 8.2.83 Microwave Ovens: Base Case Market Shares by Standby Power Level

Standard Level Standby Power (W) Annual Energy Use (kWh/yr) Market Share

Baseline 4.0 165.8 46.2%

1b 2.0 148.4 34.6%

2b 1.5 144.0 19.2%

3b 1.0 139.7 0%

4b 0.02 131.2 0%



### 8.2.6.4 Commercial Clothes Washers

Rather than providing market share data, AHAM provided shipment-weighted

efficiencies of all commercial clothes washers. 41 

### That is, shipment-weighted efficiencies were not provided separately for the top-loading and front-loading product classes. 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). Based on the shipment-weighted efficiency data, DOE was able to derive the market share of each product class. DOE assumed a bi-modal market share distribution consisting of only top-loading equipment meeting current minimum efficiency standards of 1.26 MEF/9.5 WF and top-loading equipment with an efficiency of 2.00 MEF/5.5 WF. Thus, by using a shipment-weighted efficiency of 1.41 MEF, DOE determined that the market share of 1.26 MEF/9.5 WF washers is 79.7 percent and the market share of 2.00 MEF/5.5 WF washers is 20.3 percent. c 

### DOE interprets this result as indicating that 79.7 percent of the market consists of top-loading washers while 20.3 percent is comprised of front-loading

washers.

Knowing the market share of each product class does not provide the distribution of equipment efficiencies within each class. Therefore, DOE relied on anther data source—the California Energy Commission (CEC). As discussed in Section 3.14.3 of Chapter 3, Market and Technology Assessment, the CEC publishes the MEFs and WFs of commercial clothes washers sold in California. Although the range in efficiencies is relatively wide, the distribution is based on the number of available models being sold rather than the percent of shipments being sold. Without any other data available, DOE assumed that the distribution of available models in the CEC data were representative of actual shipments sold in the U.S. Tables 8.2.84 and 8.2.85present the market shares of the efficiency levels in the base case for top-loading and frontloading washers, respectively. The tables represent the equipment that establishments would have purchased in the year 2012 in the absence of new standards.

c DOE did not consider the shipment-weighted average WF of 10.91 in performing the market share calculation.

8-72

### Table 8.2.84 Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers: Base Case Market Shares

Standard Level MEF WF Market Share

Baseline 1.26 9.50 63.6%

1 1.42 9.50 33.3%

2 1.60 8.50 0.0%

3 1.76 8.30 3.0%



### Table 8.2.85 Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers: Base Case Market Shares

Standard Level MEF WF Market Share

Baseline 1.72 8.00 7.4%

1 1.80 7.50 4.4%

2 2.00 5.50 85.3%

3 2.20 5.10 1.5%

4 2.35 4.40 1.5%



### 8.3 PAYBACK PERIOD INPUTS

The payback period is the amount of time it takes the consumer to recover the assumed higher purchase expense of more energy-efficient equipment as a result of lower operating costs. Numerically, the PBP is the ratio of the increase in purchase expense (i.e., from a less efficient design to a more efficient design) to the decrease in annual operating expenditures. This type of calculation is known as a “simple” payback period, because it does not take into account changes in operating expense over time or the time value of money; i.e., the calculation is done at an effective discount rate of zero percent.

The equation for PBP is:

Δ 

### IC PBP = Δ 

### OC

where:



### Δ IC = Difference in the total installed cost between the more efficient standard level and the baseline design, and



### Δ OC = difference in annual operating expenses.

Payback periods are expressed in years. Payback periods greater than the life of the product mean that the increased total installed cost is not recovered in reduced operating

expenses.

The data inputs to PBP are the total installed cost of the equipment to the consumer for each efficiency level and the annual (first year) operating expenditures for each standard level.

8-73

### The inputs to the total installed cost are the equipment price and the installation cost. The inputs to the operating costs are the annual energy (and water) cost, the annual repair cost, and the annual maintenance cost. The PBP uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis as described in section 8.2, except that energy (and water) price trends and discount rates are not required. Since the PBP is a “simple” payback, the required energy price is only for the year in which a new standard is to take effect—in this case, the year 2012. The energy price DOE used in the PBP calculation was the price projected for that year. Discount rates are also not required for the simple PBP calculation.



### 8.4 LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

This section presents the LCC and PBP results for cooking products and commercial clothes washers. With regard to the cooking products, as discussed in section 8.1.1, DOE’s approach for conducting the LCC analysis relied on developing samples of households that use each of the products. DOE also characterized the uncertainty of many of the inputs to the analysis with probability distributions. DOE used a Monte Carlo simulation technique to perform the LCC calculations on the households in the sample. For each set of sample households using the equipment in each product class, DOE calculated the average LCC and LCC savings and the median and average PBP for each of the candidate standard levels. These standard levels are also referred to as candidate standard levels (CSL). For commercial clothes washers, DOE was unable to develop a sample of consumers that use the equipment. However, DOE still used Monte Carlo simulation to perform the LCC and PBP analysis, since it characterized the uncertainty of many of the inputs to the analysis with probability distributions.

DOE calculated LCC savings and PBPs relative to the base case equipment that it assigned to the households (in the case of residential products) and commercial consumers (in the case of commercial clothes washers). As discussed in section 8.2.6, for some households and commercial clothes washer consumers, DOE assigned base case equipment that is more efficient than some of the CSLs. For that reason, the average LCC impacts are not equal to the difference between the LCC of a specific and the LCC of the baseline equipment.

In the subsections below, DOE presents figures showing the distribution of LCCs in the base case for each product class. Also presented below for a specific are figures showing the distribution of LCC impacts and the distribution of PBPs. The figures are presented as frequency charts that show the distribution of LCCs, LCC impacts, and PBPs with their corresponding probability of occurrence. DOE generated the figures for the distributions from a Monte Carlo simulation run based on 10,000 samples.

In the case of cooking products, LCC and PBP calculations were performed 10,000 times on the sample of households established for each residential product. Each LCC and PBP calculation was performed on a single household that was selected from the sample. The selection of a household was based on its weight (i.e., how representative a particular household is of other households in the distribution). Each LCC and PBP calculation also sampled from the

8-74

### probability distributions that DOE developed to characterize many of the inputs to the analysis. For commercial clothes washers, because DOE did not develop a consumer sample, the LCC and PBP calculations were performed 10,000 times by sampling only from the probability distributions that DOE developed to characterize many of the inputs.

Based on the Monte Carlo simulations that DOE performed, for each standard-level, DOE calculated the share of households (in the case of cooking products) and the share of commercial consumers (in the case of commercial clothes washers) with a net LCC benefit, with a net LCC cost, and with no impact. DOE considered a household or commercial user to receive no impact at a given if DOE assigned it base case equipment that is the same as or has higher efficiency than the CSL. To illustrate the range of LCC and PBP impacts among the sample households and commercial clothes washer users, the sections below present figures that provide such information for each product class.



### 8.4.1 Cooking Products – Cooktops

8.4.1.1 Base Case LCC Distributions

Figures 8.4.1, 8.4.2, and 8.4.3 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.

FrequencyChart

Mean = $445

.000 .005 .010 .016 .021

0 51.75 103.5 155.2 207

$270 $413 $556 $699 $843 10,000Trials 9,737Displayed Forecast:E Coil: LCC Base



### Figure 8.4.1 Electric Coil Cooktops: Base Case LCC Distribution

8-75FrequencyChart

Mean = $482

.000 .005 .010 .015 .020

0 50.5 101 151.5 202

$307 $450 $593 $736 $879 10,000Trials 9,735Displayed Forecast:E Smth: LCC Base



### Figure 8.4.2 Electric Smooth Cooktops: Base Case LCC Distribution

FrequencyChart

Mean = $822

.000 .004 .007 .011 .015

0 37 74 111 148

$418 $652 $887 $1,121 $1,355 10,000Trials 9,845Displayed Forecast:Gas:LCCBase



### Figure 8.4.3 Gas Cooktops: Base Case LCC Distribution

8.4.1.2 Standard-Level Distributions of LCC Impacts

Figure 8.4.4 is an example of a frequency chart showing the distribution of LCC differences for the case of CSL 2 for gas cooktops. In the figure, a text box next to a vertical line at that value on the x-axis shows the mean change in LCC (a cost of $11 in the example here). The note, “Certainty is 6.11% from $0 to +Infinity,” means that 6.11 percent of households with gas cooktops will either not be impacted or have LCC savings due to the CSL compared to the base case. DOE can generate a frequency chart like the one shown in Figure 8.4.4 for every CSL within each product class.

8-76FrequencyChart

Certainty is 6.11% from $0 to +Infinity Mean = ($11)

.000 .042 .083 .125 .166

0 415 830 1660

($60) ($11) $38 $87 $135 10,000Trials 9,637Displayed Forecast:GC: LCC SaveLev2



### Figure 8.4.4 Gas Cooktops: Distribution of LCC Impacts for CSL 2

8.4.1.3 Standard-Level PBP Distributions

Figure 8.4.5 is an example of a frequency chart showing the distribution of payback periods for CSL 2 for gas cooktops. The large ‘spike’ at the PBP value of -1.00 indicates the percentage of households with gas cooktops that do not realize any energy cost savings due to the CSL, i.e., households that rarely or never use their cooktop. DOE can generate a frequency chart like the one shown in Figure 8.4.5 for every CSL within each product class.

8-77Forecast:GC: PBPLev2

10,000Trials FrequencyChart 9,808Displayed

.079 791

.059 593.2

.040 395.5

.020 197.7

.000 0

-1.0 249.3 499.5 749.8 1,000.0



### Figure 8.4.5 Gas Cooktops: Distribution of PBPs for CSL 2

8.4.1.4 LCC and PBP Results

Tables 8.4.1, 8.4.2, and 8.4.3 show the LCC and PBP results for cooktops. For example, in the case of gas cooktops, CSL 1 (pilotless ignition with an efficiency of 0.399 EF) shows an average LCC savings of $13. Note that for CSL 1, over 93 percent of the housing units in 2012 are assumed to have already purchased a gas cooktop with pilotless ignition in the base case and thus have zero savings due to the standard. If one compares the LCC of the baseline at 0.156 EF to the standards case at 0.399 EF, then the average LCC savings are $263. But since the base case includes a significant number of households that are not impacted by the standard, the average savings over all of the households is $13. With regard to the PBPs shown below, DOE determined the median and average values by excluding the percentage of households not impacted by the standard. For example, in the case of CSL 1 for gas cooktops, over 93 percent of the households did not factor into the calculation of the median and average PBP.



### Table 8.4.1 Electric Coil Cooktops: LCC and PBP Results

CSL EF Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average

Installed

Price Average Operating

Cost Average

LCC Average Savings Households with

Median Average Net

Cost No Impact Net

Benefit

Baseline 0.737 $272 $173 $445

- - - - - -

1 0.769 $276 $166 $441 $3.9 29.5% 0.0% 70.6% 7.3 18.1

8-78

### Table 8.4.2 Electric Smooth Cooktops: LCC and PBP Results

CSL EF Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average

Installed

Price Average Operating

Cost Average

LCC Average Savings Households with

Median Average Net

Cost No Impact Net

Benefit

Baseline 0.742 $309 $173 $482

- - - - - -

1 0.753 $550 $170 $720 -$238.3 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1,511.8 3,744.6



### Table 8.4.3 Gas Cooktops: LCC and PBP Results

CSL EF Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average

In stalled

Price Average Operating

Cost Average

LCC Average Savings Households with

Median Average Net

Cost No Impact Net

Benefit

Baseline 0.156 $310 $512 $822

- - - - - -

1 0.399 $332 $227 $559 $12.7 0.2% 93.5% 6.3% 4.5 3.5

2 0.420 $361 $222 $583 -$10.9 93.9% 0.0% 6.1% 77.1 271.3



### Figures 8.4.6, 8.4.7, and 8.4.8 show the range of LCC savings for the CSLs for electric coil, electric smooth, and gas cooktops, respectively. For each CSL, 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 CSL.

Figures 8.4.9, 8.4.10, and 8.4.11 show the range of PBPs for electric coil, electric smooth, and gas cooktops, respectively. In these figures, households which are not impacted by an increase in the standard are not included (this situation applies only for CSL 1 for gas cooktops). In addition, there are a few households where the PBP is an undefined value (i.e., where the lifetime operating expenses of a CSL are greater than the baseline product). This situation occurs when the CSL either has no energy costs savings or its increase in repair and maintenance costs is greater than its lifetime energy cost savings. Undefined PBPs occur for 1.1 percent of households at CSL 1 for electric coil cooktops, 1.1 percent of households at CSL 1 for electric smooth cooktops, and 0.8 percent of households at CSL 2 for gas cooktops. The few households where the PBP is undefined are not included in Figures 8.4.9, 8.4.10, and 8.4.11.

8-79-5 0 5 10 15 20

CSL 1

Candidate Standard LevelLife-cycle Cost Savings ($) Median Mean



### Figure 8.4.6 Range of LCC Savings for Electric Coil Cooktops

-250 -245 -240 -235 -230

CSL 1

Candidate Standard LevelLife-cycle Cost Savings ($)

Median Mean



### Figure 8.4.7 Range of LCC Savings for Electric Smooth Cooktops

8-80-50 -25

0 25 50 75 100

CSL 1 CSL 2

Candidate Standard LevelLife-cycle Cost Savings ($)

Median Mean \



### Figure 8.4.8 Range of LCC Savings for Gas Cooktops

0 10 20 30 40 50

CSL 1

Candidate Standard LevelPayback Period (years) Median Mean

\



### Figure 8.4.9 Range of Payback Periods for Electric Coil Cooktops

8-810 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

CSL 1

Candidate Standard LevelPayback Period (years) Median Mean



### Figure 8.4.10	 Range of Payback Periods

for Electric Smooth Cooktops

0 150 300 450 600

CSL 1 CSL 2

Candidate Standard LevelPayback Period (years) Median Mean



### Figure 8.4.11 Range of Payback Periods for Gas Cooktops

8-82

### 8.4.2 Cooking Products – Ovens

8.4.2.1 Base Case LCC Distributions

Figures 8.4.12, 8.4.13, 8.4.14, and 8.4.15 show the frequency charts for the base case LCC for the four oven product classes. The figures below show the mean LCC of the base case distribution as well as the full range of LCCs.

FrequencyChart

Mean = $631

.000 .007 .014 .021 .028

0 70.25 140.5 210.7 281

$429 $605 $780 $956 $1,132 10,000Trials 9,717Displayed Forecast:E Std: LCC Base



### Figure 8.4.12 Electric Standard Ovens: Base Case LCC Distribution

FrequencyChart

Mean = $715

.000 .006 .011 .017 .023

0 56.75 113.5 170.2 227

$495 $660 $825 $989 $1,154 10,000Trials 9,723Displayed Forecast:E SC: LCC Base



### Figure 8.4.13 Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens: Base Case LCC Distribution

8-83FrequencyChart

Mean = $803

.000 .005 .009 .014 .019

0 46.75 93.5 140.2 187

$523 $727 $931 $1,135 $1,339 10,000Trials 9,771Displayed Forecast:GStd:LCC Base



### Figure 8.4.14 Gas Standard Ovens: Base Case LCC Distribution

FrequencyChart

Mean = $1,144

.000 .004 .008 .012 .015

0 38.5 77 115.5 154

$604 $892 $1,179 $1,467 $1,755 10,000Trials 9,848Displayed Forecast:GSC:LCC Base



### Figure 8.4.15 Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens: Base Case LCC Distribution

8.4.2.2 Standard-Level Distributions of LCC Impacts

Figure 8.4.16 is an example of a frequency chart showing the distribution of LCC differences for the case of CSL 6 for gas standard ovens. In the figure, a text box next to a vertical line at that value on the x axis shows the mean change in LCC (a cost of $86 in the example here). The note, “Certainty is 4.89% from $0 to +Infinity,” means that 4.89 percent of households with gas standard ovens will have LCC savings due to the CSL compared to the base

8-84

### case. DOE can generate a frequency chart like the one shown in Figure 8.4.32 for every CSL in each of the four oven product classes.

FrequencyChart

Certainty is 4.89% from $0 to +Infinity Mean = ($86)

.000 .037 .074 .111 .148

0 370.5 741 1482

($362) ($250) ($137) ($24) $89 10,000Trials 9,796Displayed Forecast:Gas Std: LCC SaveLev7



### Figure 8.4.16 Gas Standard Ovens: Distribution of LCC Impacts for CSL 6

8.4.2.3 Standard-Level PBP Distributions

Figure 8.4.17 is an example of a frequency chart showing the distribution of payback periods of CSL 6 for gas standard ovens. DOE can generate a frequency chart like the one shown in Figure 8.4.17 for every CSL in each of the four oven product classes.

8-85Forecast:GasStd: PBPLev7

10,000Trials FrequencyChart 9,234Displayed

.000 .056 .112 .168 .224

0 558.7 2235

-1.0 124.3 249.5 374.8 500.0
Certainty is 92.34%from -Infinity to 500.0 

### Figure 8.4.17 Gas Standard Ovens: Distribution of PBPs for CSL 6



### 8.4.2.4 LCC and PBP Results

Tables 8.4.4, 8.4.5, 8.4.6, and 8.4.7 show the LCC and PBP results for ovens. For example, in the case of gas ovens, CSL 1a (pilotless ignition with an efficiency of 0.0583 EF) shows an average LCC savings of $6. Note that for CSL 1a, 82 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 0.0298 EF to the standards case at 0.0583 EF, then the average LCC savings are $89. But since the base case includes a significant number of households that are not impacted by the standard, the average savings over all of the households is $6. With regard to the PBPs shown below, DOE determined the median and average values by excluding the percentage of households not impacted by the standard. For example, in the case of CSL 1a for gas standard ovens, 82 percent of the households did not factor into the calculation of the median and average

PBP.

8-86

### Table 8.4.4 Electric Standard Ovens: LCC and PBP Results

CSL EF Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average

Installed

Price Average Operating

Cost Average

LCC Average Savings Households with

Median Average Net

Cost No Impact Net

Benefit

Baseline 0.1066 $414 $218 $631

- - - - - -

1 0.1113 $416 $209 $625 $6.0 35.1% 0.0% 64.9% 5.3 205.6

2 0.1163 $421 $201 $622 $9.5 43.9% 0.0% 56.1% 8.0 310.1

3 0.1181 $426 $198 $624 $6.9 51.2% 0.0% 48.9% 12.2 468.7

4 0.1206 $484 $195 $678 -$47.0 94.6% 0.0% 5.5% 57.8 2,226.8

5 0.1209 $489 $194 $683 -$51.6 95.2% 0.0% 4.8% 60.6 2,336.5



### Table 8.4.5 Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens: LCC and PBP Results

CSL EF Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average

Installed

Price Average Operating

Cost Average

LCC Average Savings Households with

Median Average Net

Cost No Impact Net

Benefit

Baseline 0.1099 $485 $230 $715

- - - - - -

1 0.1102 $491 $230 $720 -$89.1 72.5% 0.0% 27.5% 176.9 931.7

2 0.1123 $548 $226 $774 -$142.9 78.9% 0.0% 21.1% 239.8 1,263.2



### Table 8.4.6 Gas Standard Ovens: LCC and PBP Results

CSL EF Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average

Installed

Price Average Operating

Cost Average

LCC Average Savings Households with

Median Average Net

Cost No Impact Net

Benefit

Baseline 0.0298 $430 $373 $803

- - - - - -

1* 0.0536 $460 $483 $943 -$34.7 17.7% 82.3% 0.0% 11.4 9.0

2 0.0566 $465 $475 $940 -$50.0 66.4% 0.0% 33.6% 12.6 83.2

3 0.0572 $467 $473 $940 -$50.3 67.8% 0.0% 32.2% 13.2 95.3

4 0.0593 $499 $470 $969 -$79.4 93.8% 0.0% 6.2% 24.1 639.7

5 0.0596 $501 $470 $971 -$81.1 94.0% 0.0% 6.0% 24.9 527.0

6 0.0600 $507 $469 $975 -$85.5 95.0% 0.0% 5.0% 26.9 472.8

1a* 0.0583 $464 $250 $714 $6.2 6.5% 82.3% 11.2% 9.4 7.3

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

pilot—but the technologies for each design are different. Level 1 is a hot surface ignition device while level 1a is a spark ignition device. Level 1a is presented at the end of the table because levels 2 through 6 are derived from

level 1.

8-87

### Table 8.4.7 Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens: LCC and PBP Results

CSL EF Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average

Installed

Price Average Operating

Cost Average

LCC Average Savings Households with

Median Average Net

Cost No Impact Net

Benefit

Baseline 0.0540 $550 $594 $1,144

- - - - - -

1 0.0625 $566 $577 $1,143 $0.8 58.9% 0.0% 41.1% 11.4 163.6

2 0.0627 $573 $576 $1,149 -$5.1 67.8% 0.0% 32.2% 15.6 184.4

3 0.0632 $574 $576 $1,150 -$6.1 68.8% 0.0% 31.2% 16.4 278.6



### Figures 8.4.18, 8.4.19, 8.4.20, and 8.4.21 show the range of LCC savings for the CSLs for electric standard, electric self-cleaning, gas standard, and gas self-cleaning ovens, respectively. For each CSL, 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 CSL.

Figures 8.4.22, 8.4.23, 8.4.24, and 8.4.25 show the range of PBPs for electric standard, electric self-cleaning, gas standard, and gas self-cleaning ovens, respectively. In these figures, households which are not impacted by an increase in the standard are not included (this situation applies only for CSLs 1 and 1a for gas standard ovens). In addition, there are a few households where the PBP is an undefined value (i.e., where the lifetime operating expenses of a CSL are greater than the baseline product). This situation occurs when the CSL either has no energy costs savings or its increase in repair and maintenance costs is greater than its lifetime energy cost savings. For gas standard ovens, undefined PBPs occur for 8.1 percent of households at CSL 2, 7.9 percent of households at CSL 3, 24.7 percent of households for CSL 4, 23.7 percent of households for CSL 5, and 22.4 percent of households for CSL 6. For gas self-cleaning ovens, undefined PBPs occur for 16.7 percent of households at CSL 1,16.2 percent of households at CSL 2, and 15.4 percent of households for CSL 3. The households where the PBP is undefined are not included in Figures 8.4.24 and 8.4.25.

8-88\

\ -100

-75 -50 -25

0 25 50 75

CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5

Candidate Standard LevelLife-cycle Cost Savings ($)

Median Mean



### Figure 8.4.18 Range of LCC Savings for Electric Standard Ovens

-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500

CSL 1 CSL 2

Candidate Standard LevelLife-cycle Cost Savings ($) Median Mean



### Figure 8.4.19 Range of LCC Savings for Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens

8-89\ -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100

-50

0 50 100

CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5 CSL 6 CSL 1a

Candidate Standard LevelLife-cycle Cost Savings ($)

Median Mean \



### Figure 8.4.20 Range of LCC Savings for Gas Standard Ovens

-50 -25

0 25 50

CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3

Candidate Standard LevelLife-cycle Cost Savings ($)

Median Mean



### Figure 8.4.21 Range of LCC Savings for Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens

8-900 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5

Candidate Standard LevelPayback Period (years) Median Mean

\



### Figure 8.4.22 Range of Payback Periods for Electric Standard Ovens

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

CSL 1 CSL 2

Candidate Standard LevelPayback Period (years) Median Mean

\



### Figure 8.4.23 Range of Payback Periods for Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens

8-91\

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5 CSL 5 CSL 1a

Candidate Standard LevelPayback Period (years) Median Mean



### Figure 8.4.24 Range of Payback Periods for Gas Standard Ovens

0 100 200 300 400 500

CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3

Candidate Standard LevelPayback Period (years) Median Mean

\



### Figure 8.4.25 Range of Payback Periods for Gas Self-Cleaning

Ovens

8-92

### 8.4.3 Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens

8.4.3.1 Base Case LCC Distributions

Figure 8.4.26 shows the frequency chart for the base case LCC for microwave ovens. The figure shows the mean LCC of the base case distribution as well as the full range of LCCs.

FrequencyChart

Mean = $348

.000 .008 .015 .023 .031

0 76.75 153.5 230.2 307

$235 $348 $461 $574 $687 10,000Trials 9,692Displayed Forecast:LCCBase



### Figure 8.4.26 Microwave Ovens: Base Case LCC Distribution

8.4.3.2 Standard-Level Distributions of LCC Impacts

Figure 8.4.27 is an example of a frequency chart showing the distribution of LCC differences for the case of CSL 3b. In the figure, a text box next to a vertical line at that value on the x axis shows the mean change in LCC (a savings of $18 in the example here). Note that 100 percent of households with microwave ovens will have LCC savings due to the CSL compared to the base case. DOE can generate a frequency chart like the one shown in Figure 8.4.27 for every

CSL.

8-93FrequencyChart

Mean = $18

.000 .005 .011 .016 .021

0 53.25 106.5 159.7 213

$8 $15 $22 $29 $36 10,000Trials 9,838Displayed Forecast:LCCSave7



### Figure 8.4.27 Microwave Ovens: Distribution of LCC Impacts for CSL 3b

8.4.3.3 Standard-Level PBP Distributions

Figure 8.4.28 is an example of a frequency chart showing the distribution of payback periods of CSL 3b. DOE can generate a frequency chart like the one shown in Figure 8.4.28 for every CSL.

Forecast:PBPLev7

10,000Trials FrequencyChart 9,852Displayed

.115 1145

.086 858.7

.057 572.5

.029 286.2

.000 0

0.5 1.3 2.0 2.8 3.5



### Figure 8.4.28 Microwave Ovens: Distribution of PBPs for CSL 3b

8-94

### 8.4.3.4 LCC and PBP Results

Tables 8.4.8 and 8.4.9 show the LCC and PBP results for microwave ovens. Table 8.4.8 shows the results based for four energy factor levels while Table 8.4.9 shows the results for four standby power levels. For example, CSL 2b (1.5 W standby power) shows an average LCC savings of $13. Note that for CSL 2b, 19 percent of the housing units in 2012 are assumed to have already purchased a microwave oven with standby power use of 1.5 W in the base case and thus have zero savings due to the standard. If one compares the LCC of the base case at 4 W standby to the standards case at 1.5 W standby, then the average LCC savings are $15. But since the base case includes a significant number of households that are not impacted by the standard, the average savings over all of the households is $13. With regard to the PBPs shown below, DOE determined the median and average values by excluding the percentage of households not impacted by the standard. For example, in the case of CSL 2b, 19 percent of the households did not factor into the calculation of the median and average PBP.



### Table 8.4.8 Microwave Ovens: LCC and PBP Results by Energy Factor Level

CSL EF Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average

Installed

Price Average Operating

Cost Average

LCC Average Savings Households with

Median Average Net

Cost No Impact Net

Benefit

Baseline 0.557 $220 $128 $348

- - - - - -

1a 0.586 $232 $123 $356 -$3.5 42.0% 53.7% 4.3% 29.4 68.7

2a 0.588 $246 $123 $369 -$9.5 45.2% 53.7% 1.1% 57.1 133.3

3a 0.597 $267 $122 $389 -$18.7 45.9% 53.7% 0.4% 81.4 190.1

4a 0.602 $294 $121 $415 -$30.8 46.2% 53.7% 0.1% 114.6 267.8



### Table 8.4.9 Microwave Ovens: LCC and PBP Results by Standby Power Level

CSL Standby

Power

(W) Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average

Installed

Price Average Operating

Cost Average

LCC Average Savings Households with

Median Average Net

Cost No Impact Net

Benefit

Baseline 4.0 $220 $128 $348

- - - - - -
1b 2.0 $220 $115 $335 $5.9 0.0% 53.7% 46.3% 0.29 0.26

2b 1.5 $221 $112 $333 $12.7 0.0% 19.1% 80.9% 0.58 0.82

3b 1.0 $222 $102 $331 $17.8 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 1.46 1.63

4b 0.02 $228 $102 $330 $18.7 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 3.05 3.50



### Figures 8.4.29 and 8.4.30 show the range of LCC savings for the CSLs for microwave ovens. For each CSL, 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 CSL.

8-95

### Figures 8.4.31 and 8.4.32 show the range of PBPs for microwave ovens. In these figures, households which are not impacted by an increase in the standard are not included (this situation applies to all CSLs except CSLs 3b and 4b).

-100

-75 -50 -25

0 25

CSL 1a CSL 2a CSL 3a CSL 4a

Candidate Standard LevelLife-cycle Cost Savings ($)

Median Mean \



### Figure 8.4.29 Range of LCC Savings for Microwave Oven Energy

Factor Levels

8-96\ -10

0 10 20 30 40

CSL 1b CSL 2b CSL 3b CSL 4b

Candidate Standard LevelLife-cycle Cost Savings ($)

Median Mean \



### Figure 8.4.30 Range of LCC Savings for Microwave Ovens Standby

Power Levels

0 200 400 600 800

CLS 1a CSL 2a CSL 3a CSL 4a

Candidate Standard LevelPayback Period (years) Median Mean



### Figure 8.4.31 Range of Payback Periods for Microwave Oven Energy Factor Levels

8-97\

0 2 4 6 8 10

CLS 1b CSL 2b CSL 3b CSL 4b

Candidate Standard LevelPayback Period (years) Median Mean



### Figure 8.4.32	 Range of Payback Periods for Microwave Oven Standby Power Levels

8.4.4 Commercial Clothes Washers

8.4.4.1 Base Case LCC Distributions

Figures 8.4.33 and 8.4.34 show the frequency charts for the base case LCC for both product applications of top-loading commercial clothes washers. Figures 8.4.35 and 8.4.36 show the frequency charts for the base case LCC for both product applications of top-loading commercial clothes washers.The figures below show the mean LCC of the base case distribution as well as the full range of LCCs.

8-98FrequencyChart

Mean = $3,768

.000 .004 .009 .013 .018

0 44.25 88.5 132.7 177

$1,541 $2,975 $4,410 $5,844 $7,278 10,000Trials 9,778Displayed Forecast:TopMF: LCC Lev0



### Figure 8.4.33 Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application: Base Case LCC Distribution

FrequencyChart

Mean = $3,925

.000 .004 .008 .011 .015

0 38.25 76.5 114.7 153

$2,058 $2,991 $3,925 $4,858 $5,791 10,000Trials 9,916Displayed Forecast:TopLaun:LCC Lev0



### Figure 8.4.34 Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat Application: Base Case LCC Distribution

8-99FrequencyChart

Mean = $3,980

.000 .004 .009 .013 .017

0 42.5 85 127.5 170

$2,112 $3,289 $4,465 $5,642 $6,819 10,000Trials 9,783Displayed Forecast:FrontMF:LCCLev0



### Figure 8.4.35 Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application: Base Case LCC Distribution

FrequencyChart

Mean = $4,135

.000 .004 .008 .012 .016

0 39 78 117 156

$2,587 $3,361 $4,135 $4,908 $5,682 10,000Trials 9,911Displayed Forecast:FrontLaun: LCC Lev0



### Figure 8.4.36 Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat Application: Base Case LCC Distribution

8.4.4.2 Standard-Level Distributions of LCC Impacts

Figure 8.4.37 is an example of a frequency chart showing the distribution of LCC differences for the case of CSL 3 for top-loading washers, multi-family product application. In the figure, a text box next to a vertical line at that value on the x-axis shows the mean change in LCC (a savings of $244 in the example here). The note, “Certainty is 90.20% from $0 to

8-100

### +Infinity,” means that 90.20 percent of consumers using clothes washers will have LCC savings or not be impacted due to the CSL compared to the base case. The large ‘spike’ in Figure 8.4.37 represents the percentage of consumers that are not impacted by an increase in the CSL, i.e., consumers that already use commercial clothes washers with efficiencies greater than or equal to the CSL. Refer back to section 8.2.6.4 on the distribution of product efficiencies under the base case. DOE can generate a frequency chart like the one shown in Figure 8.4.37 for every CSL and each product application.

FrequencyChart

Certainty is 90.20%from ($0) to +Infinity Mean = $244

.000 .009 .019 .028 .037

0 93.5 187 280.5 374

($145) $107 $358 $610 $861 10,000Trials 9,778Displayed Forecast:TopMF: LCC SavLev3



### Figure 8.4.37 Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application: Distribution of LCC Impacts for CSL 3

8.4.4.3 Standard-Level PBP Distributions

Figure 8.4.38 is an example of a frequency chart showing the distribution of payback periods of CSL 3 for top-loading washer, multi-family product application. The large ‘spike’ at the PBP value of -2.00 indicates the percentage of consumers using commercial clothes washers that are not impacted by an increase in the CSL, i.e., consumers that already use top-loading commercial clothes washers with efficiencies equal to or greater than then CSL. Refer back to section 8.2.6.4 on the distribution of product efficiencies under the base case. DOE can generate a frequency chart like the one shown in Figure 8.4.38 for every CSL and each product application.

8-101Forecast:TopMF: PBLev3

10,000Trials FrequencyChart 9,627Displayed

.032 316

.024 237

.016 158

.008 79

.000 0

-2.00 1.54 5.08 8.63 12.17



### Figure 8.4.38 Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application:

Distribution of PBPs for CSL 3

8.4.4.4 LCC and PBP Results

Tables 8.4.10 and 8.4.11 show the LCC and PBP results for both product applications of top-loading commercial clothes washers. Tables 8.4.12 and 8.4.13 show the LCC and PBP results for both product applications of front-loading commercial clothes washers. For example, in the case of the front-loading washer, multi-family application, CSL 2 (2.00 MEF/5.50 WF) shows an average LCC savings of $52. Note that for CSL 2, approximately 88 percent of consumers in 2012 are assumed to already be using a commercial clothes washer in the base case at CSL 2 and thus have zero savings due to the standard. If one compares the LCC of the base case at 1.72 MEF/8.00 WF to the standards case at 2.00 MEF/5.50 WF, then the average LCC savings are $491. But since the base case includes a significant number of consumers that are not impacted by the standard, the average savings over all of the consumers is $52. With regard to the PBPs shown below, DOE determined the median and average values by excluding the percentage of households not impacted by the standard. For example, in the case of CSL 2 for front-loading washers, about 88 percent of the consumers did not factor into the calculation of the median and average PBP.

8-102

### Table 8.4.10 Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application: LCC

and PBP Results

CSL MEF/WF Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average

Installed

Price Average Operating

Cost Average

LCC Average Savings Households with

Median Average Net

Cost No Impact Net

Benefit

Baseline 1.26/9.50 $734 $3,034 $3,768

- - - - - -

1 1.42/9.50 $852 $2,934 $3,786 -$11.6 45.0% 35.7% 19.3% 10.7 15.6

2 1.60/8.50 $940 $2,675 $3,615 $154.5 15.4% 2.8% 81.7% 4.5 5.5

3 1.76/8.30 $963 $2,560 $3,524 $243.7 10.0% 2.8% 87.2% 3.8 4.6



### Table 8.4.11 Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat Application: LCC

and PBP Results

CSL MEF/WF Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average

Installed

Price Average Operating

Cost Average

LCC Average Savings Households with

Median Average Net

Cost No Impact Net

Benefit

Baseline 1.26/9.50 $734 $3,191 $3,925

- - - - - -

1 1.42/9.50 $852 $3,103 $3,955 -$19.6 53.4% 35.7% 10.9% 7.4 8.5

2 1.60/8.50 $940 $2,823 $3,763 $166.4 3.6% 2.8% 93.6% 2.8 3.0

3 1.76/8.30 $963 $2,712 $3,675 $252.3 1.1% 2.8% 96.1% 2.4 2.5



### Table 8.4.12 Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application:

LCC and PBP Results

CSL MEF/WF Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average

Installed

Price Average Operating

Cost Average

LCC Average Savings Households with

Median Average Net

Cost No Impact Net

Benefit

Baseline 1.72/8.00 $1,316 $2,664 $3,980

- - - - - -

1 1.80/7.50 $1,316 $2,664 $3,860 $8.7 0.0% 92.7% 7.3% 0.0 0.0

2 2.00/5.50 $1,338 $2,544 $3,489 $51.8 0.0% 88.3% 11.7% 0.4 0.5

3 2.20/5.10 $1,376 $2,151 $3,404 $134.4 2.3% 2.8% 94.9% 2.8 3.1

4 2.35/4.40 $1,417 $2,027 $3,302 $234.1 1.5% 1.5% 97.0% 2.8 3.0

8-103

### Table 8.4.13 Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat Application:

LCC and PBP Results

CSL MEF/WF Life-Cycle Cost Life-Cycle Cost Savings Payback Period (years)

Average

Installed

Price Average Operating

Cost Average

LCC Average Savings Households with

Median Average Net

Cost No Impact Net

Benefit

Baseline 1.72/8.00 $1,316 $1,885 $4,135

- - - - - -

1 1.80/7.50 $1,316 $2,818 $4,005 $9.5 0.0% 92.7% 7.3% 0.0 0.0

2 2.00/5.50 $1,338 $2,688 $3,587 $58.0 0.0% 88.3% 11.7% 0.3 0.3

3 2.20/5.10 $1,376 $2,249 $3,502 $140.1 0.0% 2.8% 97.2% 1.7 1.8

4 2.35/4.40 $1,417 $2,126 $3,390 $250.4 0.0% 1.5% 98.5% 1.6 1.7



### Figures 8.4.39 and 8.4.40 show the range of LCC savings for the CSLs for both product applications of top-loading commercial clothes washers. Figures 8.4.41 and 8.4.42 show the range of LCC savings for the CSLs for both product applications of front-loading commercial clothes washers. For each CSL, 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 CSL.

Figures 8.4.43 and 8.4.44 show the range of PBPs for top-loading commercial clothes washers. Figures 8.4.45 and 8.4.46 show the range of PBPs for front-loading commercial clothes washers. In these figures, households which are not impacted by an increase in the standard are not included (this situation applies to all CSLs except CSL 6).

8-104\

\ -200 0 200 400 600 800

CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3

Candidate Standard LevelLife-cycle Cost Savings ($)

Median Mean



### Figure 8.4.39 Range of LCC Savings for Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family

-100 0 100 200 300 400 500

CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3

Candidate Standard LevelLife-cycle Cost Savings ($)

Median Mean



### Figure 8.4.40 Range of LCC Savings for Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat

8-1050 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4

Candidate Standard LevelLife-cycle Cost Savings ($) Median Mean

\



### Figure 8.4.41 Range of LCC Savings for Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4

Candidate Standard LevelLife-cycle Cost Savings ($) Median Mean

\



### Figure 8.4.42 Range of LCC Savings for Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat

8-1060 10 20 30 40 50

CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3

Candidate Standard LevelPayback Period (years) Median Mean

\



### Figure 8.4.43 Range of Payback Periods for Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family

0 5 10 15 20

CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3

Candidate Standard LevelPayback Period (years) Median Mean

\



### Figure 8.4.44 Range of Payback Periods for Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat

8-107\

\ 0 2 4 6 8 10

CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4

Candidate Standard LevelPayback Period (years) Median Mean



### Figure 8.4.45 Range of Payback Periods for Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family

0 1 2 3 4 5

CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4

Candidate Standard LevelPayback Period (years) Median Mean



### Figure 8.4.46 Range of Payback Periods for Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat

8-108

### 8.5 REBUTTABLE PAYBACK PERIOD

DOE presents rebuttable PBPs to provide the legally established rebuttable presumption that an energy efficiency standard is economically justified if the additional product costs attributed to the standard are less than three times the value of the first-year energy cost savings. (42 U.S.C. §6295 (o)(2)(B)(iii))



### 8.5.1 Metric

The basic equation for rebuttable PBP is the same as that shown in section 8.3, Payback Period Inputs. Unlike the analyses described in sections 8.2 and 8.3, however, the rebuttable PBP is not based on the use of household samples and probability distributions. Rather than distributions, the rebuttable PBP is based on discrete single-point values. For example, while DOE uses a probability distribution of regional energy prices in the distributional payback period analysis, it uses only the national average energy price from the probability distribution to

determine the rebuttable PBP.

Other than the use of single-point values, the most notable difference between the distribution PBP and the rebuttable PBP is the latter’s reliance on the DOE test procedure to determine a product’s annual energy (and water) consumption. For the four sets of products being considered under this standards rulemaking, the following sections identify the differences, if any, between the annual energy (and water) consumptions determined for the distribution PBP

and the rebuttable PBP.



### 8.5.1.1 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. 42


### On average, the annual useful cooking energy output values that DOE used to determine the distribution PBPs are lower than the values in the DOE test procedure. Because the annual energy consumption is determined by dividing the annual useful energy cooking output value by the cooking product’s energy factor, the annual energy consumption values that DOE calculated for the determination of distribution PBP are on average lower than the annual energy consumption values DOE used to determine the rebuttable PBP. d 

### The higher the annual energy consumption value, the greater the potential of energy efficiency improvements to save energy. Thus, the rebuttable PBPs for cooking products will be shorter than the distribution PBPs. Table

8.5.1 shows the difference in the annual useful cooking energy output values that DOE used to

calculate the rebuttable PBP and distribution PBP.

d 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.

8-109

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

for the Determination of Rebuttable PBP and Distribution PBP

Rebuttable PBP* Distribution PBP**

Electric Gas Electric Gas

Product Type kWh/yr MMBtu/yr kWh/yr MMBtu/yr

Cooktops 173.1 527.6 94.8 289.1

Ovens 29.3 88.8 16.1 48.7

Microwave Ovens 79.8 73.0

* Based on DOE test procedure.

** Based on more recent field energy consumption data (see Chapter 6, section 6.2).



### 8.5.1.2 Commercial Clothes Washers

DOE based the annual energy and water consumption values that it used to determine the rebuttable PBP on the number of cycles per year specified in the DOE test procedure. 43 

### The commercial clothes washer test procedure cites the residential clothes washer test procedure to establish efficiency ratings as well as annual energy and water consumption. As a result, the annual number of use cycles, 392 cycles per year, for determining the annual energy and water consumption of commercial clothes washers is representative of residential use, not commercial use. Because residential use is significantly lower than the average usage for commercial applications—1241 cycles per year in multi-family buildings and 2190 cycles per year in laundromats—the average annual energy and water consumption used to determine rebuttable PBP will be significantly less than the consumption associated with actual usage. As a result, the rebuttable PBP will be significantly longer than the distribution PBPs for both multi-family and laundromat applications.



### 8.5.2 Inputs

Inputs for the rebuttable PBP differ from the distribution PBP in that the calculation uses discrete values, rather than distributions, for inputs. Note that for the calculation of distribution PBP, because inputs for the determination of total installed cost were based on single-point values, only the variability and/or uncertainty in the inputs for determining operating cost contributed to variability in the distribution PBPs. The following summarizes the single-point

values that DOE used in the determination of the rebuttable PBP.

• Manufacturing costs, markups, sales taxes, and installation costs were all based on the single-point values used in the distributional LCC and PBP analysis.

• As described in section 8.5.1, annual energy and water consumption is based on the DOE test procedure.

8-110

### • Energy and water prices are based on national average values for the year that new

standards are assumed to take effect.

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

• The effective date of the standard is assumed to be 2012.



### 8.5.3 Results

DOE calculated rebuttable PBPs for each CSL relative to the distribution of product efficiencies assumed for the base case (refer back to section 8.2.6 for more details on the base case efficiency distributions for each product). In other words, DOE did not determine the rebuttable PBP relative to the baseline efficiency level, but relative to the current distribution of product efficiencies DOE determined for the base case (i.e., the case without new standards). The following sections present the results for the sets of products being analyzed for this standards rulemaking.



### 8.5.3.1 Cooking Products – Cooktops

Table 8.5.2 presents the rebuttable PBPs for all three classes of cooktops.



### Table 8.5.2 Cooktops: Rebuttable Payback Periods

Electric Coil Electric Smooth Gas

CSL EF PBP

years CSL EF PBP

years CSL EF PBP

years

Baseline 0.737 - Baseline 0.742 - Baseline 0.156 -

1 0.769 3.2 1 0.753 664 1 0.399 3.2

2 0.420 13.7



### 8.5.3.2 Cooking Products – Ovens

Table 8.5.3 presents the rebuttable PBPs for all four classes of ovens.

8-111

### Table 8.5.3 Ovens: Rebuttable Payback Periods

Electric Standard Electric Self-Clean Gas Standard Gas Self-Clean

CSL EF PBP

years CSL EF PBP

years CSL EF PBP

years CSL EF PBP

years

Baseline 0.1066 - Baseline 0.1099 - Baseline 0.0298 - Baseline 0.0540 -

1 0.1113 1.7 1 0.1102 69.8 1* 0.0536 12.0 1 0.0625 6.5

2 0.1163 2.6 2 0.1123 94.6 2 0.0566 10.3 2 0.0627 8.8

3 0.1181 4.0 3 0.0572 10.2 3 0.0632 9.1

4 0.1206 18.9 4 0.0593 21.6

5 0.1209 19.9 5 0.0596 21.8

6 0.0600 22.7

1a* 0.0583 7.3

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

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



### 8.5.3.3 Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens

Tables 8.5.4 and 8.5.5 present the rebuttable PBPs for microwave ovens. Table 8.5.4 pertains to efficiency levels that increase the energy factor while Table 8.5.5 pertains to efficiency levels that limit standby power consumption.



### Table 8.5.4 Microwave Ovens: Rebuttable Payback Periods for Energy Factor Levels

CSL EF PBP

years

Baseline 0.557

-
1a 0.586 16.4

2a 0.588 31.8

3a 0.597 45.4

4a 0.602 63.9



### Table 8.5.5 Microwave Ovens: Rebuttable Payback Periods for Energy Factor Levels

CSL Standby Power (W) PBP

years

Baseline 4.0

-
1b 2.0 0.2

2b 1.5 0.4

3b 1.0 0.8

4b 0.02 2.1

8-112

### 8.5.3.4 Commercial Clothes Washers

Tables 8.5.6 and 8.5.7 present the rebuttable PBPs for top-loading commercial clothes washers under both product applications; multi-family buildings and laundromats. Tables 8.5.8 and 8.5.9 present the rebuttable PBPs for front-loading commercial clothes washers under both product applications; multi-family buildings and laundromats.



### Table 8.5.6	 Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application: Rebuttable Payback Periods

CSL MEF WF PBP

years

Baseline 1.26 9.50 303

1 1.42 9.50 23.4

2 1.60 8.50 17.4

3 1.76 8.30 17.4



### Table 8.5.7 Top-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat Application: Rebuttable Payback Periods

CSL MEF WF PBP

years

Baseline 1.26 9.50 Infinity

1 1.42 9.50 201

2 1.60 8.50 62

3 1.76 8.30 62



### Table 8.5.8 Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Multi-Family Application: Rebuttable Payback Periods

CSL MEF WF PBP

years

Baseline 1.72 8.00 0

1 1.80 7.50 1.3

2 2.00 5.50 1.3

3 2.20 5.10 7.6

4 2.35 4.40 8.9

8-113

### Table 8.5.9 Front-Loading Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat Application: Rebuttable Payback Periods

CSL MEF WF PBP

years

Baseline 1.72 8.00 0

1 1.80 7.50 1.5

2 2.00 5.50 1.5

3 2.20 5.10 12.6

4 2.35 4.40 15.0

8-114

### REFERENCES

1 

### U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration. 

### Residential Energy Consumption Survey, 2001 Public Use Data Files , 2001. Washington, DC.

< http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/publicuse2001.html >

2 

### U.S. Department of Energy-Office of Codes and Standards. 

### Technical Support Document for Residential Cooking Products, Volume 2: Potential Impact of Alternative Efficiency Levels for Residential Cooking Products , April, 1996. Prepared for the U.S. DOE by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.

< http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/cooking_products_0998_r.html >

3 

### U.S. Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

### Producer Price Indexes, Industry Data, 335221 Household Cooking Appliance Manufacturers, 2006. Washington, DC.

< http://www.bls.gov/ppi/home.htm >

4 

### RS Means. 

### Mechanical Cost Data, 31 st 

### Annual Edition , 2008. Kingston, MA.

5 

### U.S. Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

### Consumer Price Indexes, Industry Data, Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers (Current Series), U.S. All items, Series

Id: CUUR0000SA0 , 2006. Washington, DC. < http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm >

6 

### D.A. Dini, 

### Some History of Residential Wiring Practices , 2006. Underwriters Laboratories,

Inc. < http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files//PDF/Proceedings/Dini_paper_­ _History_Residential_Wiring.pdf >

7 

### RS Means. 

### Mechanical Cost Data, 26 th 

### Annual Edition , 2003. Kingston, MA.

8 

### PAS Publications. 

### PAS Billing Rates Survey: Billing Rates For Electrician — All Regions

. <http://www.pas1.com/pdf/srate.pdf> (Last Accessed: April 25, 2008)

9 

### Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. 

### AHAM 2005 Fact Book , 2005. Washington,

DC.

10 

### U.S. Government Printing Office. 

### Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2007, Table 10.1—Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940-2011, 2006. Washington, DC.

< http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/hist.html >

11 

### U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration. 

### Form EIA-861 for 2006, 2006. Washington, DC. < http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html >

12 

### U.S. Census Bureau. 

### Population estimates, Population, Population change and estimated components of population change: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005 , 2006. Washington, DC.

< http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html >

8-11513 

### U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration. 

### Natural Gas Monthly

, 2006. Washington, DC.

< http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/natural_gas_monthly/ngm.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 Energy-Energy Information Administration. 

### Annual Energy Outlook 2008 with Projections to 2030 , April, 2008. Washington, DC. DOE/EIA-0383(2008).

16 

### U.S. Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

### Consumer Price Indexes, Item: Water and sewerage maintenance, Series Id: CUUR0000SEHG01, U.S. city average (not seasonally adjusted), 2007. Washington, DC. < http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#data >

17 

### Whirlpool Corporation. 

### Comment of Whirlpool Corporation Regarding the ANOPR for Cooking Products and Commercial Clothes Washers , Docket Number EE-206-STD-2007,

RIN 1904-AB49.

18 

### U.S. Department of Energy. 

### Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products: Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps , May 2002. Washington, DC. Chapter 5.

< http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/ac_central_1000_r.html >

19 

### The Life Expectancy/Replacement Picture. 

### Appliance Magazine, September, 2005. Vol. 62,

No. 9.

20 

### California Measurement Advisory Committee. 

### CALMAC Protocols, Appendix F, Effective Useful Live Values for Major Energy Efficiency Measures , September, 2000.

< http://www.calmac.org/events/APX_F.pdf >

21 

### 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 >

22 

### Coin Laundry Association. 

### Industry Overview . Downers Grove, IL.

< http://www.coinlaundry.org/resources/industryoverview.cfm >

23 

### 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 >

8-11624 

### Sullivan, G.P., J. W. Currie, T.C. Hillman, and G.B. Parker. 

### High-Performance Clothes Washer Demonstration at Leisure World Laguna Woods Final Report , December, 2000. Prepared for Southern California Edison Company by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA.

< http://eere.pnl.gov/building-technologies/doc/scefinal%202-22-01.pdf >

25 

### 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 >

26 

### U.S. Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

### Bureau of Labor Statistics Data, Prices & Living Conditions , 2006. Washington, DC. < http://data.bls.gov/ >

27 

### 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).

28 

### The Federal Reserve Board. 

### Federal Reserve Statistical Release, Selected Interest Rates, Historical Data, Instrument: CDs (secondary market), Maturity: 6-month, Frequency: Annual, Description: Average rate on 6-month negotiable certificates of deposit (secondary market), quoted on an investment basis , 2006. Washington, DC.

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

29 

### The Federal Reserve Board. 

### Federal Reserve Statistical Release, Selected Interest Rates, Historical Data, Instrument: State and local bonds, Maturity: 20-year, Frequency: Monthly, Description: Bond buyer go 20-bond municipal bond index , 2006. Washington, DC.

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

30 

### 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 >

31 

### 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).

32 

### Damodaran Online. 

### The Data Page: Historical Returns on Stocks, Bonds, and Bills – United

States , 2006. < http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/ >

33 

### Ibbotsons Associates. 

### Cost of Capital 2001 Yearbook, Data Through March 2001 , 2001. Chicago, IL.

8-11734 

### Damodaran Online. 

### The Data Page: Cost of Capital by Industry Sector , 2006.

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

35 

### Ibbotsons Associates. 

### Statistics for SIC code 72 , 2006. < http://www.ibbotson.com >

36 

### Ibbotsons Associates. 

### SBBI Valuation Edition 2001 Yearbook , 2001. Chicago, IL. pp. 38, 44.

37 

### U.S. Government Printing Office. 

### Economic Report of the President 2006 , 2006. Washington, DC. < http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/index.html >

38 

### U.S. Department of Energy. 

### Implementation Report: Energy Conservation Standards Activities. Submitted Pursuant to Section 141 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 , August 2006. Washington, DC.

< http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/implementation_report_0806.pdf >

39 

### 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.

40 

### Appliance Recycling Information Center. 

### INFOBulletin #8, Applications in Appliances

, March 2005. Washington, DC.

< http://www.aham.org/industry/ht/action/GetDocumentAction/id/5370 >

41 

### Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. 

### AHAM Data on Commercial Clothes Washers for DOE Efficiency Standards Rulemaking , October 12, 2006. Letter to Building Technologies Program, U.S. Department of Energy.

42 

### U.S. Office of the Federal Register. 

### Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 430 ­ Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products, Subpart B, Appendix I: Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Conventional Ranges, Conventional Cooking Tops, Conventional Ovens, and Microwave Ovens , January 1, 2007. Washington,

DC.

43 

### 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.

8-118