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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 8. LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS 

8.1 INTRODUCTION 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of the equipment. 

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

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

operating costs. 

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

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

based on laboratory conditions, specifically DOE test procedure inputs. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.1.1 General Approach for LCC and PBP Analysis 

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

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

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

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

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

incorporating both Monte Carlo simulation and probability distributions by using Microsoft 

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

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

distributions, in the case of residential cooking products, DOE also developed a sample of 

8-1 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 to 

be 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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Determination, details how DOE determined the equipment energy and water 

consumption based on various data sources. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

American Water Works Association (AWWA). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

operation of the equipment. 

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

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

present value. 

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

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

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

final outputs (the LCC and PBP). 

8-4 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Baseline 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
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 10th year; 

Electronic Ignition = $178 in 

10th 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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
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 

8-7 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Input 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 10th year; 

Electronic Ignition = $178 in 

10th year; 

Glo-bar Ignition = $147 every 

5th 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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 = 33.1 103 gallon 

Laundromat = 58.3 103 gallon 

Variability based on usage 6.3.2 

FrontLoading 

Baseline use**: 

Multi-Family = 27.9 103 gallon 

Laundromat = 49.1 103 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 $/103 gallon 

Wastewater = 2.55 $/103 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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.2 LIFE-CYCLE COST INPUTS 

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

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

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

defines LCC by the following equation: 

N 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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 8.2.1 Inputs for Total Installed Cost
 

Baseline Manufacturer Cost 

Standard-Level Manufacturer Cost 

Manufacturer Markup 

Retailer or Distributor Markup 

Sales Tax 

Installation Cost 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IC = EQP + INST BASE BASE BASE 

= COST MFG OVERALL _ BASE BASE × MU + INST 

where: 

ICBASE = Baseline total installed cost, 

EQPBASE = Consumer equipment price for baseline models, 

INSTBASE = Baseline installation cost, 

COSTMFG = Manufacturer cost for baseline models, and 

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

retailer or distributor markup, and sales tax). 

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

equation: 

IC = EQP + INST STD STD STD 

= (EQP + ΔEQP )+ (INST + ΔINST ) BASE STD BASE STD 

= (EQP + INST )+ (ΔEQP + ΔINST ) BASE BASE STD STD 

= IC + (ΔCOST × MU + ΔINST ) BASE MFG OVERALL _ INCR STD 

where:
 

8-12 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ICSTD = Standard-level total installed cost,
 

EQPSTD = Consumer equipment price for standard-level models,
 

INSTSTD = Standard-level installation cost,
 

EQPBASE = Consumer equipment price for baseline models,
 

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

INSTBASE = Baseline installation cost,
 

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

ICBASE = Baseline total installed cost,
 

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

MUOVERALL_INCR = Incremental overall markup (product of manufacturer markup,
 

incremental retailer or distributor markup, and sales tax). 

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

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

dehumidifiers, and commercial clothes washers. 

8.2.1.1 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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 developed 

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

8.2.13 are the associated baseline energy factors and cooking efficiencies. 

8-19 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 8.2.17 

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

tables are the associated baseline energy factors and cooking efficiencies. 

Table 8.2.14 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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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: 

OCBASE = Baseline operating cost, 

ECBASE = Energy expenditure associated with operating the baseline equipment, 

WCBASE = For commercial clothes washers, the water expenditure associated with 

operating the baseline equipment, 

RCBASE = Repair cost associated with component failure for the baseline 

equipment, 

MCBASE = Service cost for maintaining baseline equipment operation, 

AECBASE = Annual energy consumption for baseline equipment, 

PRICEENERGY = Energy price, 

AWCBASE = Annual water consumption for baseline equipment, and 

8-31 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

__ __ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PRICEWATER = Water price. 

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

OC EC + RC STD = STD WC STD + STD + MC STD 

= AEC × PRICE × PRICE + MC STD ENERGY + AWC STD WATER + RC STD STD 

= (AEC ΔAEC )× PRICE + (AWC ΔAWC )× PRICE BASE STD ENERGY BASE STD WATER 

+ (RC + ΔRC )+ (MC + ΔMC ) BASE STD BASE STD 

where: 

OCSTD = Standard-level operating cost,
 

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

WCSTD = For commercial clothes washers, the water expenditure associated with
 

operating standard-level equipment, 

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

equipment, 

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

AECSTD = Annual energy consumption for standard-level equipment, 

PRICEENERGY = Energy price, 

AWCSTD = Annual water consumption for standard-level equipment, 

PRICEWATER = Water price, 

ΔAECSTD = Change in annual energy consumption caused by standard-level 

equipment, 

ΔAWCSTD = Change in annual water consumption caused by standard-level 

equipment, 

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

ΔMCSTD = 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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

Energy Use Standby Power Energy Use* Consumption 

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 

Energy Use Standby Power Energy Use* Consumption 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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*** 

Electric Gas Electric Gas Machine 

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*** 

Electric Gas Electric Gas Machine 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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*** 

Electric Gas Electric Gas Machine 

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*** 

Electric Gas Electric Gas Machine 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3000 utilities). For this reason, DOE calculated regional values at the Census region level 

(Northeast, South, Midwest, and West). The calculation of average per-unit-volume prices 

proceeds in three steps: 

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

by the volume delivered. 

2.	 Calculate a State-level average price by weighting each utility in a given State by the 

number of consumers it serves (either residential or commercial). 

3.	 Calculate a regional average by combining the State-level averages, weighting each by 

the population of that State. This third step helps reduce any bias in the sample that may 

occur due to relative under-sampling of large States. 

The results of the calculation 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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

8-49 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Price 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 - Comm 

Price 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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To estimate the future trend for water and wastewater prices, DOE used data on the 

historic trend in the national water price index (U.S. city average) from 1970 through 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 

Year 

Water 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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 10th year of Cooking Product’s Life 

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

Electronic spark*** $178 Once—In the 10th 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 of 

horizontal-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: 

RCANNUAL = 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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Rate26 

(%) 

Marginal Tax Rate 

applicable to Mortgage 

Interest27 (%)* 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 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 (ke) for a particular company is proportional to the 

systematic risk faced by that company, where high risk is associated with a high cost of equity 

and low risk is associated with a low cost of equity. The systematic risk facing a firm is 

determined by several variables: the risk coefficient of the firm (β), the expected return on riskfree assets (Rf), and the equity risk premium (ERP). The risk coefficient of the firm indicates the 

risk associated with that firm relative to the price variability in the stock market. The expected 

return on risk-free assets is defined by the yield on long-term government bonds. The ERP 

represents the difference between the expected stock market return and the risk-free rate. The 

cost of equity financing is estimated using the following equation, where the variables are 

defined as above: 

ke = Rf + (β× ERP) 

where: 

ke = Cost of equity,
 

Rf = Expected return on risk-free assets,
 

β = Risk coefficient of the firm, and
 

ERP = Equity risk premium.
 

The cost of debt financing (kd) is the interest rate paid on money borrowed by a company. 

The cost of debt is estimated by adding a risk adjustment factor (Ra) to the risk-free rate. This 

risk adjustment factor depends on the variability of stock returns represented by standard 

deviations in stock prices. So for firm i, the cost of debt financing is: 

k di f ai = R + R

where: 

kd = Cost of debt financing for firm, i,
 

Rf = Expected return on risk-free assets, and
 

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

8-62 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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,
 

we = Proportion of equity financing, and
 

wd = 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 Rf ERP Ra we wd 

Personal Services 0.53 5.2% 5.1% 0.8% 67.4% 32.6% 

Educational Services 1.09 5.2% 5.1% 2.0% 97.5% 2.5% 

Hotels 0.82 5.2% 5.1% 2.0% 73.7% 26.3% 

REIT 0.67 5.2% 5.1% 0.5% 92.6% 7.4% 

Based on the procedure described above and the data in Table 8.2.75, 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: 

WACCr =	 Real weighted-average cost of capital, 

8-63 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 a 

unique product efficiency. Because it performed the LCC calculations on a household-byhousehold basis, DOE based the LCC for a particular standard-level on the efficiency of the 

product in the given household. For example, if a household was assigned a product efficiency 

that is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the standard level under consideration, the LCC 

calculation would reveal that this household is not impacted by an increase in product efficiency 

that is equal to the standard level. 

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

However, it took into account the mix of commercial clothes washer efficiencies by 

characterizing the current mix of product efficiencies as a probability distribution. In other 

words, as DOE performed the Monte Carlo simulation, each standard level analyzed was 

evaluated against the distribution of product efficiencies in the base case. 

The product efficiency distributions that DOE used for cooking products, dishwashers, 

dehumidifiers, and commercial clothes washers in the LCC analysis are discussed in detail 

below. 

8-65 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

Year 

Percent 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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. Based 

on shipments data that AHAM submitted for the years 2003–2005, gas standard (i.e., non-selfcleaning) ranges are the only product type that are still shipped with standing pilots.42 Table 

8.2.80 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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

Year 

Percent 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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 8.2.85 

present 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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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: 

ΔIC 

PBP = ΔOC 

where: 

ΔIC = Difference in the total installed cost between the more efficient standard level 

and the baseline design, and 

ΔOC = difference in annual operating expenses. 

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

product 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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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
 

8-75 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FrequencyChart 

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. 

8-76 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FrequencyChart 

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. 

8-77 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forecast: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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

Installed 

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

indicates the median; 50 percent of the households have LCC savings above this value. The 

‘whiskers’ at the bottom and the top of the box indicate the 5th and 95th percentiles. The small 

box shows the average LCC savings for each 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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

-5 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

CSL 1 

Candidate Standard Level 

Life-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 Level 

Life-cycle Cost Savings ($) 

Median Mean 

Figure 8.4.7 Range of LCC Savings for 

Electric Smooth Cooktops 

8-80 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

-50 

-25 

0 

25 

50 

75 

100 

CSL 1 CSL 2 

Candidate Standard Level 

Life-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 Level 

Payback Period (years) 

Median Mean 

\ 

Figure 8.4.9 Range of Payback Periods 

for Electric Coil Cooktops 

8-81 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

0 

1000 

2000 

3000 

4000 

5000 

6000 

7000 

8000 

9000 

10000 

CSL 1 

Candidate Standard Level 

Payback 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 Level 

Payback Period (years) 

Median Mean 

Figure 8.4.11 Range of Payback Periods for
 

Gas Cooktops
 

8-82 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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
 

8-83 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FrequencyChart 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

8-85 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forecast: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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 75th and 25th 

percentiles, respectively. The bar at the middle of the box indicates the median; 50 percent of 

the households have LCC savings above this value. The ‘whiskers’ at the bottom and the top of 

the box indicate the 5th and 95th percentiles. The small box shows the average LCC savings for 

each 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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
\

\

 

 

 

 

 

-100 

-75 

-50 

-25 

0 

25 

50 

75 

CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5 

Candidate Standard Level 

Life-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 Level 

Life-cycle Cost Savings ($) 

Median Mean 

Figure 8.4.19 Range of LCC Savings for 

Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens 

8-89 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
\

 

 

 

 

-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 Level 

Life-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 Level 

Life-cycle Cost Savings ($) 

Median Mean 

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

8-90
 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

0 

500 

1000 

1500 

2000 

2500 

CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 CSL 5 

Candidate Standard Level 

Payback 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 Level 

Payback Period (years) 

Median Mean 

\ 

Figure 8.4.23 Range of Payback Periods for 

Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens 

8-91 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
\

 

 

 

 

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 Level 

Payback 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 Level 

Payback Period (years) 

Median Mean 

\ 

Figure 8.4.25 Range of Payback Periods for Gas Self-Cleaning 

Ovens 

8-92 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

8-93 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FrequencyChart 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 75th and 25th percentiles, 

respectively. The bar at the middle of the box indicates the median; 50 percent of the households 

have LCC savings above this value. The ‘whiskers’ at the bottom and the top of the box indicate 

the 5th and 95th percentiles. The small box shows the average LCC savings for each CSL. 

8-95 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Level 

Life-cycle Cost Savings ($) 

Median Mean 

\ 

Figure 8.4.29 Range of LCC Savings for Microwave Oven Energy 

Factor Levels 

8-96 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
\

 

 

 

 

 

 

-10 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

CSL 1b CSL 2b CSL 3b CSL 4b 

Candidate Standard Level 

Life-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 Level 

Payback Period (years) 

Median Mean 

Figure 8.4.31 Range of Payback Periods for Microwave Oven 

Energy Factor Levels 

8-97 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

CLS 1b CSL 2b CSL 3b CSL 4b 

Candidate Standard Level 

Payback 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. 

8-98 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FrequencyChart 

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 

8-99 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FrequencyChart 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

+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. 

8-101 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forecast: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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 75th and 25th 

percentiles, respectively. The bar at the middle of the box indicates the median; 50 percent of 

the households have LCC savings above this value The ‘whiskers’ at the bottom and the top of 

the box indicate the 5th and 95th percentiles. The small box shows the average LCC savings for 

each 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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
\

\

 

 

 

 

 

 

-200 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 

Candidate Standard Level 

Life-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 Level 

Life-cycle Cost Savings ($) 

Median Mean 

Figure 8.4.40 Range of LCC Savings for Top-Loading Commercial 

Clothes Washers, Laundromat 

8-105 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

600 

700 

CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 

Candidate Standard Level 

Life-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 Level 

Life-cycle Cost Savings ($) 

Median Mean 

\ 

Figure 8.4.42 Range of LCC Savings for Front-Loading 

Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat 

8-106 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 

Candidate Standard Level 

Payback 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 Level 

Payback Period (years) 

Median Mean 

\ 

Figure 8.4.44 Range of Payback Periods for Top-Loading 

Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat 

8-107 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
\

\

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 

Candidate Standard Level 

Payback 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 Level 

Payback Period (years) 

Median Mean 

Figure 8.4.46 Range of Payback Periods for Front-Loading 

Commercial Clothes Washers, Laundromat 

8-108 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.5 REBUTTABLE PAYBACK PERIOD 

DOE presents rebuttable PBPs to provide the legally established rebuttable presumption 

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

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

(42 U.S.C. §6295 (o)(2)(B)(iii)) 

8.5.1 Metric 

The basic equation for rebuttable PBP is the same as that shown in section 8.3, Payback 

Period Inputs. Unlike the analyses described in sections 8.2 and 8.3, however, the rebuttable 

PBP is not based on the use of household samples and probability distributions. Rather than 

distributions, the rebuttable PBP is based on discrete single-point values. For example, while 

DOE uses a probability distribution of regional energy prices in the distributional payback period 

analysis, it uses only the national average energy price from the probability distribution to 

determine the rebuttable PBP. 

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

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

determine a product’s annual energy (and water) consumption. For the four sets of products 

being considered under this standards rulemaking, the following sections identify the differences, 

if any, between the annual energy (and water) consumptions determined for the distribution PBP 

and the rebuttable PBP. 

8.5.1.1 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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES
 

1	 U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration. Residential Energy 

Consumption Survey, 2001 Public Use Data Files, 2001. Washington, DC. 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/publicuse2001.html> 

2	 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, 31st 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, 26th 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> 

8-115 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13	 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> 

8-116 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24	 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. 

8-117 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

34	 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 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 41.2