### CHAPTER 10: NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
10.1 INTRODUCTION

......................................................................................................... 10-1 10.2 BASE CASE AND STANDARDS CASE FORECAST ED EFFICIENCIES

.............. 10-2 10.2.1 Dishwashers

............................................................................................................. ...... 10-3 10.2.2 Dehumidifiers

........................................................................................................... ..... 10-5 10.2.3 Cooking Products – Cooktops and Ovens

..................................................................... 10-7 10.2.4 Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens

....................................................................... 10-11 10.2.5 Commercial Clothes Washers

...................................................................................... 10-11 10.3 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS

............................................................................. 10-12 10.3.1 NES Definition

.......................................................................................................... ... 10-12 10.3.2 NES Inputs

.............................................................................................................. ..... 10-14 10.3.2.1 Annual Energy Consumption per Unit

...................................................... 10-14 10.3.2.2 Shipments

................................................................................................... 10-20 10.3.2.3 Equipment Stock

........................................................................................ 10-20 10.3.2.4 National Annual Energy Consumption

...................................................... 10-20 10.3.2.5 Energy Site-to-Source Conversion Factors

................................................ 10-21 10.4 NET PRESENT VALUE

............................................................................................. 10-22 10.4.1 NPV Definition

.......................................................................................................... .. 10-22 10.4.2 NPV Inputs

.............................................................................................................. ..... 10-23 10.4.2.1 Total Installed Cost per Unit

...................................................................... 10-24 10.4.2.2 Annual Operating Cost Savings per Unit

................................................... 10-28 10.4.2.3 Total Annual Installed Cost Increases

....................................................... 10-29 10.4.2.4 Total Annual Operating Cost Savings

....................................................... 10-29 10.4.2.5 Discount Factors

........................................................................................ 10-30 10.4.2.6 Present Value of Costs

............................................................................... 10-30 10.4.2.7 Present Value of Savings

........................................................................... 10-30 10.5 NES AND NPV RESULTS

......................................................................................... 10-31 10.5.1 NES and NPV Input Summary

.................................................................................... 10-31 10.5.2 NES Results

............................................................................................................. .... 10-32 10.5.2.1 Dishwashers

............................................................................................... 10-32 10.5.2.2 Dehumidifiers

............................................................................................ 10-33 10.5.2.3 Cooking Products – Cooktops and Ovens

................................................. 10-34 10.5.2.4 Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens

..................................................... 10-36 10.5.2.5 Commercial Clothes Washers

.................................................................... 10-36 10.5.3 Annual Costs and Savings

........................................................................................... 10-37 10.5.4 NPV Results

............................................................................................................. .... 10-38 10.5.4.1 Dishwashers

............................................................................................... 10-38 10.5.4.2 Dehumidifiers

............................................................................................ 10-39 10.5.4.3 Cooking Products – Cooktops and Ovens

................................................. 10-40 10.5.4.4 Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens

..................................................... 10-41 10.5.4.5 Commercial Clothes Washers

.................................................................... 10-42

10-i

### LIST OF TABLES
Table 10.2.1 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: Ba se Case and Standards Case Efficiency Distributions in 2012.......................................................................................... 10-4 Table 10.2.2
Table 10.2.3
Table 10.2.4
Table 10.2.5 Dehumidifiers, ≤ 25.00 and 25.01–35.00 pints/day product classes: Base Case and Standards Case Effici ency Distributions in 2012............................... 10-6 Dehumidifiers, 35.01–45.00 and 45.01–54.00 pints/day product classes: Base Case and Standards Case Effi ciency Distributions in 2012 ...................... 10-6 Dehumidifiers, 54.01–74.99 and ≥ 75.00 pints/day product classes: Base Case and Standards Case Effici ency Distributions in 2012............................... 10-6 Electric Coil Cooktops: Base Case and Standards Case Efficiency Distributions in 2012.......................................................................................... 10-7 Table 10.2.6 Electric Smooth Cooktops: Base Case and Standards Case Efficiency Distributions in 2012.......................................................................................... 10-8 Table 10.2.7 Gas Cooktops: Base Case and Standards Case EfficiencyDistributions in 2012.................................................................................................................... 10-8 Table 10.2.8 Electric Standard Ovens: BaseCase and Standards Case Effi ciency Distributions in 2012.......................................................................................... 10-8 Table 10.2.9 Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens: Ba se Case and Standards Case Efficiency Distributions in 2012.......................................................................................... 10-9 Table 10.2.10 Gas Standard Ovens: Base Case and Standards Case Efficiency Distributions in 2012.......................................................................................... 10-9 Table 10.2.11 Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens: BaseCase and Standards Case Efficiency Distributions in 2012.......................................................................................... 10-9 Table 10.2.12 Microwave Ovens: Base Ca se and Standards Case Efficiency Distributions in 2012........................................................................................ 10-11 Table 10.2.13 Commercial Clothes Washers: Base Case and Standards Case Efficiency
Table 10.3.1 Table 10.3.2

Table 10.3.3
Table 10.3.4
Table 10.3.5
Table 10.3.6
Table 10.3.7 Distributions in 2012........................................................................................ 10-12 National Energy Saving Inputs ........................................................................ 10-14 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: Base Case and Standards Case ShipmentWeighted Average Per-Unit Annual Energy and Water Consumption in 2012.................................................................................................................. 10-15 Energy and Water Use Impacts of Hand Washing compared to Dishwashing..................................................................................................... 10-16 Dehumidifiers: Base Case and Standards Case Shipment-Weighted Average Per-Unit Annual Energy Consumption in 2012 ................................ 10-16 Cooktops: Base Case and Standards Case Shipment-Weighted Average Per-Unit Annual Energy Consumption in 2012............................................... 10-17 Ovens: Base Case and Standards Case Shipment-Weighted Average PerUnit Annual Energy Consumption in 2012 ..................................................... 10-17 Microwave Ovens: Base Caseand Standards Case Shipment-Weighted Average Per-Unit Annual Energy Consumption in 2012 ................................ 10-19

10-ii

### Table 10.3.8

Table 10.3.9 Site-to-Source Conversion Factor s f or Electricity and Natural Gas

................ 10-21 Table 10.4.1 Net Present Value Inputs

................................................................................. 10-23 Table 10.4.2 Standard-S ized Dishwashers: Base Case and Standards Case ShipmentWeighted Average Per-Unit Total Installed Costs in 2012

............................. 10-24

Table 10.5.1 NES and NPV Inputs

....................................................................................... 10-32 Table 10.5.2 Dishwashers: Cumulative NES and NWS Results

......................................... 10-33 Table 10.5.3 Dishwashers: Cumulative NE S and NWS Results Discounted at Seven Percent and Three Percent

............................................................................... 10-33 Table 10.5.4 Dehumidifiers: Cumulative NES Results

....................................................... 10-33 Table 10.5.5 Dehumidifiers: Cumulative NES Results Discounted at Seven Percent

........ 10-34 Table 10.5.6 Dehumidifiers: Cumulative NES Results Discounted at Three Percent

......... 10-34 Table 10.5.7 Cooktops: Cumu lative NES Results

............................................................... 10-34 Table 10.5.8 Ovens: Cumulative NES Results

.................................................................... 10-35 Table 10.5.9 Cooktops: Cumulative NES Resu lts Discounted at Seven Percent and Three Percent

................................................................................................... 10-35 Commercial Clothes Washers: Base Case and Standards Case Shipm entWeighted Average Per-Unit Annual Energy and Water Consumption in 2012

.................................................................................................................. 10-19

Table 10.4.3 Dehumidifiers: Base Case and Standards Case Shipment-Weighted Average Per-Unit Total Installed Cost in 2012

................................................ 10-25 Table 10.4.4 Cooktops: Base Case and Standards Case Shipm ent-Weighted Average Per-Unit Total Installed Costs in 2012

............................................................. 10-26 Table 10.4.5 Ovens: Base Case and Standards Case Shipment-Weighted Average PerUnit Total Installed Costs in 2012

................................................................... 10-26 Table 10.4.6 Microwave Ovens: Base Caseand Standards C ase Shipment-Weighted Average Per-Unit Total Installed Costs in 2012

.............................................. 10-28 Table 10.4.7 Commercial Clothes Washers: Base Case and Standards Case Shipm entWeighted Average Per-Unit Total Installed Costs in 2012

............................. 10-28

Table 10.5.10 Ovens: Cumulative NES Results Discounted at Seven Percent and Three Percent

.............................................................................................................. 10-35 Table 10.5.11 Microwave Ovens: Cumulative NES Results

................................................. 10-36 Table 10.5.12 Microwave Ovens: Cumulative NE S Results Discounted at Seven Percent and Three Percent

............................................................................................ 10-36 Table 10.5.13 Commercial Clothes Washers: Cumulative NES and NWS Results

.............. 10-36 Table 10.5.14 Commercial Clothes Washers: Cumulative NES and NWS Results Discounted at Seven Percent and Three Percent

.............................................. 10-37 Table 10.5.15 Dishwashers: Cumulative NP V Results based on Seven-Percent and Three-Percent Discount Rates

.......................................................................... 10-39 Table 10.5.16 Dehumidifiers: Cumulative NPV Re sults based on a Seven-Percent Discount Rate

................................................................................................... 10-40 Table 10.5.17 Dehumidifiers: Cumulative NPV Re sults based on a Three-Percent Discount Rate

................................................................................................... 10-40 Table 10.5.18 Cooktops: Cumulative NPV Resu lts based on Seven-Percent and ThreePercent Discount Rates

.................................................................................... 10-41

10-iii

### Table 10.5.19 Ovens: Cumulative NPV Resu lts based on Seven-Percent and ThreePercent Discount Rates

.................................................................................... 10-41 Table 10.5.20 Microwave Ovens: Cumulative NP V Results based on Seven-Percent and Three-Percent Discount Rates

.......................................................................... 10-42 Table 10.5.21 Commercial Clothes Washers: Cumulative NPV Results based on SevenPercent and Three-Percent Discount Rates

...................................................... 10-42

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 10.2.1 Dishwashers: Hist orical Consum er Retail Prices and Efficiencies

................... 10-5 Figure 10.2.2 Gas Cooking Products: Forecast of Products with Standing P ilots

................ 10-10 Figure 10.3.1 Gas Cooktops and Gas Standard Ovens: Forecasted Base C ase Annual Energy Consumption

....................................................................................... 10-18 Figure 10.4.1 Gas Cooktops and Gas Standard Ovens: Forecasted Base C ase Total Installed Costs

.................................................................................................. 10-27 Figure 10.5.1 Non-Discounted Annual Installe d Cost Increases and Annual Operating Cost Savings for Dishwashers, Standard Level 3

............................................ 10-38

10-iv

### CHAPTER 10. NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

10.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the method for es tim ating national impacts for dishwashers, dehumidifiers, cooking products, and commercial clothes washers, i.e., the quantity and net value to consumers of future national energy savings (NES) (and water savings for dishwashers and commercial clothes washers) from possible candidate standard le vels. Results described here include: (1) national energy (and water) consump tion and savings, (2) monetary value of energy savings to the Nation due to standards, (3) incr eased total installed costs to the Nation due to standards, and (4) the net pres ent value (NPV) of energy savings (difference between value of energy savings and increased total installed cost s). For dishwashers and commercial clothes washers, when NES is discussed throughout this chapter, it includes natio nal water savings in addition to national energy savings.
DOE determined both the NES and NPV for all of the candidate standard levels considered for residential dishwashers, dehumidifiers, and cooking products, and commercial clothes washers. It performed all calculati ons for each of the considered products using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet model, which is accessible on the Internet ( http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/). Each product’s spreadsheet model, referred to as the National Impact Analys is (NIA) Model, combined the calculations for determining the NES and NPV as well as input fromthe relevant Shipments Model. Details and instructions for using each of the NIA Models are provided in Appendix 10A. The important facets of national energy consum ption of the considered p roducts include: (1) shipments of the equipment, (2) customer re sponse to changes in tota l installed cost (i.e., purchase price plus installation costs), operating expense, and household incom e, and (3) voluntary programs promoting higher energy efficiency of equipment. Chapter 9 provides a detailed description of the S hipments Models that DOE used to forecast future purchases of the considered products. Included in the discussion are detailed descriptions of consumers’ sensitivities to total installed cost, operating expense, and income (otherwise known as elasticities), and how DOE captured them within the model. Concerning voluntary programs, although they may increase the share of energy efficient equipm ent prior to the implementation date of any new standards, DOE was not able to obtain information that quantified how such programs affect equipment efficiencies on a national basis. Consequently, DOE did not explicitly incorporate th e impact of market-based initiatives into the shipments forecasts detailed in Chapter 9.

10-1

### 10.2 BASE CASE AND STANDARDS CASE FORECAST ED EFFICIENCIES A key component of DOE’s estimates of NES and NPV is the energy efficiencies forecasted o ver time for the base case (without ne w standards) and each of the standards cases (with new standards). The forecasted efficien cies represent the annual shipment-weighted energy efficiency of the products under consideration over the forecast period (i.e., from the assumed effective date of a new standard to 30 years after the standard becomes effective ). Because key inputs to the calculation of th e NES and NPV are dependent on the estimated efficiencies, these efficiencies ar e of great importance to the analys is. In the case of the NES, the per-unit annual energy (and water) consumption is a direct function of product efficiency. Chapter 6, Energy and Water Use Determination, de scribes how the per-unit energy (and water) consumption vary as a function of efficiency for each of the considered products. With regard to the NPV, two inputs, the per-unit total installed cost and the per-unit annual operating cost, are dependent on efficiency. The per-unit total installed cost is a dire ct function of efficiency while the per-unit annual operating cost, because it is a function of the per-unit annual (and water) consumption, is indirectly dependent on product efficiency. Section 8.2.1 of Chapter 8, LifeCycle Cost (LCC) and Payback Period (PBP) Analysis, describes how pe r-unit total installed costs vary as a function of efficiency for each of the considered products. The above NES and NPV inputs, as well as all other inputs to the calculation of the NES and NPV, are also discussed below in sections 10.3.1 and 10.4.1. For each of the products considered, DOEbased the develop ment of the product efficiencies in the base case on the assignment of equipment efficiencies in the base case for the year 2005. In other words, DOE determined the di stribution of product effi ciencies currently in the marketplace to develop a shipment-weighted e fficiency for the year 2005. For a complete discussion of the assignment of efficiencies in the base case for each of the considered products, refer to section 8.2.6 of Chapter 8, LCC and PBP Analysis. Using the shipment-weight efficiency for the year 2005 as a starting point, DOE developed b ase case forecasted efficiencies base d on assumptions regarding future efficiency growth. For the period spanning 2005–2012 (2012 be ing the assumed effective date of a new standard), DOE assumed that ther e would be no growth in the ship ment-weighted efficiency (i.e., no change in the distribution of product efficien cies). With the exception of dishwashers, because there are no historical data to indicatehow product efficiencies have changed over time, DOE estimated that forecasted efficiencies remain ed frozen at the 2012 efficiency level until the end of the forecast period (30 years after the assumed effective date—the year 2042). Although DOE recognizes the possibility th at product efficiencies may change over time, DOE does not want to speculate as to how these product efficiencies may change without historical information. As described below in section 10.2.3, DOE did forecast the market share of gas standard ranges equipped with standing pilots to estimate the impact of eliminating standing pilots for gas cooktops and gas standard ovens. In the case of dishwashers, historical data do exist showing that shipm ent-weighted efficiencies have grown at an average annual rate of approximately two percent since 1980. However, historical data also show that the consumer dishwasher retail price has dropped

10-2

### considerably (almost 50 percent) over the same time period. As just noted above, because the LCC and PBP analysis shows that th e per-unit installed cost (or consumer retail price) is tied to efficiency, using an efficiency growth of two percent per year would re sult in ever-increasing dishwasher retail prices over time. Since forecas ting an increasing retail price is counter to the historical data, DOE chose to assume that dishwasher efficiencies remain frozen at the 2012 efficiency level until the end of the forecast peri od. A complete discussion of the historical dishwasher efficiency and retail price data is presented below in section 10.2.1.
For its determination of standards-case forecas ted efficiencies, DOE assumed a “roll-up” scenario to establish the shipment-weighted effici ency for the year that standards are assumed to become effective (i.e., 2012). DOE assumed that product efficiencies in th e base case that did not meet the standard level under consideration woul d “roll up” to meet the new standard level. Also, DOE assumed that all product efficiencies in the base case that were above the standard level under consideration would not be affected. Using the sh ipment-weighted efficiency in the year 2012 as a starting point, DOE developed st andards-case forecasted efficiencies based on assumptions regarding future efficiency growth. For all of the considered products, DOE made the same assumptions regarding standards-case e fficiency growth rates as for the base case— namely, that forecasted efficiencies remain frozen at the 2012 efficiency level until the end of the forecast period. By maintaining the same growth rate for forecasted efficiencies in the standards case as in the base case (i.e., zero growth), DOE retained a constant efficiency difference or gap between the two cases over the length of the forecast period. Although frozen trends may not reflect what happens to base case and standards case product e fficiencies in the future, DOE believes that maintaining a frozen efficiency di fference between the base case and standards case provides a reasonable estimate of the impact that standards have on product efficiency. With the exception of cooktops and ovens, the NIA spreadsheet models for each of the considered products also incorpor ated user options of one percent and two percent for the growth rates of th e base-case an d standards-case forecasted efficiencies. The following sections detail the base-case and standards-case forecasted effici encies that DOE developed for each of the four sets of products.

10.2.1 Dishwashers DOE first presented the market share efficiencies in the b ase case for standard-sized dishwashers in section 8.2.6.1 of Chapter 8, LCC and PBP Analysis. For the year 2012, Table 10.2.1 shows the base case and standards case produc t efficiency distributions by energy factor (EF) that DOE used in its national impact analy sis for standard-sized dishwashers. Also included in the table below is th e shipment-weighted efficiency (SWEF) associated with the base case and each standards case.

10-3

### Table 10.2.1 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: Base Ca se and Standards Case Efficiency Distributions in 2012

Level EF Market Shares Base Case Standards Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Baseline 0.46 5.0%

- - - - - - - 1 0.58 53.0% 58.0%

- - - - - - 2 0.62 31.0% 31.0% 89.0%

- - - - - 3 0.65 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 97.0%

- - - - 4 0.68 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 99.5%

- - - 5 0.72 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 99.7%

- - 6 0.80 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 99.9%

- 7 1.11 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 100% SWEF (EF) 0.596 0.602 0.625 0.652 0.681 0.721 0.800 1.110 

### To determine how to forecast dishwasher efficiencies, DOE reviewed historical efficiency and consumer retail price data. Th e Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) provides both historic al efficiency and retail price data in their Fact Books . The AHAM Fact Booksprovide retail prices fo r the years 1980, 1985, 1986, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1998, and 2002. The retail prices are presented in the Fact Booksin nominal dollars. 1 

### DOE obtained the shipment-weighted efficiency data shown in Figure 10.2.1 from the 2005 AHAM Fact Book

. 2 

### Figure 10.2.1 below plots the historical efficiency and retail price data for dishwashers. As shown in the figure, DOE convertedthe prices to real dollars and scaled the values based on the price in 1980. The historical e fficiency data show that shipme nt-weighted efficiencies have grown at an average annual rate of approximately two percent since 1980. However, the historical retail price data show that the consumer dishwasher retail price has dropped considerably (almost 50 percent) over the same time period. Because the LCC and PBP analysis shows that the per-unit installed co st (or consumer retail price) is tied to efficiency, using an efficiency growth of two percent per year would result in ever-increasing dishwasher retail prices over time. Since forecasting an increasing retail price contradicts the historical data, DOE chose to adopt an assumption that dishwasher efficiencies remain fro zen at the 2012 efficiency level until the end of the forecast period, i.e., 2042. Ba sed on the assumption of a zero-percent growth rate in the forecasted efficiencies for the basecase and all standards cases, DOE maintained the SWEFs shown above in Table 10.2.1 throughout th e entire forecast period, i.e., from 2012 to 2042.

10-4( ) 1EF i EF

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 YearRelative Real Consumer Retail Price1980 = 1

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Relat ve Price



### Figure 10.2.1 Dishwashers: Historical Consumer Retail Prices and Efficiencies

10.2.2 Dehumidifiers DOE first presented the market share efficiencies in the b ase case for three of the six classes of dehumidifiers in se ction 8.2.6.2 of Chapter 8, LCC and PBP Analysis. For the year 2012, Tables 10.2.2, 10.2.3, and 10.2.4 show the base case and standards case product efficiency distributions that DOE used in its national imp act analysis for dehumidifiers. As noted in Chapter 8, AHAM provided market share efficiencydistributions for only two of the six product classes: 35.01–45.00 pints/day and 54.10–74.99 pints/day. Therefore, DOE applied the market share efficiency distributions of the 35.01–45.00 pints/day class to product classes up through 54.00 pints/day, and applied the market share e fficiency distribution of the 54.10–74.99 pints/day class to the ≥ 75.00 pints/day class. Also included in th e tables below are the SWEFs associated with the base case and each standards case.

10-5

### Table 10.2.2 Dehumidifiers, ≤ 25.00 and 25.01–35.00 pints/day product classes: Base Case and Standards Case Effici ency Distributions in 2012 Level Product Class (pints/day) Market Shares ≤25.00 25.01-35.00 Base Standards Case

EF EF Case 1 2 3 4 5 Baseline 1.00 1.20 27%

- - - - - 1 1.10 1.25 35% 62%

- - - - 2 1.20 1.30 0% 0% 62%

- - - 3 1.25 1.35 0% 0% 0% 62%

- - 4 1.30 1.40 38% 38% 38% 38% 100%

- 5 1.38 1.45 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% SWEF for ≤ 25.0 0 (EF) 1.15 1.18 1.24 1.27 1.30 1.38 SWEF for 25.01-35.00 (EF) 1.29 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.45


### Table 10.2.3 Dehumidifiers, 35.01–45.00 and 45.01–54.00 pints/ day product classes: Base Case and Standards Case Effi ciency Distributions in 2012 Product Class (pints/day) Market Shares 35.01-45.00 45.01-54.00 Standards Case Level EF EF Base Case 1 2 3 4 5 Baseline 1.30 1.40 27%

- - - - - 1 1.35 1.45 35% 62%

- - - - 2 1.40 1.50 0% 0% 62%

- - - 3 1.45 1.55 0% 0% 0% 62%

- - 4 1.50 1.60 38% 38% 38% 38% 100%

- 5 1.74 2.02 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% SWEF for 35.01-45.00 (EF) 1.39 1.41 1.44 1.47 1.50 1.74 SWEF for 45.01-54.00 (EF) 1.49 1.51 1.54 1.57 1.60 2.02


### Table 10.2.4 Dehumidifiers, 54.01–74.99 and ≥ 75.00 pints/day product classes: Base Case and Standards Case Effici ency Distributions in 2012

Level Product Class (pints/day) Market Shares 54.01-74.99 ≥ 75.00 Base Case Standards Case EF EF 1 2 3 4 5 Baseline 1.50 2.25 31%

- - - - - 1 1.55 2.38 0% 31%

- - - - 2 1.60 2.50 57% 57% 88%

- - - 3 1.65 2.55 12% 12% 12% 100%

- - 4 1.70 2.60 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

- 5 1.80 2.75 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% SWEF for 54.01-74.99 (EF) 1.58 1.59 1.61 1.65 1.70 1.80 SWEF for ≥ 75.0 0 (EF) 2.43 2.47 2.51 2.55 2.60 2.75

10-6

### Based on the assumption of a zero-percent growthrate in the forecasted efficiencies for the base case and all standard s cases, DOE maintained the SWEFs shown above in Tables 10.2.2, 10.2.3, and 10.2.4 throughout the entire forecast period, i.e., from 2012 to 2042.

10.2.3 Cooking Products – Cooktops and Ovens DOE first presented the market share of effi ciencies in the base case for cooktops and ovens in sections 8.2.6.3 and 8.2.6.4, respectively, of Chapter 8, LCC and PBP Analysis. As noted in Chapter 8, DOE did not have the data to develop efficiency distributions for any of the electric cooktop and oven product classes or th e gas self-cleaning oven product class. Thus, DOE assumed that 100 percent of the current market was at the baseline level for these product classes. Because DOE assumed a roll-up scenario for forecasting product efficiency distributions once a standard became effective, th e effect of any standard level was to move 100 percent of the market to that standard level. In the case of gas cooktops and gas standard ovens, data were available to allow DOE to identify the percentage of the market in the ba se case that was alrea dy equipped with pilotless ignition. As described in Chapter 8, DOE allocated that percentage of the market that already had pilotless ignition to standard level 1. Ther efore, knowing the market share of gas cooktops and standard ovens already equipped with pilo tless ignition allowed DOE to accurately estimate the national impacts of requiring a standard that no longer allowed standing pilots. For the year 2012, Tables 10.2.5, 10.2.6, and 10.2.7 show the base case and standards case produ ct efficiency distributions that DOE used in its national impact analysis for electric coil, electric smooth, and gas cooktops. Also included in the tables below are the SWEFs associated with the base case and each standards case.
Table 10.2.5 Electric Coil Cooktops: Base Caseand Standards Case Efficiency Distributions in 2012

Level EF Market Shares

Base Case Standard Case Level 1 Baseline 0.737 100%

- 1 0.769 0% 100% SWEF (EF) 0.737 0.769

10-7

### Table 10.2.6 Electric Smooth Cooktops: Base Caseand Standards Case Efficiency Distributions in 2012

Level EF Market Shares

Base Case Standard Case Level 1 Baseline 0.737 100%

- 1 0.769 0% 100% SWEF (EF) 0.742 0.753 

### Table 10.2.7 Gas Cooktops: Base Case and Standard s Case Efficiency Distributions in 2012

Level EF Market Shares

Base Case Standard Case 1 2 Baseline 0.156 6.8%

- - 1 0.399 93.2% 100%

- 2 0.420 0% 0% 100% SWEF (EF) 0.379 0.399 0.420 

### Tables 10.2.8, 10.2.9, 10.2.10, and 10.2.11 show the ba se case and standards case product efficiency distributions in 2012 that DOE used fo r electric standard, electric self-cleaning, gas standard, and gas self-cleaning ovens. Also included in each of the tables is the SWEF associated with the base case and each standards case.
Table 10.2.8 Electric Sta ndard Ovens: Base Case and Standards Case Efficiency Distributions in 2012

Level EF Market Shares

Base Case Standards Case 1 2 3 4 5 Baseline 0.1066 100%

- - - - - 1 0.1113 0% 100%

- - - - 2 0.1163 0% 0% 100%

- - - 3 0.1181 0% 0% 0% 100%

- - 4 0.1206 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

- 5 0.1209 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% SWEF (EF) 0.1066 0.1113 0.1163 0.1181 0.1206 0.1209

10-8

### Table 10.2.9 Electric Self-Cleaning Ovens: Base Case and Standards Case Efficiency Distributions in 2012

Level EF Market Shares
Base Case Standards Case 1 2 Baseline 0.1099 100%

- - 1 0.1102 0% 100%

- 2 0.1123 0% 0% 100% SWEF (EF) 0.1099 0.1102 0.1123


### Table 10.2.10 Gas Standard Ovens: Base Case and Standards Case Efficiency Distributions in 2012

Level EF Market Shares Base Case Standards Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Baseline 0.0298 17.6%

- - - - - - - 1* 0.0536 82.4% 100%

- - - - - - 2 0.0566 0% 0% 100%

- - - - - 3 0.0572 0% 0% 0% 100%

- - - - 4 0.0593 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

- - - 5 0.0596 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

- - 6 0.0600 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%

- 1a* 0.0583 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% SWEF (EF) 0.0494 0.0536 0.0566 0.0572 0.0593 0.0596 0.0600 0.0583

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

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


### Table 10.2.11 Gas Self-Cleaning Ovens: Base Case and Standards Case Efficiency Distributions in 2012

Level EF Market Shares
Base Case Standards Case 1 2 3 Baseline 0.0540 100%

- - - 1 0.0625 0% 100%

- - 2 0.0627 0% 0% 100%

- 3 0.0632 0% 0% 0% 100% SWEF (EF) 0.0540 0.0625 0.0627 0.0632 

### For gas cooktops and gas standard ovens, DOEdeveloped base case efficiency trends to estimate the future market share of products with pilotless ignition. As described in Chapter 8, only gas standard ranges (which are a combinati on of a gas cooktop and a gas standard oven) are

10-9

### still shipped with standing pilots. Based on the data first presented in sections 8.2.6.3 and 8.2.6.4 of Chapter 8, Figure 10.2.2 shows the historicalmarket share of gas cooking products with standing pilots. The figure belo w also provides trend lines to the historical data. Note that the market share of gas built-in ovens with standing pilots zeroed out in 1991 while the market share of gas built-in cooktops with standing pilots is zero out by the year 2000. That leaves standard ranges as the only gas cooking products shipped withstanding pilots. By the end of the forecast period in the year 2042, DOE estimated that less thanfive percent of gas st andard ranges in the market would still be shipped w ith standing pilots. DOE used the trend line for gas standard ranges presented below in Figure 10.2.2 to forecast the percentage of gas range shipments with standing pilots. Refer back to section 9.3.3.1of Ch apter 9, Shipments Analysis, for a description of how DOE allocated the gas st andard range shipments into ga s cooktop and gas standard oven product classes.

il

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0%Percent with Pilot Gas Standard Range Gas Built-In Cooktop Gas Bu t-In Oven

1985 1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 Year 

### Figure 10.2.2 Gas Cooking Products: Forecast of Products wi th Standing Pilots With regard to the base case and standards case forecasted efficiencies, as noted previously, DOE assumed th at equipm ent efficiencies remain frozen at the levels in the year 2012 for all standard levels and fo r all product classes, with th e exception of gas cooktops and gas standard ovens. For gas cooktops and gas standard ovens, as noted above, DOE used the forecasted trend in gas ranges with standing pilots in the base case (as shown in Figure 10.2.2) to estimate the impacts from moving to a standard le vel (i.e., standard level 1) that eliminated standing pilots. For all gas cooktop and gas standard oven standards levels, DOE assumed that equipment efficiencies remain fro zen at the levels in the year 2012.

10-10

### 10.2.4 Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens DOE first presented the market share of efficiencies in the b ase case for microwave ovens in section 8.2.6.5 of Chapter 8, LCC and PBP An alysis. Table 10.2.12 shows the base case and standards case product efficiency distributions in the year 2012 that DOE used in its national impact analysis for microwave ovens. Also included in the table below is the SWEF associated with the base case and each standards case.
Table 10.2.12 Microw ave Ovens: Base Case and Standards Case Efficiency Distributions in 2012

Level EF Market Shares

Base Case Standards Case 1 2 3 4 Baseline 0.557 100%

- - - - 1 0.586 0% 100%

- - - 2 0.588 0% 0% 100% - - 3 0.597 0% 0% 0% 100% - 4 0.602 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% SWEF (EF) 0.557 0.586 0.588 0.597 0.602 

### Based on the assumption of a zero-percent growthrate in the forecasted efficiencies for the base case and all standard s cases, DOE maintained the SWEFs shown above in Table 10.2.12 throughout the entire forecast period, i.e., from 2012 to 2042.

10.2.5 Commercial Clothes Washers DOE first presented the market share of efficiencies in the b ase case for commercial clothes washers in section 8.2.6.6 of Chapter 8, LCC and PBP Analysis . Table 10.2.13 shows the base case and standards case product effici ency distributions in the year 2012, corresponding to the modified energy factor (MEF) and water f actor (WF) of clothes washing equipment that DOE used in its national impact analysis for co mmercial clothes washers. Also included in the table below is the SWEF associated withthe base case and each standards case.

10-11

### Table 10.2.13 Commercial Clothes Washers: Base Case and Standards Case Efficiency Distributions in 2012

Level Efficiencies Base Case Standards Case MEF WF 1 2 3 4 5 6 Baseline 1.26 9.50 79.7%

- - - - - - 1 1.42 9.50 0% 79.7%

- - - - - 2 1.60 8.50 0% 0% 79.7%

- - - - 3 1.72 8.00 0% 0% 0% 79.7%

- - - 4 1.80 7.50 0% 0% 0% 0% 79.7%

- - 5 2.00 5.50 20.3% 20.3% 20.3% 20.3% 20.3% 100%

- 6 2.20 5.10 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% SWEF (MEF) 1.41 1.54 1.68 1.78 1.84 2.00 2.20

SWEF (WF) 8.69 8.69 7.89 7.49 7.09 5.50 5.10 

### Based on the assumption of a zero-percent growthrate in the forecasted efficiencies for the base case and all standard s cases, DOE maintained the SWEFs shown above in Table 10.2.13 throughout the entire forecast period, i.e., from 2012 to 2042.

10.3 NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS

10.3.1 NES Definition As shown in the following equation, DOE cal culates annual national energy savings as the difference between two projections: a base case (without new standards) and a standards case (with new standards). Positi ve values of NES correspond to energy savings (i.e., national energy consumption with standards is less than national energy consumption in the base case).

_ 

### NES y 

### = AEC BASE 

### AEC STD 

### Cumulative energy savings are the sum over the forecast period, extending from the assumed effective date, i.e., 2012, to 30 years afte r the effective date, i. e., 2042, of the annual national energy savings. This calculation is represented by the following equation:



### NES cum 

### = 

# ∑ NES y 

### DOE calculated the national annual energy consumption by multiplying the number or stock of the given product (by vintage) by its unit energy consum ption (also by vintage). The calculation of the national annual energy consumption is represente d by the following equation:

10-12

### AEC = 

# ∑ STOCK V 

### × UEC V 

### For the above expressions, DOE defined the various quantities as follows:
AEC 

### = Annual national energy consumption each year in quadrillion British thermal units (Btus) – or quads, summed over vintages of the product stock, STOCK V

### , NES 

### = Annual national energy savings (quads), STOCK V



### = Stock of product (millions of units) of vintage V 

### surviving in the year for which DOE calculated annual energy co nsumption (vintages range from five to approximately 28 years, depending on the retirement function of the product), UEC V 

### = Annual energy consumption per product in either kilowatt-hours (kWh) or million Btus (MMBtu) (electricity and gas consumption are converted from site energy to source energy (q uads) by applying a time-dependent conversion factor), V



### = Year in which the product was purchased as a new unit, and y

### = Year in the forecast (i.e., 2012 to 2042). The stock of equipment is dependent on annual sh ipments and the lifetime of the equipment. As described in Chapter 9, DOE conducted shipments projections under the base case and standards cases. DOE determined that the shipments projections under the standards cases were slightly lower than those in the base case projection, due to the higher purchase prices of the more-efficient equipment. In other words, DOE believes that the higher purchase prices would cause some consumers to forego new equipment purchases. Due to the drop in shipments caused by standards, for dehumidifiers and microwave ovens, DOE used the standards case shipments projec tion and, in turn, the standards case stock, to calculate the annual energy consumption in the base case to avoid the inclusion of savings due to displaced shipments. However, in the case of dishwashers and commercial clothes washers, because DOE explicitly accounted for the energyand water consumption of the displaced shipments, it maintained the use of the base case shipments to determine the annual energy consumption in the base case. For dishwash ers, DOE assumed that consumers foregoing the purchase of a new unit due to an increase in th e efficiency standard would hand wash their dishes. As a result, for those consumers foregoing a dishwasher purchase, DOE accounted for the energy and water consumption associated with the number of consumers that had to turn to hand washing. In the case of commercial cl othes washers, DOE assumed that any drop in shipments caused by standards would result in the purchase of used machines. Finally, in the case of electric and gas cooking products, because the housing market is fully saturated (i.e., all households have cooking appliances), DOE a ssumed that standards would neither impact shipments nor cause shifts in electric and gas cooking product market shares. Therefore, DOE’s projected standards case shipments for electric and gas cooking products were identical to its base case shipments.

10-13

### 10.3.2 NES Inputs 

### Table 10.3.1 lists the inputs for the determination of NES. Table 10.3.1 National Energy Saving Inputs Annual Energy Consumption per Unit ( UEC ) Shipments Equipment Stock ( STOCK V ) National Annual Energy Consumption ( AEC ) Site-to-Source Conversion Factor ( src_conv )



### 10.3.2.1 Annual Energy Consumption per Unit 

### For each of the considered products, DOE presented the per-unit annual energy (and water) consumption as a function of product effici ency in both Chapter 6, Energy and Water Use Determination, and section 8.2.2.1 of Chapter 8, LCC and PBP Analysis . Because the per-unit annual energy (and water) consumption is directly dependent on efficiency, DOE used the base case and standards case SWEFs presented above in section 10.2, in combination with the annual energy (and water use) data presented in Chapters 6 and 8, to estimate the shipment-weighted average annual per-unit energy (and water) consumption under the ba se case and standards cases. The following sections describe the shipment -weighted average annual per-unit energy (and water) consumption for each of the considered products.
Dishwashers. 

### DOE based its per-unit annual energy and water consumption of dishwashers on data presented in section 8.2.2. 1 of Chapter 8. Using the relationship between dishwasher EF and annual energy and water cons umption described in Chapter 8, Table 10.3.2 presents the per-unit annual electrical, gas, oi l, and water consumption, based on the SWEFs corresponding to the base case and each standard s case. Because U.S. households use either electric, gas, or oil water heaters, the per-unit annual energy use values in the table below are provided by fuel type. The electrical energy use values reflect water heating, machine, and standby consumption, while the gas and oil energy use values reflect only water heating consumption. The water heating consumption in the energy use data shown in Table 10.3.2 is weighted to reflect the fraction of households th at use electric (37.3 per cent), gas (58.9 percent), and oil (3.9 percent) water heat ers. DOE based the share of h ouseholds that use each of the water heater types on data in the DOE-Ene rgy Information Administration (EIA)’s 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS). 3

10-14

### Table 10.3.2 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: Base Case and Standards Case ShipmentWeighted Average Per-Unit Annual Energy and Water Consumption in 2012 Base Case Standards Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SWEF (EF) 0.596 0.602 0.625 0.652 0.681 0.721 0.800 1.110 Annual Energy Use Electric (kWh/yr) 246 244 237 229 222 213 198 159.7 Gas (MMBtu/yr) 0.57 0.56 0.53 0.50 0.47 0.44 0.37 0.22 Oil (MMBtu/yr) 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 Annual Water Use (1000 gal/ yr) 1.27 1.25 1.18 1.12 0.05 0.97 0.83 0.48 

### As noted in section 10.2, DOE assumed that fo recasted efficiencies in the base case and standards cases remain frozen at the efficiency levels in 2012. Theref ore, because the per-unit annual energy and water consumption are a function of efficiency, DOE held the values shown above in Table 10.3.2 constant over the forecast period (2012–2042). As described in section 9.4 of Chapter 9, Shipm ents Analysis, DOE forecasted a drop in dishwasher shipments due to purchase price incr eases caused by standards-related efficiency increases. DOE assumed that th ose consumers forgoing the purc hase of a dishwasher due to standards would be forced into hand washing their dishes. Therefore, to properly account for the energy and water use impacts of dishwasher standards, DOE accounted for the energy and water use of those consumers that were forced into hand washing. Studies have been conducted comparing the energy and water use of hand wash ing dishes versus using a dishwasher. All the studies qualify their conclusions bystating that the energy and water use impacts of moving from machine washing to hand washing dishes vary widely based on consumer habits. A 1990 controlled laboratory study with 25 female partic ipants revealed that, on average, hand washing resulted in more cold water consumption but less hot water (energy) consumption. 4

### A more recent study conducted at Bonn University in Ge rmany indicated that, on average, hand washing used 67 percent more energy and over 450 percent more water. 5 

### A 2006 United Kingdom (UK) study quantified the energy and water consumption of hand washing as a function of place settings. The study demonstrated that, on aver age, for eight place settings, hand washing used approximately 210 percent more energy and 250 percent more water. 6 

### Table 10.3.3 summarizes the average results from the Bonn and UK studies as well as the estimates that DOE used in its NIA. DOE decided to average the results from the two most recent studies to estimate that hand washing would use 140 percent more energy and 35 0 percent more water than dishwashing. In the NIA Model for dishwashers, DOE implemented this estimate to quantify the energy and water impacts of those consumers that forgo a dishwasher purchase.

10-15

### Table 10.3.3 Energy and Water Use Impacts of Hand Washing compared to Dishwashing
Study Percent Increase due to Hand Wash ing relative to Dishwashing Energy Use Water Use Bonn University* 67% 450% UK** 210% 250% DOE estimate 140% 350% Sources: *Bonn University, 2005. **UK, Market Transformation Programme, 2006. 

### Dehumidifiers

. 

### DOE based its per-unit annual energy consumption of dehumidifiers on data presented in section 8.2.2.1 of Chapter 8. Using the relationship between dehumidifier EF and annual energy consumption described in Chap ter 8, Table 10.3.4 presents the per-unit annual energy consumption based on the SWEFs correspondi ng to the base case and each standards case for each of the six dehumidifier product classes.

Table 10.3.4 Dehumidifiers: Base Case and Standa rds Case Shipment-Weighted Average Per-Unit Annual Energy Consumption in 2012 Product Class Base Case Standards Case 1 2 3 4 5
≤25.00 SWEF (EF) 1.15 1.18 1.24 1.27 1.30 1.38 Annual Energy Use (kWh/yr) 380 370 349 340 332 313 25.01- 35.0 0 SWEF (EF) 1.29 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.45 Annual Energy Use (kWh/yr) 503 497 485 473 463 447 35.01- 45.0 0 SWEF (EF) 1.39 1.41 1.44 1.47 1.50 1.74 Annual Energy Use (kWh/yr) 622 615 601 588 576 496 45.01- 54.0 0 SWEF (EF) 1.49 1.51 1.54 1.57 1.60 2.02 Annual Energy Use (kWh/yr) 718 711 696 681 668 529 54.01- 74.9 9 SWEF (EF) 1.58 1.59 1.61 1.65 1.70 1.80 Annual Energy Use (kWh/yr) 885 876 867 844 819 774
≥ 75.00 SWEF (EF) 2.43 2.47 2.51 2.55 2.60 2.75 Annual Energy Use (kWh/yr) 713 700 689 677 664 628 

### As noted above in section 10.2, DOE assumed that forecasted efficiencies in the base case and standards cases remain frozen at the effi ciency levels in 2012. Therefore, because the per-unit annual energy consumption is a functio n of efficiency, DOE held the values shown above in Table 10.3.4 constant over the forecast period (2012–2042). Cooking Products – Cooktops and Ovens 

### . DOE based its per-unit annual energy consumption of cooktops and ovens on data presented in section 8.2.2.1 of Chapter 8. Using the relationship between cooktop and oven EF and annual energy consumption described in Chapter 8, Tables 10.3.5 and 10.3.6 present the per-unit annual energy consumption based on the SWEFs

10-16

### corresponding to the base case and each standard s case for each of the three product classes of cooktops and the four product classes of ovens.

Table 10.3.5 Cooktops: Base Case and Standard s Case Shipment-Weighted Average PerUnit Annual Energy Consumption in 2012 Standards Case Product Class Base Case 1 2 0.737 0.769 SWEF (EF) Electric Coil Electric (kWh/yr) 128.2 122.9 SWEF (EF) 0.742 0.753 Electric Smooth Electric (kWh/yr) 128.2 126.3 SWEF (EF) 0.379 0.399 0.420 Gas Gas (MMBtu/yr) 0.83 0.72 0.68



### Table 10.3.6 Ovens: Base Case and Standards Case Shipment-Weighted Average PerUnit Annual Energy Consumption in 2012

Product Class Electric Standard SWEF (EF) Electri c (kWh/yr) Case Base

0.10 66 166.5 1* 0.11 13 160.1 2 0.11 63 153.9 3 0.11 81 151.8 4 Standards Case

0.12 06 0.1209 5

148. 6 6 1a*

Clean Electri c SelfElectric (kWh/yr) SWEF (EF) 171.0 0.10 99 170.6 0.11 02 167.9 0.11 23 149.0

SWEF (EF) 0.0494 0.0536 0.0566 0.0572 0.0593 0.0596 0.0600 0.0583 Gas Standard Electric (kWh/yr) 18.3 21.1 21.1 21.1 22.9 22.9 22.9 0.0 Gas (MMBtu/yr) 0.98 0.05 40 0.84 0.06 25 0.80 0.06 27 0.79 0.06 32 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.84

Gas Self-Clean Electric (kWh/yr) SWEF (EF)

Gas (MMBt u/yr) 53.33 0.86 55.13 0.73 55.13 0.73 55.13 0.72 * For gas standard ovens, levels 1 and 1a correspond to designs that are utilized for the same purpose—eliminate

the nee d for a standing pilot—but the te chnologies for each design are different. Level 1 is a hot surface ignition device while level 1a is a spark ignition device. 

### For all classes except gas cooktops and standard ovens, as noted above in section 10.2, DOE assumed that forecasted effi ciencies in the base case and st andards cases remain frozen at the efficiency levels in 2012. Therefore, b ecause the per-unit annual energy consumption is a function of efficiency, DOE held the values shown above in Tables 10.3.5 and 10.3.6 constant over the forecast period (2012–2042).

10-17

### For gas cooktops and standard ovens, DOE tracked the percentage of gas standard ranges (which are composed of a cooktop and standard oven) with standing pilots. Because the percentage of ranges with standing pilots chan ges over time (as shown above in section 10.2, Figure 10.2.2), the base case annual energy consum ption will change over time as well. Figure 10.3.1 shows how the annual gas energy use for both base case gas cooktops and gas standard ovens decreases over tim e as moregas standard ranges are forecasted to be shipped with pilotless ignition. Also note in Figure 10.3.1 that, becau se standard ovens without standing pilots are assumed to use globar ignition devices that us e a non-significant amount of electricity, the amount of electricity use for stan dard ovens increases over time.( )( ) l

0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 YearBase Case Gas Cooktop and GasStandard Oven Annual Energy UseMMBtu

18.0 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0 20.5 21.0Base Case Gas Standard OvenElectrical Annual Energy Use kWh Cooktop - Gas Use Standard Oven - Gas Use Standard Oven - E ec Use



### Figure 10.3.1 Gas Cooktops and Gas Standard Ovens: Forecasted Base Case Annual Energy Consumption


### DOE assumed that forecasted efficiencies for gas cooktops and standard ovens in the standards cases remain frozen at the efficiency levels in 2012. Theref ore, because the per-unit annual energy consumption is a function of effici ency, DOE held the gas cooktop and standard oven values shown above in Tables 10.3.5 and 10.3.6 constant over the forecast period (2012– 2042) for all standards cases. Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens. 

### DOE based its per-unit annual energy consumption of microwave ovens on data presented in section 8.2.2.1 of Chapter 8. Using the relationship between microwave oven EF and annual energy cons umption described in Chapter 8, Table 10.3.7 presents the per-unit annual energy consumption based on the SWEFs corresponding to the base case and each standards case.

10-18

### Table 10.3.7 Microwave Ovens: Base Case and Standards Case Shipment-Weighted Average Per-Unit Annual Energy Consumption in 2012

Base Case Standards Case 1 2 3 4 SWEF (EF) 0.557 0.586 0.588 0.597 0.602 Annual Energy Use (kWh/yr) 131.0 124.5 124.1 122.2 121.2 

### As noted above in section 10.2, DOE assumed that forecasted efficiencies in the base case and standards cases remain frozen at the effi ciency levels in 2012. Therefore, because the per-unit annual energy consumption is a functio n of efficiency, DOE held the values shown above in Table 10.3.7 constant over the forecast period (2012–2042).
Commercial Clothes Washers. 

### DOE based its per-unit annual energy and water consumption of commercial clothe s washers on data presented in section 8.2.2.1 of Chapter 8. Using the relationship between clothes wash er MEF and WF and annual energy and water consumption described in Chapter 8, Table 10.3.8 presents the per-unit annual electrical and gas energy use, and water consumption, based on the SWEFs corresponding to the base case and each standards case. Because establishments th at use commercial clothes washers use either electric or gas water heaters and dryers, the per-unit annual energy use values in the table below are provided by fuel type. The energy and wate r use values shown in Table 10.3.8 are weightedaverage values reflecting the market share of wa shers in multi-family buildings (85 percent) and laundromats (15 percent), as provided by th e Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE). 7 

### The water heating and drying energy consumption data reflect the pe rcentage of gas and electric water heaters and dryers in the combined multi-family and laundromat market. Based on data from the CEE, in the combined market, 17 and 83 percent of water heaters are electric and gas, respectively, while 34 and 66 percent of dryers are elec tric and gas, respectively. 10



### Table 10.3.8 Commercial Clothes Washers: Base Case and Standards Case ShipmentWeighted Average Per-Unit Annual Energy and Water Consumption in 2012 Base Case Standards Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 SWEF (MEF) 1.41 1.54 1.68 1.78 1.84 2.00 2.20

SWEF (WF) 8.69 8.69 7.89 7.49 7.09 5.50 5.10 Annual Energy Use Electric (kWh/yr) 922 853 790 757 737 682 645 Gas (MMBtu/yr) 7.96 7.09 6.27 5.83 5.57 5.12 4.50 Annual Water Use (1000 gal/ yr) 33.8 33.8 30.7 29.1 27.6 21.4 19.8 

### As noted above in section 10.2, DOE assumed that forecasted efficiencies in the base case and standards cases remain frozen at the effi ciency levels in 2012. Therefore, because the per-unit annual energy and water consumption are a function of efficiency, DOE held the values shown above in Table 10.3.8 constant over the forecast period (2012–2042).

10-19

### As described in section 9.4 of Chapter 9, Shipments Analysis, DOE forecasted a slight drop in commercial clothes washer shipments due to purchase price increases caused by standards-related efficiency increases. DOE a ssumed that those establishments forgoing the purchase of a commercial clothes washer due to standards would instead purchase a used clothes washer with an efficiency equal to the baseline level, i.e., 1.26 MEF/9.5 WF. In the NIA Model for commercial clothes washers, DOE accounted for the number of used washers purchased in order to quantify the energy and water impacts of those establishments that were estimated to forgo a new commercial clothes washer purchase.

10.3.2.2 Shipments 

### DOE forecasted shipments for the base case and all standards cases. Several factors, including total installed costs (purchase price plus installation costs), operating cost, household income, and equipment lifetime, all impact forecasted shipments. Of the above factors, total installed cost was the primary driver in forecastin g the impact of standards on shipments. As noted earlier, the increased total installed co st of more-efficient equipment causes some customers to forego equipment purchases. Consequently, shipments forecasted under the standards cases are lower than un der the base case. An extensiv e description of the methodology for conducting and generating the shipments forecasts for each of the considered products can be found in Chapter 9, Shipments Analysis.

10.3.2.3 Equipment Stock 

### The equipment stock in a given year is the number of products shipped from earlier years that survive in the given year. The NIA Models keep track of the numbe r of units shipped each year. DOE assumes that the products have an increasing probability of retiring as they age. The probability of survival as a function of years-sin ce-purchase is the survival function. See the specific product sections in Chapter 9, Shipment s Analysis, for further details on the survival functions that DOE used in its analysis.

10.3.2.4 National Annual Energy Consumption 

### The national annual energy consumption is the product of the annual energy consumption per unit and the number of units of each vintage. This approach accounts for differences in unit energy consumption from year to year. Th e equation for determining the annual energy consumption was shown above in section 10.3.1 and is repeated below.

AEC 

### = 

# ∑ STOCK V 

### × UEC V 

### In determining national annual energy consum ption, DOE initially calculated the annual energy consumption at the site, and then applied a conversion factor to calculate primary energy consumption (see section 10.3.2.5).

10-20

### 10.3.2.5 Energy Site-to-Source Conversion Factors 

### In determining national annual energy consum ption, DOE initially calculated the annual energy consumption at the site (e.g., for elect ricity, the energy in kWh consumed at the household or establishment). It then calculated primary (source) energy consumption from site energy consumption by applying a conversion fact or to account for losses associated with the generation, transmission, and distribution of elec tricity and gas. The site-to-source conversion factor is the multiplicative factor used for conv erting site energy consumption into primary or source energy consumption, expressed in quads . DOE used annual site-to-source conversion factors based on the version of the National En ergy Modeling System (NEMS) that corresponds to EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2006 

### (

AEO2006

### ). The factors used are marginal values, which represent the response of the system to an in cremental decrease in consumption. Natural gas losses include pipeline leakage, pumping energy, and transportation fuel. The AEO2006 

### forecasts losses of about seven percent for the natural gas used on site, with only slight variation from year to year. For electricity, the conver sion factors vary over time, due to projected changes in generation sources (i.e., the power plant types projected to provi de electricity to the country). DOE assumed that conversion factors remain constant at 2030 values throughout the remainder of the forecast. DOE assumed no losses for delivery of site heating oil. Table 10.3.9 shows the site-to-source conversion factors from 2005 to the end of the forecast period (2042).
Table 10.3.9 Site-to-Source Conversion Factors for Electricity and Natural Gas

Year Electricity Btu/kWh Natural Gas Btu/Btu Year Electricity Btu/kWh Natural Gas Btu/Btu 2005 11500 1.083 2019 7024 1.099 2006 11500 1.083 2020 7024 1.099 2007 11200 1.083 2021 7024 1.099 2008 10000 1.087 2022 7024 1.099 2009 9737 1.090 2023 7024 1.098 2010 9737 1.093 2024 7024 1.097 2011 9737 1.096 2025 7024 1.097 2012 9649 1.095 2026 7024 1.097 2013 9499 1.095 2027 7024 1.097 2014 8649 1.095 2028 7024 1.097 2015 7324 1.096 2029 7024 1.097 2016 7024 1.098 2030 7024 1.097 2017 7024 1.099 2031–2042 7024 1.097 2018 7024 1.100 Source: NEMS, 2006.

10-21

### 10.4 NET PRESENT VALUE

10.4.1 NPV Definition 

### The NPV is the value in the present of a time series of costs and savings. The NPV is described by the equation:



### NPV = PVS

_ 

### PVC
where:
PVS 

### = Present value of operating cost saving s (including energy, water, repair, and maintenance costs), and PVC 

### = Present value of increased total in stalled costs (including equipment and installation). DOE determined the PVS and PVC according to the following expressions:

PVS = 

# ∑ OCS y 

### × DF y



### PVC = 

# ∑ TIC y 

### × DF y 

### DOE calculated the total annual operating cost savings by multiplying the number or stock of the given product (by vi ntage) by its per-unit operating co st savings (also by vintage). DOE calculated the total annual installed cost increases by multiplying the number or stock of the given product (by vintage) by itsper-unit total installed cost increase (also by vintage). The calculation of the annual operating costs savings and total annual installed cost increases is represented with the following equations:

OCS y 

### = 

# ∑ STOCK V 

### × UOCS V


### TIC y 

### = 

# ∑ STOCK V 

### × UTIC V 

### For the above expressions, DOE define d the various quantities as follows:
OCS 

### = Total annual operating cost savings each year summed over vintages of the product stock, STOCK V

### , TIC 

### = Total annual installed cost increases each year summed over vintages of the product stock, STOCK V

### , DF = 

### Discount factor in each year, STOCK V



### = Stock of product (millions of units) of vintage V 

### surviving in the year for which DOE calculated annual energy cons um ption (vintages range from five

10-22

### to approximately 28 years, dependingon the retirement function of the product), UOCS V 

### = Annual operating cost savings per unit, UTIC V 

### = Annual total installe d cost increase per unit, V



### = Year in which the product was purchased as a new unit, and y

### = Year in the forecast (i.e., 2012 to 2042).
DOE determined the PVC 

### for each year, from the effectiv e date of the standard to the year 2042. It determined the PVS 

### for each year, from the effectiv e date of the standard to the year when units purchased in 2042 retire. DOE calculated costs and savings as the difference between a standards case and a base case (i.e., without new standards).
DOE calculated a discount factor from the di scount rate and the num ber of years between the “present” (i.e., year to whic h the sum is being discounted) and the year in which the costs and savings occur. The NPV is the sum ove r time of the discounted net savings.

10.4.2 NPV Inputs


### Table 10.4.1 summarizes the inputs to the NPV calculation. Table 10.4.1 Net Present Value Inputs Total Installed Cost per Unit Annual Operating Cost Savings per Unit Total Annual Installed Cost Increases Total Annual Operating Costs Discount Factor Present Value of Costs Present Value of Savings


### The increase in the total annual installed cost 

### is equal to the annual change in the per-unit total installed cost (difference between base case and standards case) multiplied by the shipments forecasted in the standards case. As with the calculation of the NES, DOE did not calculate total annual installed costs for all of the products using base case shipments. Rather, in the case of dehumidifiers and microwave ovens, DOE used th e standards case shipments projection and, in turn, the standards case stock, to calculate the costs to avoid the inclusion of savings due to displaced shipments. In the case of dishwash ers, DOE assumed that any consumers foregoing the purchase of a new unit due to standards would shift to hand washing. In the case of commercial clothes washers, DOE assumed that any drop in shipments caused by standards would result in the purchase of used machines. Electric and gas cooking products are the notable exception. For these products, because the market is fully saturated, DOE assumed that standards would neither impact shipments nor cau se shifts in electric and gas cooking product

10-23

### market shares. Therefore, for electric and gas cooking products, DOE used the base case shipments to determine costs for all standards cases.
The total annual operating cost savings

### are equal to the change in the annual operating costs (difference between base case and standards case) per unit multiplied by the shipments forecasted in the standards case. As noted above for the calculation of total annual installed costs, DOE did not necessarily calculate operating cost savings using the base case shipments. The annual operating cost includes energy, water, repair, and maintenance costs.

10.4.2.1 Total Installed Cost per Unit 

### For each of the considered products, DOE firs t presented the per-unit total installed cost as a function of product efficiency in section 8.2.1 of Chapter 8, LCC and PBP Analysis. Because the per-unit total annual installed cost is directly de pendent on efficiency, DOE used the base case and standards case SWEF s presented above in section 10.2, in combination with the total installed costs presented in Chapter 8, to estimate the shipment-weighted average annual per-unit total installed cost under the base case and standards cases. The following sections describe the shipment-weighted average annual per-unit total installed cost for each of the considered products.
Dishwashers

. DOE based its per-unit total inst alled cost of dishwashers on data presented in section 8.2.1.1 of Chapter 8. Th e total installed cost includes both the equipment price and the installation cost. DOE based av erage equipment prices on average manufacturer costs multiplied by average overall markup values. Using the relationship between dishwasher EF and total installed cost presented in Chapter 8, Table 10.4.2 shows the per-unit total installed cost based on the SWEFs corresponding to the base case and each standards case.

Table 10.4.2 Standard-Sized Dishwashers: Base Case and Standards Case ShipmentWeighted Average Per-Unit Total Installed Costs in 2012 Base Case Standards Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SWEF (EF) 0.596 0.602 0.625 0.652 0.681 0.721 0.800 1.110 Total Installed Cost (2006$) $711 $711 $714 $723 $748 $811 $900 $980 

### As noted above in section 10.2, DOE assumed that forecasted efficiencies in the base case and standards cases remain frozen at the effi ciency levels in 2012. Therefore, because the per-unit total installed co sts are a function of efficiency, DOE held the values shown above in Table 10.4.2 constant over the forecast period (2012–2042). Dehumidifiers

. DOE based its per-unit total instal led cost of dehumidifiers on data presented in section 8.2.1.2 of Chapter 8. For dehumidifiers, the total installed cost includes only the equipment price, since the installation cost for these products is zero. DOE based average equipment prices on average manufacturer costs multiplied by average overall markup values. AHAM provided manufacturer cost data for a subs et of the six dehumidifier product classes, 0–

10-24

### 35.00, 35.01–45.00, and 54.01–74.99 pint s/day. To develop costs for the other classes, DOE applied the costs for the 0–35.00 pints/day class to the two indivi dual classes that comprise the combined class—the ≤25.00 pints/day and the 25.01–35.00 pint s/day classes. DOE applied the costs for the 35.01–45.00 pints/day cl ass to the 45.01–54.00 pints/day class, and the costs for the 54.01–74.99 pints/day class to the ≥ 75.00 pints/day class. In applying the cost s from one class to another, DOE matched the costs to the efficienciesof the two classes. In other words, DOE did not interpolate or extrapolate th e cost data in order to account for product efficiency differences between the classes. For example, if the total installed cost per unit for standard level 2 for the 25.01–35.00 pints/day product class is $152, DOE applie d the same cost to standard level 2 for the ≤ 25.00 class. Using the relati onship between dehumidifier EF and total installed cost presented in Chapter 8, Table 10.4.3 shows the per-unit total installed cost based on the SWEFs corresponding to the base case and each standards case for the six dehumidifier product classes.

Table 10.4.3 Dehumidifiers: Base Case and Standa rds Case Shipment-Weighted Average Per-Unit Total Installed Cost in 2012 Product Class Base Case Standards Case 1 2 3 4 5
≤25.00 SWEF (EF) 1.15 1.18 1.24 1.27 1.30 1.38 Total Installed Cost (2006$) $149 $151 $152 $158 $166 $176 25.01- 35.0 0 SWEF (EF) 1.29 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.45 Total Installed Cost (2006$) $149 $151 $152 $158 $166 $176 35.01- 45.0 0 SWEF (EF) 1.39 1.41 1.44 1.47 1.50 1.74 Total Installed Cost (2006$) $180 $182 $190 $198 $208 $273 45.01- 54.0 0 SWEF (EF) 1.49 1.51 1.54 1.57 1.60 2.02 Total Installed Cost (2006$) $180 $182 $190 $198 $208 $273 54.01- 74.9 9 SWEF (EF) 1.58 1.59 1.61 1.65 1.70 1.80 Total Installed Cost (2006$) $198 $200 $202 $208 $224 $241
≥ 75.00 SWEF (EF) 2.43 2.47 2.51 2.55 2.60 2.75 Total Installed Cost (2006$) $198 $200 $202 $208 $224 $241 

### As noted above in section 10.2, DOE assumed that forecasted efficiencies in the base case and standards cases remain frozen at the effi ciency levels in 2012. Therefore, because the per-unit total installed co sts are a function of efficiency, DOE held the values shown above in Table 10.4.3 constant over the forecast period (2012–2042). Cooking Products – Cooktops and Ovens

. DOE based its per-unit total installed cost of cooktops and ovens on data presente d in sections 8.2.1.3 and 8.2. 1.4 of Chapter 8. The total installed cost includes both the equipment pri ce and the installation cost. DOE based average equipment prices on average manufacturer costs multiplied by average overall markup values. Using the relationship between cooktop and oven EF and total installed cost presented in Chapter 8, Tables 10.4.4 and 10.4.5 show the per-unit total installed cost for cooktops and ovens, respectively, based on the SWEF s corresponding to the base ca se and each standards case.

10-25

### Table 10.4.4 Cooktops: Base Case and Standard s Case Shipment-Weighted Average PerUnit Total Installed Costs in 2012

Class Product

Electric Coil Base Case SWEF (EF) 0.73 7 1 0.76 9 $255 Standards Case 2

Gas Electri c Smooth SWEF (EF) Total Installed Cost (200 6$) SWEF (EF) Total Installed Cost (2006$) 0.379 $251 0.74 2 $288 0.399 0.75 3 $417 0.420 Total Installed Cost (2006$) $319 $322 $351



### Table 10.4.5 Ovens: Base Case and Standards Case Shipment-Weighted Average PerUnit Total Installed Costs in 2012 Product Base Standards Case Class Case SWEF (EF) 0.10 66 1* 0.11 13 2 0.11 63 3 0.11 81 4 0.12 06 5 0.12 09 6 1a*

Standard Electri c Total Installed Cost (2006 $) $392 $395 $399 $405 $462 $467

Electric SWEF (EF) 0.10 99 0.1102 0.1123 Self-Clean Total Installed Cost (2006 $) $463 $469 $527

Gas SWEF (EF) 0.04 94 0.0536 0.0566 0.0572 0.0593 0.0596 0.0600 0.0583 Standard Total Installed Cost (2006 $) $436 $442 $447 $449 $481 $483 $488 $446

Gas Self- SWEF (EF) 0.05 40 0.0625 0.0627 0.0632 Clean Total Installed Cost (2006 $) $529 $545 $551 $553
* For gas standard ovens, levels 1 and 1a correspond to designs that are utilized for the same purpose—eliminate

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

### For all classes except gas cooktops and standa rd ovens, as noted above in section 10.2, DOE assumed that forecasted effi ciencies in the base case and st andards cases remain frozen at the efficiency levels in 2012. Therefore, becausethe per-unit total installed cost is a function of efficiency, DOE held the values shown above in Tables 10.4.4 and 10.4.5 constant over the forecast period (2012–2042). For gas cooktops and standard ovens, DOE tracked the percentage of gas standard ranges (which are com posed of a cooktop and standard oven) with standing pilots. Because the percentage of ranges with standing pilots changes over time (a s shown above in section 10.2,

10-26

### Figure 10.2.2), the base case total installed cost will change over time as well. Figure 10.4.1 shows how the total installed cost for both base case gas c ooktops and gas standard ovens increases over time as more gas standard rang es are forecasted to be shipped with pilotless ignition.( )( )

$318.5 $319.0 $319.5 $320.0 $320.5 $321.0 $321.5 $322.0 $322.5

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 YearBase Case Gas CooktopTotal Installed Cost 2006$

$437.0 $437.5 $438.0 $438.5 $439.0 $439.5 $440.0 $440.5 $441.0Base Case Gas Standard OvenTotal Installed Cost 2006$ Cooktop Standard Oven



### Figure 10.4.1 Gas Cooktops and Gas Standard Ovens: Forecasted Base Case Total Installed Costs 

### DOE assumed that forecasted efficiencies for gas cooktops and standard ovens in the standards cases remain frozen at the efficiency levels in 2012. Therefor e, because the per-unit total installed cost is a func tion of efficiency, DOE held th e gas cooktop and standard oven values shown above in Tables 10.4.4 and 10.4. 5 constant over the forecast period (2012–2042) for all standards cases. Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens

. DOE based its per-unit total installed cost of microwave ovens on data presented in section 8.2. 1.5 of Chapter 8. For microwave ovens, the total installed cost includes only the equipment price, since the installation cost for these products is zero. DOE based average equipment prices on average manufacturer costs multiplied by average overall markup values. Using the re lationship between microwave oven EF and total installed cost presented in Chap ter 8, Table 10.4.6 shows the pe r-unit total installed cost for microwave ovens based on the SWEFs correspondi ng to the base case and each standards case.

10-27

### Table 10.4.6 Microwave Ovens: Base Case and Standards Case Shipment-Weighted Average Per-Unit Total Installed Costs in 2012

Base Case Standards Case 1 2 3 4 SWEF (EF) 0.557 0.586 0.588 0.597 0.602 Total Installed Cost (2006$) $219 $232 $246 $267 $294 

### As noted above in section 10.2, DOE assumed that forecasted efficiencies in the base case and standards cases remain frozen at the effi ciency levels in 2012. Therefore, because the per-unit total installed co sts are a function of efficiency, DOE held the values shown above in Table 10.4.6 constant over the forecast period (2012–2042).
Commercial Clothes Washers

. DOE based its per-unit total installed cost of commercial clothes washers on data presented in section 8.2.1.6 of Chapter 8. The total installed cost includes both the equipment price and the inst allation cost. DOE based average equipment prices on average manufacturer costs multiplied by average overall markup values. Using the relationship between commercial cl othes washer MEF and WF and total installed cost presented in Chapter 8, Table 10.4.7 shows the per-unit total installed cost based on the SWEFs corresponding to the base cas e and each standards case.

Table 10.4.7 Commercial Clothes Washers: Base Case and Standards Case ShipmentWeighted Average Per-Unit Total Installed Costs in 2012 Base Case Standards Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 SWEF (MEF) 1.41 1.54 1.68 1.78 1.84 2.00 2.20 SWEF (WF) 8.69 8.69 7.89 7.49 7.09 5.50 5.10 Total Installed Cost (2006$) $825 $918 $1,225 $1,225 $1,225 $1,225 $1,225 

### As noted above in section 10.2, DOE assumed that forecasted efficiencies in the base case and standards cases remain frozen at the effi ciency levels in 2012. Therefore, because the per-unit total installed co sts are a function of efficiency, DOE held the values shown above in Table 10.4.7 constant over the forecast period (2012–2042).

10.4.2.2 Annual Operating Cost Savings per Unit 

### The per-unit annual operating co st includes the energy, water, repair, and maintenance costs. As described in secti on 8.2.2.4 of Chapter 8, DOE assumed no increase in maintenance and repair costs due to standards for all of the considered products. Therefore, for all of the considered products, DOE determined the per-unit annual operating cost savings based only on the energy (and water) cost saving s due to a standard level. DOEdetermined the per-unit annual operating cost savings by taki ng the per-unit annual energy (and water) consumption savings developed for each product and multiplying it by the appropriate energy (and water) price.

10-28

### For all of the considered products, estimates of the pe r-unit annual en ergy (and water) consumption for the base case and each standards cas e were presented earlier in section 10.3.2.1. As described previously, DOE forecasted the per-unit annual energy (and water) consumption for the base case and each standards case for al l products by freezing the consumption at levels estimated for the year 2012. a 

### Energy and water prices are described in se ction 8.2.2.2 of Chapter 8. DOE forecasted energy prices based on EIA’s AEO2007 

### . DOE forecasted water prices based on trends in the national water price index as provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The energy and water price trends are described in se ction 8.2.2.3 of Chapter 8.

10.4.2.3 Total Annual Installed Cost Increases 

### The total annual installed cost increase for any given standa rds case is the product of the total installed cost increa se per unit due to the standard and th e number of units of each vintage. This approach accounts for differencesin total installed cost from year to year. The equation for determining the total annual installed cost increase for a given standards case was shown in section 10.4.1 and is repeated below.

TIC = 

# ∑ STOCK V 

### × UTIC V


### As noted earlier for commercial clothes wa shers, DOE accounted fo r the total installed cost of those establishments that were forced into purchasing used clothes washers due to standards. Therefore, the total annual installed cost increase takes into account the total installed cost of the used washers that were purcha sed in lieu of the purchase of new washers.

10.4.2.4 Total Annual Operating Cost Savings 

### The total annual operating cost savings for a ny given standards case is the product of the annual operating cost savings per unit due to th e standard and the number of units of each vintage. This approach account s for differences in annual operating cost savings from year to year. The equation for determining the total annu al operating cost savings for a given standards case was shown above and is repeated below.

OCS = 

# ∑ STOCK V 

### × UOCS V 

### As noted earlier for dishwashers, DOE accounted for the energy and water use of those consumers that were forced into hand washing due to standards. Ther efore, the total annual operating cost savings take into account the additional energy and water costs for hand washing over machine dishwashing for consumers that were estimated to forego dishwasher purchases due to standards.

aThe one exception pertains to the base case per-unit annual energy consumption of gas cooktops and ovens.

10-29

### As noted earlier for commercial clothes washers, DOE accounted for the energy and water use of those establishments that were forced into purchasing used washers due to standards. Therefore, the total annual operating cost savings take into account the energy and water costs of the used washers that were purchased in lieu of the purchase of new washers.

10.4.2.5 Discount Factors 

### DOE multiplies monetary values in future years by a discount factor to determine the present value. The discount factor (DF) is described by the equation:

1 DF = ( + 1 r ) ( y

_ yp )



### where:

r 

### = discount rate, y 

### = year of the monetary value, and y P 

### = year in which the present value is being determined. DOE estimated national impacts with both a three-percent and a seven-percent real discount rate as the average real rate of return on private investment in the U.S. economy. It used these discount rates in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)’s guidance to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A-4, September 17, 2003), and section E., “Identifying and Measuring Benefits and Costs,” therein. DOE defines the present year as 2007.

10.4.2.6 Present Value of Costs 

### The present value of increased installed costs is the annual installed cost increase in each year (i.e., the difference between the standards ca se and base case), discounted to the present, and summed for the time period over which DOE is considering the installation of equipment (i.e., from the effective date of standards, 2012, to the year 2042).
The increase in total installed cost refers to both equipm ent cost and installation cost associated with the higher energy efficiency of equipment purchased in the standards case compared to the base case. DOE calculated annua l increases in installed costs as the difference in total installed cost for new equipment purchased each year, multiplied by the shipments in the standards case.

10.4.2.7 Present Value of Savings 

### The present value of operating cost savings is the annual operating cost savings (i.e., the difference between the base case and standards case) discounted to the present, and summed over

10-30

### the period from the effective date, 2012, to the time when the last unit installed in 2042 is retired from service. Savings are decreases in operating co sts (including electric ity, repair, and maintenance costs) associated with the highe r energy efficiency of equipment purchased in the standards case compared to the base case. Total annual operating cost savings are the savings per unit multiplied by the number of units of each vintag e surviving in a particular year. Equipment consumes energy over its entire lifetime, and for units purchased in 2042, the consumption includes energy consumed until the unit is retired from service.

10.5 NES AND NPV RESULTS 

### The NIA Model provides estimates of th e NES and NPV due to various candidate standards levels. The inputs to the NIA Model have been discu ssed earlier in sections 10.3.2 (NES Inputs) and 10.4.2 (NPV Inputs). DOE generated the NES and NPV results using a Microsoft Excel ®

### spreadsheet, which is accessible on the Internet ( http://www.eere.en ergy.gov/buildings/ appliance_standards/). Detail s and instructions for using the spreadsheet are provided in Appendix 10A.

10.5.1 NES and NPV Input Summary 

### Table 10.5.1 summarizes the inputs to the NI A Model. For each input a brief description of the data source is given.

10-31

### Table 10.5.1 NES and NPV Inputs Input Data De scription Shipments Annual shipments from Shipments Model. (See Chapter 9.) Effective Date of Standard 2012. Base Case Forecasted Efficiencies SWEF determined in t he year 2005 for each of the considered products. SWEF held constant ov er forecast period of 2005–2042. (See Section 10.2.) Standards Case Efficiencies Roll-up scenario assum ed for determining SWEF in the year 2012 for each standards case and for each of the c onsidered products. SWEF held constant over forecast period of 2012–2042. (S ee Section 10.2.) Annual Energy Consumption per Unit Annual weighted-average values are a function of SWEF. (See Section 10.3.2.1.) Total Installed Cost per Unit Annual weighted-average values are a function of SWEF. (See Section 10.4.2.1.) Energy and Water Cost per Unit Annual weighted-average values are a function of the annual energy consumption per unit and energy (and water) prices. (See Section 8.2.2.3 of Chapter 8 for energy and water prices.) Repair Cost and Maintenance Cost per Unit No changes in repair and maintenance cost assumed due to standards. Escalation of Energy and Wate r Prices Energy Prices: EIA AEO 2007 forecasts (to 2030) and extrapolation to 2042. (See Section 8.2.2.3 of Chapter 8.) Water Prices: Lin ear extrapolation off historical trend in national water price index. (See Section 8.2.2.3 of Chapter 8.) Energy Site-to-Source Conversion Conversion varies yearly and is generated by DOE/EIA’s NEMS* program (a time series conversion factor; inc ludes electric generation, transmission, and distribution losses). Discount Rate 3 percent and 7 percent real. Present Year Future expenses are discounted to year 2007. * Chapter 13 on the Utility Impact Analysis and the Environmental Assessment Report provide more detail on

NEM S.



### 10.5.2 NES Results 

### The following sections provide NES results (and national water savings (NWS) results for dishwashers and commercial clothes washers) for the standards cases analyzed for the considered products. NES results are cumulative to 2042 and are shown as primary energy savings. NWS results are expressed in billions of gallons. DOE based the inputs to the NIA Model on weighted-average values, yielding results that are discrete point values, rather than a distribution of values as in the LCC and PBP Analysis.

10.5.2.1 Dishwashers 

### This section provides NES and NWS result s for the standards cases considered for standard-sized dishwashers. Table 10.5.2 s hows the NES and NWS results for the candidate standard levels analyzed for standard-sized dishwashers.

10-32

### Table 10.5.2 Dishwashers: Cumulative NES and NWS Results

Standard Level EF NES quads NWS billion gallons 1 0.46 0.09 72 2 0.58 0.35 271 3 0.62 0.61 458 4 0.65 0.86 595 5 0.72 1.11 659 6 0.80 1.54 808 7 1.11 2.77 1,611 

### Table 10.5.3 shows the magnitude of the NE S and NWS if the savings are discounted at rates of seven percent and three percent.
Table 10.5.3 Dishwashers: Cumulative NES and NWS Results Discounted at Seven Percent and Three Percent Standard

Level EF NES ( quads ) NWS ( billion gallons ) 7% discounted 3% discounted 7% discounted 3% discounted 1 0.46 0.02 0.05 17 37 2 0.58 0.08 0.18 64 139 3 0.62 0.14 0.32 108 235 4 0.65 0.20 0.44 140 306 5 0.72 0.26 0.57 157 341 6 0.80 0.37 0.79 195 421 7 1.11 0.66 1.43 386 835



### 10.5.2.2 Dehumidifiers 

### This section provides NES results for the st andards cases considered for the six product classes of dehumidifiers. Tabl e 10.5.4 shows the NES results for the candidate standard levels analyzed for dehumidifiers.
Table 10.5.4 Dehumidifiers: Cumulative NES Results

Std Level ≤ 25 .00 25.01-35.00 35.01-45.00 45.01-54.00 54.01-74.99 ≥ 75 .00 ALL
EF NES q uads EF NES q uads EF NES q uads EF NES q uads EF NES q uads EF NES q uads NES q uads 1 1.10 0.01 1.25 0.01 1.35 0.01 1.45 0.01 1.55 0.01 2.38 0.00 0.04 2 1.20 0.02 1.30 0.02 1.40 0.02 1.50 0.02 1.60 0.02 2.50 0.00 0.11 3 1.25 0.02 1.35 0.04 1.45 0.04 1.55 0.04 1.65 0.05 2.55 0.00 0.18 4 1.30 0.02 1.40 0.05 1.50 0.05 1.60 0.05 1.70 0.07 2.60 0.00 0.25 5 1.38 0.03 1.45 0.06 1.74 0.13 2.02 0.18 1.80 0.12 2.75 0.00 0.53
* NES greater than zero but less than 0.005 quads.

10-33

### Tables 10.5.5 and 10.5.6 show the magnitude of the NES if the savings are discounted at rates of seven percent and three percent.
Table 10.5.5 Dehumidifiers: Cumulative NES Resu lts Discounted at Seven Percent

Std Level ≤ 25 .00 25.01-35.00 35.01-45.00 45.01-54.00 54.01-74.99 ≥ 75 .00 ALL
EF NES q uads EF NES q uads EF NES q uads EF NES q uads EF NES q uads EF NES* q uads NES q uads 1 1.10 0.00 1.25 0.00 1.35 0.00 1.45 0.00 1.55 0.00 2.38 0.00 0.01 2 1.20 0.00 1.30 0.00 1.40 0.01 1.50 0.01 1.60 0.00 2.50 0.00 0.02 3 1.25 0.00 1.35 0.01 1.45 0.01 1.55 0.01 1.65 0.01 2.55 0.00 0.04 4 1.30 0.01 1.40 0.01 1.50 0.01 1.60 0.01 1.70 0.02 2.60 0.00 0.05 5 1.38 0.01 1.45 0.01 1.74 0.03 2.02 0.04 1.80 0.02 2.75 0.00 0.11
* NES greater than zero but less than 0.005 quads.


### Table 10.5.6 Dehumidifiers: Cumulative NES Re sults Discounted at Three Percent

Std Level ≤ 25 .00 25.01-35.00 35.01-45.00 45.01-54.00 54.01-74.99 ≥ 75 .00 ALL
EF NES q uads EF NES q uads EF NES q uads EF NES q uads EF NES q uads EF NES* q uads NES q uads 1 1.10 0.00 1.25 0.00 1.35 0.00 1.45 0.00 1.55 0.00 2.38 0.00 0.02 2 1.20 0.01 1.30 0.01 1.40 0.01 1.50 0.01 1.60 0.01 2.50 0.00 0.05 3 1.25 0.01 1.35 0.02 1.45 0.02 1.55 0.02 1.65 0.02 2.55 0.00 0.08 4 1.30 0.01 1.40 0.02 1.50 0.02 1.60 0.02 1.70 0.03 2.60 0.00 0.11 5 1.38 0.01 1.45 0.03 1.74 0.06 2.02 0.08 1.80 0.05 2.75 0.00 0.23
* NES greater than zero but less than 0.005 quads.



### 10.5.2.3 Cooking Products – Cooktops and Ovens 

### This section provides NES results for the e fficiency levels considered for the three product classes of cooktops and the four product classes of ovens. Tables 10.5.7 and 10.5.8 show the NES results for the candidate standard levels analyzed for cooktops and ovens, respectively.
Table 10.5.7 Cooktops: Cumulative NES Results Electric Coil Electric Smooth Gas Standard

Level EF NES quads EF NES quads EF NES Quads 1 0.769 0.04 0.753 0.02 0.399 0.10 2 0.420 0.15

10-34

### Table 10.5.8 Ovens: Cumulative NES Results

Level Standard EF 

### Elec Standard NES quads EF 

### Elec Self-Clean NES quads EF 

### Gas Standard NES quads EF quads 

### Gas Self-Clean NES
1* 0.1113 0.03 0.1102 0.01 0.0536 0.04 0.0625 0.09 2 0.1163 0.05 0.1123 0.04 0.0566 0.07 0.0627 0.09 3 4 5 6 1a* 0.1181 0.12 06 0.1209 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.0572 0.05 93 0.0596 0.0600 0.0583 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.0632 0.10

* For gas standard ovens, levels 1 and 1a correspond to designs that are utilized for the same purpose—eliminate

the nee d for a standing pilot—but the te chnologies for each design are 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. 

### Tables 10.5.9 and 10.5.10 show the magnitude of the NES if the savings are discounted at rates of seven percent and three percent for cooktops and ovens, respectively.
Table 10.5.9 Cooktops: Cumulative NES Results Di scounted at Seven Percent and Three Percent

Electric Coil Electric Smooth Gas NES ( ) NES ( ) NES ( ) Std EF 7% 3% EF 7% 3% EF 7% 3%

1 2 quads quads quads

Level discounted discounted discounted discounted discounted discounted 0.769 0.01 0.02 0.753 0.00 0.01 0.399 0.03 0.05 0.420 0.04 0.08


### Table 10.5.10 Ovens: Cumulative NES Results Discounted at Seven Percent and Three Percent Elec Standard Elec Self-Clean NES ( ) NES ( ) NES ( ) NES ( ) Std EF 7% disc. 3% disc. EF 7% disc. 3% disc. EF 7% disc. 3% disc. EF 7% disc. 3% disc. 1* 2 3 4 5 6 1a* Gas Standard Gas Self-Clean quads quads quads quads

Level 0.1113 0.01 0.01 0.1102 0.00 0.00 0.0536 0.01 0.02 0.0625 0.02 0.05 0.1163 0.01 0.03 0.1123 0.01 0.02 0.0566 0.02 0.04 0.0627 0.02 0.05 0.1181 0.01 0.03 0.0572 0.02 0.04 0.0632 0.02 0.05 0.1206 0.02 0.04 0.0593 0.02 0.05 0.1209 0.02 0.04 0.0596 0.02 0.05 0.0600 0.02 0.05 0.0583 0.03 0.07 * For gas standard ovens, levels 1 and 1a correspond to designs that are utilized for the same purpose—eliminate

the nee d for a standing pilot—but the te chnologies for each design are 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.

10-35

### 10.5.2.4 Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens 

### This section provides NES results for the e fficiency levels considered for microwave ovens. Table 10.5.11 shows the NES results for the candidate standard levels analyzed for microwave ovens.
Table 10.5.11 Microwave Ovens: Cumulative NES Results

Standard Level EF NES Quads 1 0.586 0.19 2 0.588 0.20 3 0.597 0.25 4 0.602 0.26 

### Table 10.5.12 shows the magnitude of the NE S if the savings are discounted at rates of seven percent and three percent.
Table 10.5.12 Microwave Ovens: Cumulative NES Results Discounted at Seven Percent and Three Percent

Standard Level EF NES ( quads ) 7% discounted 3% discounted 1 0.586 0.05 0.10 2 0.588 0.05 0.11 3 0.597 0.06 0.13 4 0.602 0.07 0.14



### 10.5.2.5 Commercial Clothes Washers 

### This section provides NES and NWS result s for the standard cases considered for commercial clothes washers. Table 10.5.13 show s the NES and NWS results for the candidate standard levels analyzed for commercial clothes washers.
Table 10.5.13 Commercial Clothes Washers: Cumulative NES and NWS Results

Standard Level MEF/WF NES quads NWS billion gallons 1 1.42/9.50 0.12 0 2 1.60/8.50 0.21 233 3 1.72/8.00 0.26 350 4 1.80/7.50 0.30 466 5 2.00/5.50 0.36 933 6 2.20/5.10 0.43 1,050

10-36

### Table 10.5.14 shows the magnitude of the NE S and NWS if the savings are discounted at rates of seven percent and three percent.
Table 10.5.14 Commercial Clothes Washers: Cumulative NES and NWS Results Discounted at Seven Percent and Three Percent Standard

Level MEF/WF NES ( quads ) NWS ( billion gallons ) 7% discounted 3% discounted 7% discounted 3% discounted 1 1.42/9.50 0.03 0.06 0 0 2 1.60/8.50 0.05 0.11 55 120 3 1.72/8.00 0.06 0.14 83 180 4 1.80/7.50 0.07 0.15 110 240 5 2.00/5.50 0.09 0.19 221 480 6 2.20/5.10 0.10 0.22 249 541



### 10.5.3 Annual Costs and Savings 

### To illustrate the basic inputs to the NP V calculations, Figure 10.5.1 presents the nondiscounted annual installed cost in creases and annual operating cost savings at the national level for standard level 3 for dishwashers. The fi gure also shows the net savings, which is the difference between the savings and costs for each year. The annual equipment cost is the increase in the total installe d cost for products purchased ea ch year over the period 2012–2042. The annual operating cost savings is the savings in operating costs for products operating in each year. The NPV is the difference between the cumulative annual discounted savings and the cumulative annual discounted costs. DOE coul d create figures like the one shown below for each of the considered products’ standard cases.

10-372022 2027 2052 i ings
ings

-$0.10 -$0.05 $0.00 $0.05 $0.10 $0.15 $0.20 $0.25 $0.30 $0.35

2012 2017 2032 2037 2042 2047 2057 2062Billions of2006 Dollars Operat ng Cost Sav Equipment Cost Net Sav



### Figure 10.5.1 Non-Discounted Annual Installe d Cost Increases and Annual Operating Cost Savings for Dishwashers, Standard Level 3

10.5.4 NPV Results 

### The following sections provide NPV results fo r the candidate standards levels considered for the product classes of each considered product. Results are cumulative and are shown as the discounted value of these savings in dollar term s. DOE based the inputs to the NIA Model on weighted-average values, yielding re sults that are discrete point va lues, rather than a distribution of values as in the LCC and PBP Analysis. The present value of increased total installed costs is th e total annual installed cost increase (i.e., the difference between the standard s case and base case), discounted to the present, and summ ed over the time period inwhich DOE evaluates the impact of standards (i.e., from the effective date of standards, 2012, to the year 2042). Savings are decreases in operating co sts (including energy and water) associated with the higher energy efficiency of equipment purchased in the standards case compared to the base case. Total operating cost savings are the savings per unit multiplied by the number of units of each vintage (i.e., the year of manufacture) surviving in a particul ar year. Equipment consumes energy and must be maintained ov er its entire lifetime. For un its purchased up through 2042, the operating cost includes energy and water consumed until the last unit is retired from service.

10.5.4.1 Dishwashers 

### This section provides NPV results based on discount rates of seven percent and three percent for the standard levels considered for standard-sized dishwasher s. Table 10.5.15 shows

10-38

### the NPV results for the candidate standard levels analyzed for standard-sized dishwashers. Under the base case (i.e., without standards) , the cumulative national equipment and operating costs of dishwashers based on a seven-percent disc ount rate equal $66.7 bill ion and $42.6 billion, respectively. Based on a three-percent discount rate, the cumulative national equipment and operating costs equal $129.2 billion and $91.6 billion, respectively. Detailed results showing the breakdown of the NPV into national equipment co sts and national operating costs are provided in Appendix 10B.
Table 10.5.15 Dishwashers: Cumulative NPV Resu lts based on Seven-Percent and ThreePercent Discount Rates

Standard Level EF NPV 7% Discount Rate billion 2006$ 3% Discount Rate billion 2006$ 1 0.46 0.38 0.94 2 0.58 1.29 3.29 3 0.62 1.73 4.72 4 0.65 0.90 3.61 5 0.72 -2.75 -2.94 6 0.80 -7.25 -10.77 7 1.11 -7.28 -8.16



### 10.5.4.2 Dehumidifiers 

### This section provides NPV results based on discount rates of seven percent and three percent for the standard levels considered for dehumidifiers. Tables 10.5.16 and 10.5.17 show the NPV results for the candidate standard leve ls analyzed for dehumidifiers based on discount rates of seven percent and three percent, resp ectively. Under the base case (i.e., without standards), the cumulative national equipment and operating costs of de humidifiers based on a seven-percent discount rate equal $4.1 billion and $14.6 billion, re spectively. Based on a threepercent discount rate, th e cumulative national equipment and operating costs equal $8.1 billion and $31.8 billion, respectively. Detailed resu lts showing the breakdown of the NPV into national equipment costs and national operating costs are provided in Appendix 10B.

10-39

### Table 10.5.16 Dehumidifiers: Cumulative NPV Result s based on a Seven-Percent Discount Rate ≤ 25.00 pints/day 25.01-35.00 pints/d ay 35.01-45.00 pints/d ay 45.01-54.00 pints/d ay 54.01-74.99 pints/d ay ≥ 75 .00 pints/day ALL
NPV NPV NPV NPV NPV NPV NPV
Std @ 7% b illion @ 7% b illion @ 7% b illion @ 7% b illion @ 7% b illion @ 7% b illion @ 7% b illion Level EF 2006$ EF 2006$ EF 2006$ EF 2006$ EF 2006$ EF 2006$ 2006$ 1 1.10 0.01 1.25 0.02 1.35 0.01 1.45 0.01 1.55 0.02 2.38 0.00 0.08 2 1.20 0.05 1.30 0.06 1.40 0.03 1.50 0.03 1.60 0.05 2.50 0.00 0.21 3 1.25 0.05 1.35 0.07 1.45 0.04 1.55 0.04 1.65 0.10 2.55 0.00 0.31 4 1.30 0.04 1.40 0.07 1.50 0.03 1.60 0.04 1.70 0.11 2.60 0.00 0.31 5 1.38 0.05 1.45 0.08 1.74 0.00 2.02 0.21 1.80 0.19 2.75 0.00 0.54

* NPV greater than zero but less than $0.005 billion.


### Table 10.5.17 Dehumidifiers: Cumulative NPV Result s based on a Three-Percent Discount Rate ≤ 25.00 pints/day 25.01-35.00 pints/d ay 35.01-45.00 pints/d ay 45.01-54.00 pints/d ay 54.01-74.99 pints/d ay ≥ 75 .00 pints/day ALL
NPV NPV NPV NPV NPV NPV NPV
Std @ 3% b illion @ 3% b illion @ 3% b illion @ 3% b illion @ 3% b illion @ 3% b illion @ 3% b illion Level EF 2006$ EF 2006$ EF 2006$ EF 2006$ EF 2006$ EF 2006$ 2006$ 1 1.10 0.04 1.25 0.04 1.35 0.04 1.45 0.04 1.55 0.06 2.38 0.00 0.22 2 1.20 0.11 1.30 0.14 1.40 0.09 1.50 0.09 1.60 0.12 2.50 0.01 0.57 3 1.25 0.13 1.35 0.20 1.45 0.13 1.55 0.14 1.65 0.27 2.55 0.01 0.87 4 1.30 0.12 1.40 0.21 1.50 0.14 1.60 0.16 1.70 0.32 2.60 0.01 0.96 5 1.38 0.15 1.45 0.25 1.74 0.19 2.02 0.66 1.80 0.55 2.75 0.01 1.81

* NPV greater than zero but less than $0.005 billion.



### 10.5.4.3 Cooking Products – Cooktops and Ovens 

### This section provides NPV results based on discount rates of seven percent and three percent for the standard levels considered for cooktops and ovens. Tables 10.5.18 and 10.5.19 show the NPV results for the candidate standard levels analyzed for cooktops and ovens, respectively. Under the base case (i.e., without standards), th e cumulative national equipment and operating costs of cooking products based on a seven-percent discount rate equal $72.3 billion and $42.6 billion, respec tively. Based on a three-percent discount rate, the cumulative national equipment and operating costs equal $1 38.0 billion and $91.8 billion, respectively. Detailed results showing the breakdown of the NPV into national equipment costs and national operating costs are provided in Appendix 10B.

10-40

### Table 10.5.18 Cooktops: Cumulative NPV Result s based on Seven-Percent and ThreePercent Discount Rates Electric Coil Electric Smooth Gas NPV NPV NPV NPV NPV NPV @ 7% @ 3% @ 7% @ 3% @ 7% @ 3% EF EF EF billion billion billion billion billion billion Std Level 2006$ 2006$ 2006$ 2006$ 2006$ 2006$ 1 0.769 0.05 0.18 0.753 -7.48 -14.28 0.399 0.29 0.67 2 0.420 -0.65 -0.98


### Table 10.5.19 Ovens: Cumulative NPV Results based on Seven-Percent and Three-Percent Discount Rates Elec Standard Elec Self-Clean

Std EF NPV NPV

EF NPV NPV

EF NPV NPV

EF NPV NPV

2 3 4 5 6 1a* Gas Standard Gas Self-Clean

Level @ 7% billion 2006$ @ 3% billion 2006$ @ 7% billion 2006$ @ 3% billion 2006$ @ 7% billion 2006$ @ 3% billion 2006$ @ 7% billion 2006$ @ 3% billion 2006$ 1* 0.1113 0.06 0.17 0.1102 -0.28 -0.53 0.0536 0.10 0.24 0.0625 -0.01 0.18

0.1163 0.08 0.27 0.1123 -2.87 -5.41 0.0566 0.11 0.34 0.0627 -0.12 0.02 0.1181 0.03 0.19 0.0572 0.11 0.34 0.0632 -0.14 -0.05 0.1206 -0.81 -1.39 0.0593 -0.33 -0.45 0.1209 -0.88 -1.52 0.0596 -0.36 -0.50 0.0600 -0.42 -0.62 0.0583 0.35 0.92

* For gas standard ovens, levels 1 and 1a correspond to designs that are utilized for the same purpose—eliminate the

need for a standing p ilot—but the technologies for each design are di fferent. 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.



### 10.5.4.4 Cooking Products – Microwave Ovens 

### This section provides NPV results based on discount rates of seven percent and three percent for the standard levels considered fo r microwave ovens. Table 10.5.20 shows the NPV results for the candidate standard levels analyzed for microwave ovens. Under the base case (i.e., without standards), the cumulative nationa l equipment and operating costs of dishwashers based on a seven-percent discount rate equal $36.3 billion and $17.5 billion, respectively. Based on a three-percent discount rate, the cumulativ e national equipment and operating costs equal $69.6 billion and $35.5 billion, respectively. Detailed results showi ng the breakdown of the NPV into national equipment costs and nationa l operating costs are provided in Appendix 10B.

10-41

### Table 10.5.20 Microwave Ovens: Cumulative NPV Results based on Seven-Percent and Three-Percent Discount Rates

Standard Level EF NPV 7% Discount Rate billion 2006$ 3% Discount Rate billion 2006$ 1 0.586 -1.40 -2.48 2 0.588 -3.52 -6.51 3 0.597 -6.58 -12.28 4 0.602 -10.35 -19.40



### 10.5.4.5 Commercial Clothes Washers 

### This section provides NPV results based on discount rates of seven percent and three percent for the standard levels considered for commercial clothes washers. Table 10.5.21 shows the NPV results for the candidate standard leve ls analyzed for commercial clothes washers. Under the base case (i.e., without standards) , the cumulative national equipment and operating costs of dishwashers based on a seven-percent di scount rate equal $2.2 billion and $9.7 billion, respectively. Based on a three-percent discount rate, the cumulative national equipment and operating costs equal $4.3 billion and $21.0 billion, respectively. Detailed results showing the breakdown of the NPV into national equipment co sts and national operating costs are provided in Appendix 10B.
Table 10.5.21 Commercial Clothes Washers: Cumulative NPV Results based on SevenPercent and Three-Percent Discount Rates

Standard Level MEF/WF NPV 7% Discount Rate billion 2006$ 3% Discount Rate billion 2006$ 1 1.42/9.50 0.04 0.20 2 1.60/8.50 -0.09 0.22 3 1.72/8.00 0.23 0.99 4 1.80/7.50 0.49 1.64 5 2.00/5.50 1.41 3.87 6 2.20/5.10 1.77 4.74

10-42

### REFERENCES

1 

### Association of Home Ap pliance Manufacturers. AHAM Fact Books 

### , 1987, 1988, 1993, 1995, 2000, and 2003. Washington, DC.

2 

### Association of Home Ap pliance Manufacturers. AHAM 2005 Fact Book 

### , 2005. Washington, DC.

3 

### U.S. Department of Energy-En ergy Information Administration. Residential Energy Consumption Survey, 2001 Public Use Data Files 

### , 2001. Washington, DC. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/publicuse2001.html >

4 

### M.M. Sanik. Hand versus Machine Dishwashing, Proceedings of the 41 st 

### International Appliance Technical Conference 

### , May, 1990. The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

5 

### R. Stamminger, Badura, R., Broil, G., Dorr, S., and Elschendroich, A., A European Comparison of Cleaning Dishes by Hand 

### , University of Bonn, Germany. <http://www.landtechnik.uni-bonn.de/ifl_r esear ch/ifl_research_project.php?sec=HT&no=1 >

6 

### Market Transformation Programme – Briefing Note. BNW16: A comparison of washing up by hand with a domestic dishwasher 

### , February 13, 2006. Market Transformation Programme, United Kingdom. <http://www.mtprog.com/>

7 

### Consortium for Energy Efficiency. Commercial Family-Sized Washers: An Initiative Description of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency 

### , 1998. Boston, MA.

10-43