Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers, 13520-13621 [2023-03862]
Download as PDF
13520
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE–2017–BT–STD–0014]
RIN 1904–AD98
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for
Residential Clothes Washers
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
and announcement of public meeting.
AGENCY:
The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, as amended
(‘‘EPCA’’), prescribes energy
conservation standards for various
consumer products and certain
commercial and industrial equipment,
including residential clothes washers
(‘‘RCWs’’). EPCA also requires the U.S.
Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) to
periodically determine whether morestringent, standards would be
technologically feasible and
economically justified, and would result
in significant energy savings. In this
notice of proposed rulemaking
(‘‘NOPR’’), DOE proposes amended
energy conservation standards for
RCWs, and also announces a public
meeting to receive comment on these
proposed standards and associated
analyses and results.
DATES:
Meeting: DOE will hold a public
meeting via webinar on Tuesday, March
28, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
See section VII of this document,
‘‘Public Participation,’’ for webinar
registration information, participant
instructions, and information about the
capabilities available to webinar
participants.
Comments: DOE will accept
comments, data, and information
regarding this NOPR no later than May
2, 2023.
Comments regarding the likely
competitive impact of the proposed
standard should be sent to the
Department of Justice contact listed in
the ADDRESSES section on or before
April 3, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov, under docket
number EERE–2017–BT–STD–0014.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE–
2017–BT–STD–0014, by any of the
following methods:
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
Email: ConsumerClothes
Washer2017STD0014@ee.doe.gov.
Include the docket number EERE–2017–
BT–STD–0014 in the subject line of the
message.
Postal Mail: Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible,
please submit all items on a compact
disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance
and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza
SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD, in
which case it is not necessary to include
printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on this process, see section
VII of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity,
which includes Federal Register
notices, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials, is
available for review at
www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. However,
not all documents listed in the index
may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public
disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE–
2017–BT–STD–0014. The docket web
page contains instructions on how to
access all documents, including public
comments, in the docket. See section VII
of this document for information on
how to submit comments through
www.regulations.gov.
EPCA requires the Attorney General
to provide DOE a written determination
of whether the proposed standard is
likely to lessen competition. The U.S.
Department of Justice Antitrust Division
invites input from market participants
and other interested persons with views
on the likely competitive impact of the
proposed standard. Interested persons
may contact the Division at
energy.standards@usdoj.gov on or
before the date specified in the DATES
section. Please indicate in the ‘‘Subject’’
line of your email the title and Docket
Number of this proposed rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–
5649. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Melanie Lampton, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC–33, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (240) 751–
5157. Email: Melanie.Lampton@
hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment, review other public
comments and the docket, or participate
in the public meeting, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by
email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits and Costs
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for
Residential Clothes Washers
C. Deviation From Appendix A
III. General Discussion
A. General Comments
B. Scope of Coverage
C. Test Procedure
1. History of Appendix J
2. Metrics
3. Test Cloth
4. Other Test Procedure-Related Comments
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible
Levels
E. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
F. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and
Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to
Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of
Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related
Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Product Classes
2. Technology Options
B. Screening Analysis
1. Screened-Out Technologies
2. Remaining Technologies
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Preliminary Analysis Prediction Tool
2. Efficiency Analysis
a. Baseline Efficiency Levels
b. Higher Efficiency Levels
c. Semi-Automatic
3. Cost Analysis
4. Cost-Efficiency Results
5. Translations
a. Preliminary Analysis Approach
b. NODA Approach
c. NOPR Approach
d. Alternative Approaches
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy and Water Use Analysis
1. Number of Annual Cycles
2. Rebound Effect
3. Water Heating Energy Use
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
1. Consumer Product Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy and Water Consumption
4. Energy and Water Prices
a. Energy Prices
b. Water and Wastewater Prices
5. Repair and Maintenance Costs
6. Product Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the NoNew-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
10. Other Issues
G. Shipments Analysis
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Product Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy and Water Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
1. Low-Income Households
2. Senior-Only Households
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model
and Key Inputs
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
b. Shipments Projections
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios
3. Manufacturer Interviews
a. Product Classes
b. Ability To Serve Certain Consumer
Segments
c. Supply Chain Constraints
4. Discussion of MIA Comments
K. Emissions Analysis
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in
DOE’s Analysis
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
a. Social Cost of Carbon
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous
Oxide
2. Monetization of Other Emissions
Impacts
M. Utility Impact Analysis
N. Employment Impact Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy
Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual
Consumers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy and Water
Savings
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs
and Benefits
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of
Products
a. Performance Characteristics
b. Availability of ‘‘Traditional’’ Agitators
c. Water Levels
d. Availability of Portable Products
e. Conclusion
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
C. Conclusion
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs
Considered for Residential Clothes
Washer Standards
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the
Proposed Standards
D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling
Plan
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866
and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is
Being Considered
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description on Estimated Number of
Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance
Requirements Including Differences in
Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of
Small Entities
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With
Other Rules and Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Information Quality
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared
General Statements for Distribution
C. Conduct of the Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, Public Law 94–163, as amended
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13521
(‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes DOE to regulate
the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291–
6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA 2
established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other
Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291–
6309) These products include consumer
(residential) 3 clothes washers
(‘‘RCWs’’), the subject of this proposed
rulemaking.
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or
amended energy conservation standard
must be designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE determines is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or
amended standard must result in a
significant conservation of energy. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also
provides that not later than 6 years after
issuance of any final rule establishing or
amending a standard, DOE must publish
either a notice of determination that
standards for the product do not need to
be amended, or a notice of proposed
rulemaking including new proposed
energy conservation standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
In accordance with these and other
statutory provisions discussed in this
document, DOE proposes amended
energy conservation standards for
RCWs. The proposed standards, which
are expressed in terms of energy
efficiency ratio (‘‘EER’’) measured in
pounds per kilowatt-hour per cycle (‘‘lb/
kWh/cycle’’) and water efficiency ratio
(‘‘WER’’) measured in pounds per gallon
per cycle (‘‘lb/gal/cycle’’) as measured
using the test procedure at title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’),
part 430, subpart B, appendix J
(‘‘appendix J’’), are shown in Table I.1.
These proposed standards, if adopted,
would apply to all RCWs listed in Table
I.1 manufactured in, or imported into,
the United States starting on the date 3
years after the publication in the
Federal Register of the final rule for this
rulemaking. As shown in Table I.1 and
discussed further in IV.A.1 of this
document, DOE proposes standards for
separate RCW product classes that are
1 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the Energy Act
of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which
reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A–1 of EPCA.
2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
3 DOE uses the ‘‘residential’’ nomenclature and
‘‘RCW’’ abbreviation for consumer clothes washers
in order to distinguish from the ‘‘CCW’’
abbreviation used for commercial clothes washers,
which are also regulated equipment under EPCA.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13522
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
defined based on axis of loading (i.e.,
top-loading or front-loading), clothes
container capacity (measured in cubic
feet (‘‘ft3’’)), and whether the product is
automatic or semi-automatic.
TABLE I.1—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
Minimum energy
efficiency ratio
(lb/kWh/cycle)
Product class
Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers ...............................................................................................................
Automatic Clothes Washers:
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) .....................................................................
Top-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) ....................................................................
Front-Loading, Compact (less than 3.0 ft3 capacity) ...........................................................................
Front-Loading, Standard-Size (3.0 ft3 or greater capacity) ..................................................................
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
Table I.2 presents DOE’s evaluation of
the economic impacts of the proposed
standards, represented by trial standard
level (‘‘TSL’’) 4, on consumers of RCWs,
as measured by the average life-cycle
cost (‘‘LCC’’) savings and the simple
payback period (‘‘PBP’’).4 The average
LCC savings are positive for all product
Minimum water
efficiency ratio
(lb/gal/cycle)
2.12
0.27
3.79
4.78
5.02
5.73
0.29
0.63
0.71
0.77
classes, and the PBP is less than the
average lifetime of RCWs, which is
estimated to be 13.7 years (see section
IV.F.6 of this document).
TABLE I.2—IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS ON CONSUMERS OF RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES
WASHERS
Average LCC
savings
(2021$)
Product class
Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers ...............................................................................................................
Automatic Clothes Washers:
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) * ...................................................................
Top-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) ....................................................................
Front-Loading, Compact (less than 3.0 ft3 capacity) ...........................................................................
Front-Loading, Standard-Size (3.0 ft3 or greater capacity) ..................................................................
Simple payback
period
(years)
$329
0.3
n.a.
134
7
19
n.a.
5.9
9.1
3.2
* The entry ‘‘n.a.’’ means not applicable because the standard at the proposed TSL is the baseline.
The industry net present value
(‘‘INPV’’) is the sum of the discounted
cash flows to the industry from the base
year through the end of the analysis
period (2022–2056). Using a real
discount rate of 9.3 percent, DOE
estimates that the INPV for
manufacturers of RCWs in the case
without amended standards is $1,738.3
million in 2021$. Under the proposed
standards, the change in INPV is
estimated to range from –30.5 percent to
–20.8 percent, which is approximately
¥$530.2 million to ¥$361.6 million. In
order to bring products into compliance
with amended standards, it is estimated
DOE’s analyses indicate that the
proposed energy conservation standards
for RCWs would save a significant
amount of energy and water. Relative to
the case without amended standards,
the lifetime energy and water savings for
RCWs purchased in the 30-year period
that begins in the anticipated year of
compliance with the standards (2027–
2056) amount to 1.45 quadrillion British
thermal units (‘‘Btu’’), or quads of
energy and 2.53 trillion gallons of water,
respectively.6
The cumulative net present value
(‘‘NPV’’) of total consumer benefits of
the proposed standards for RCWs ranges
from $5.14 billion (at a 7-percent
discount rate) to $14.52 billion (at a
3-percent discount rate). This NPV
expresses the estimated total value of
future operating-cost savings minus the
estimated increased product costs and
installation costs for RCWs purchased in
2027–2056.
In addition, the proposed standards
for RCWs are projected to yield
significant environmental benefits. DOE
estimates that the proposed standards
would result in cumulative emission
reductions (over the same period as for
energy savings) of 53.21 million metric
tons (‘‘Mt’’) 7 of carbon dioxide (‘‘CO2’’),
19.93 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide
(‘‘SO2’’), 92.39 thousand tons of nitrogen
4 The average LCC savings refer to consumers that
are affected by a standard and are measured relative
to the efficiency distribution in the no-newstandards case, which depicts the market in the
compliance year in the absence of new or amended
standards (see section IV.F.8 of this document). The
simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific
efficiency levels, is measured relative to the
baseline product (see section IV.F.9 of this
document).
5 All monetary values in this document are
expressed in 2021 dollars.
6 The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (‘‘FFC’’)
energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the
energy consumed in extracting, processing, and
transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas,
petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more
complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency
standards. For more information on the FFC metric,
see section IV.H.1 of this document.
7 A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons.
Results for emissions other than CO2 are presented
in short tons.
DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the
proposed standards on consumers is
described in section IV.F of this
document.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
B. Impact on Manufacturers
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
that the industry would incur total
conversion costs of $690.8 million.
DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the
proposed standards on manufacturers is
described in section IV.J of this
document. The analytic results of the
manufacturer impact analysis (‘‘MIA’’)
are presented in section V.B.2 of this
document.
C. National Benefits and Costs 5
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
oxides (‘‘NOX’’), 411.43 thousand tons
of methane (‘‘CH4’’), 0.48 thousand tons
of nitrous oxide (‘‘N2O’’), and 0.13 tons
of mercury (‘‘Hg’’).8
DOE estimates the value of climate
benefits from a reduction in greenhouse
gases (‘‘GHG’’) using four different
estimates of the social cost of CO2 (‘‘SC–
CO2’’), the social cost of methane (‘‘SC–
CH4’’), and the social cost of nitrous
oxide (‘‘SC–N2O’’). Together these
represent the social cost of GHG (‘‘SC–
GHG’’).9 DOE used interim SC–GHG
values developed by an Interagency
Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases (‘‘IWG’’).10 The
derivation of these values is discussed
in section IV.L of this document. For
presentational purposes, the climate
benefits associated with the average SC–
GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are
estimated to be $2.71 billion. DOE does
not have a single central SC–GHG point
estimate and it emphasizes the
importance and value of considering the
benefits calculated using all four sets of
SC–GHG estimates.
DOE estimated the monetary health
benefits of SO2 and NOX emissions
reductions using benefit per ton
estimates from the scientific literature,
as discussed in section IV.L of this
document. DOE estimated the present
value of the health benefits would be
$1.91 billion using a 7-percent discount
rate, and $4.57 billion using a 3-percent
13523
discount rate.11 DOE is currently only
monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5
precursor health benefits and (for NOX)
ozone precursor health benefits, but will
continue to assess the ability to
monetize other effects such as health
benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5
emissions.
Table I.3 summarizes the economic
benefits and costs expected to result
from the proposed standards for RCWs.
There are other important unquantified
effects, including certain unquantified
climate benefits, unquantified public
health benefits from the reduction of
toxic air pollutants and other emissions,
unquantified energy security benefits,
and distributional effects, among others.
TABLE I.3—SUMMARY OF MONETIZED ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION
STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
[TSL 4]
Billion 2021$
3% discount rate
Consumer Operating Cost Savings ...............................................................................................................................................
Climate Benefits * ...........................................................................................................................................................................
Health Benefits ** ...........................................................................................................................................................................
27.83
2.71
4.57
Total Benefits † .......................................................................................................................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ........................................................................................................................................
35.11
13.31
Net Benefits ............................................................................................................................................................................
14.52
7% discount rate
Consumer Operating Cost Savings ...............................................................................................................................................
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) ............................................................................................................................................
Health Benefits ** ...........................................................................................................................................................................
12.73
2.71
1.91
Total Benefits † .......................................................................................................................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ........................................................................................................................................
17.35
7.58
Net Benefits ............................................................................................................................................................................
5.14
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with RCWs shipped in 2027–2056. These results include benefits to consumers
which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027–2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC–CO2), methane (SC–CH4), and nitrous oxide
(SC–N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate) (see section IV.L of
this document). Together these represent the global SC–GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the
average SC–GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. On March 16, 2022,
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the Federal government’s emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February
11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the
preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government’s appeal of that injunction or a further court order.
Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying
upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has
reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
8 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to
the no-new-standards case, which reflects key
assumptions in the Annual Energy Outlook 2022
(‘‘AEO2022’’). AEO2022 represents current federal
and state legislation and final implementation of
regulations as of the time of its preparation. See
section IV.K of this document for further discussion
of AEO2022 assumptions that effect air pollutant
emissions.
9 On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the Federal
government’s emergency motion for stay pending
appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary
injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth
Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no
longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal
government’s appeal of that injunction or a further
court order. Among other things, the preliminary
injunction enjoined the defendants in that case
from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or
relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social
cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the
Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to
monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has
reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
presents monetized benefits where appropriate and
permissible under law.
10 See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost
of Greenhouse Gases, Technical Support Document:
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide.
Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990,
Washington, DC, February 2021.
www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/
TechnicalSupportDocument_
SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf.
11 DOE estimates the economic value of these
emissions reductions resulting from the considered
TSLs for the purpose of complying with the
requirements of Executive Order 12866.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13524
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as
health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
† Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation purposes,
total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but
DOE does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated
using all four sets of SC–GHG estimates.
‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
The benefits and costs of the proposed
standards can also be expressed in terms
of annualized values. The monetary
values for the total annualized net
benefits are (1) the reduced consumer
operating costs, minus (2) the increase
in product purchase prices and
installation costs, plus (3) the value of
climate and benefits of emission
reductions, all annualized.12
The national operating savings are
domestic private U.S. consumer
monetary savings that occur as a result
of purchasing the covered products and
are measured for the lifetime of RCWs
shipped in 2027–2056. The benefits
associated with reduced emissions
achieved as a result of the proposed
standards are also calculated based on
the lifetime of RCWs shipped in
2027–2056. Total benefits for both the 3percent and 7-percent cases are
presented using the average GHG social
costs with 3-percent discount rate.
Estimates of SC–GHG values are
presented for all four discount rates in
section IV.L of this document.
Table I.4 presents the total estimated
monetized benefits and costs associated
with the proposed standard, expressed
in terms of annualized values. The
results under the primary estimate are
as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for
consumer benefits and costs and health
benefits from reduced NOX and SO2
emissions, and the 3-percent discount
rate case for climate benefits from
reduced GHG emissions, the estimated
cost of the standards proposed in this
rule is $800.8 million per year in
increased equipment costs, while the
estimated annual benefits are $1,344.2
million in reduced equipment operating
costs, $155.7 million in climate benefits,
and $202.0 million in health benefits. In
this case, the net benefit would amount
to $901.1 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all
benefits and costs, the estimated cost of
the proposed standards is $764.0
million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the estimated annual
benefits are $1,598.0 million in reduced
operating costs, $155.7 million in
climate benefits, and $262.2 million in
health benefits. In this case, the net
benefit would amount to $1,251.8
million per year.
TABLE I.4—ANNUALIZED MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR
RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
[TSL 4]
Million 2021$/year
Primary
estimate
Low-netbenefits
estimate
High-netbenefits
estimate
3% discount rate
Consumer Operating Cost Savings .............................................................................................
Climate Benefits * .........................................................................................................................
Health Benefits ** .........................................................................................................................
1,598.0
155.7
262.2
1,544.5
151.7
255.8
1,657.8
159.7
268.9
Total Benefits† ......................................................................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ......................................................................................
2,015.9
764.0
1,952.0
778.7
2,086.4
695.5
Net Benefits ..........................................................................................................................
1,251.8
1,173.4
1,390.9
Consumer Operating Cost Savings .............................................................................................
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) ..........................................................................................
Health Benefits ** .........................................................................................................................
1,344.2
155.7
202.0
1,302.8
151.7
197.5
1,389.7
159.7
206.7
Total Benefits † .....................................................................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs‡ .......................................................................................
1,701.9
800.8
1,652.0
813.3
1,756.1
737.9
Net Benefits ..........................................................................................................................
901.1
838.7
1,018.3
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7% discount rate
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with RCWs shipped in 2027–2056. These results include benefits to consumers
which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027–2056. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2022 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and
a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and
IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
12 To convert the time-series of costs and benefits
into annualized values, DOE calculated a present
value in 2021, the year used for discounting the
NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the
benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
with each year’s shipments in the year in which the
shipments occur (e.g., 2030), and then discounted
the present value from each year to 2021. The
calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 7 percent
for all costs and benefits. Using the present value,
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over
a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year,
that yields the same present value.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
13525
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC–GHG (see section IV.L of this document). For presentational
purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department
does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using
all four sets of SC–GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the Federal government’s
emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–
KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government’s appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from
‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by
the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits where
appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as
health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
† Total benefits include for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but
the Department does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate.
‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
DOE’s analysis of the national impacts
of the proposed standards is described
in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this
document.
D. Conclusion
DOE has tentatively concluded that
the proposed standards represent the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified, and
would result in the significant
conservation of energy. Specifically,
with regards to technological feasibility,
products achieving these standard levels
are already commercially available for
all product classes covered by this
proposal. As for economic justification,
DOE’s analysis shows that the benefits
of the proposed standard exceed, to a
great extent, the burdens of the
proposed standards.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for
consumer benefits and costs and NOx
and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3percent discount rate case for GHG
social costs, the estimated cost of the
proposed standards for RCWs is $800.8
million per year in increased product
costs, while the estimated annual
benefits are $1,344.2 million in reduced
product operating costs, $155.7 million
in climate benefits and $202.0 million
in health benefits. The net benefit
amounts to $901.1 million per year.
The significance of energy savings
offered by a new or amended energy
conservation standard cannot be
determined without knowledge of the
specific circumstances surrounding a
given rulemaking.13 For example, some
covered products and equipment have
substantial energy consumption occur
during periods of peak energy demand.
The impacts of these products on the
energy infrastructure can be more
pronounced than products with
relatively constant demand.
13 Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for
Consideration in New or Revised Energy
Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for
Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial
Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
Accordingly, DOE evaluates the
significance of energy savings on a caseby-case basis.
As previously mentioned, the
proposed standards are projected to
result in estimated national energy
savings of 1.45 quads FFC, the
equivalent of the primary annual energy
use of 16 million homes. The NPV of
consumer benefit for these projected
energy savings is $5.14 billion using a
discount rate of 7 percent, and $14.52
billion using a discount rate of 3
percent. The cumulative emissions
reductions associated with these energy
savings are 53.21 Mt of CO2, 19.93
thousand tons of SO2, 92.39 thousand
tons of NOX, 0.13 tons of Hg, 411.43
thousand tons of CH4, and 0.48
thousand tons of N2O. The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC–GHG at
a 3-percent discount rate) is $2.71
billion. The estimated monetary value of
the health benefits from reduced SO2
and NOX emissions is $1.91 billion
using a 7-percent discount rate and
$4.57 billion using a 3-percent discount
rate. As such, DOE has initially
determined the energy savings from the
proposed standard levels are
‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).14 A more detailed
discussion of the basis for these
tentative conclusions is contained in the
remainder of this document and the
accompanying technical support
document (‘‘TSD’’).15
DOE also considered more-stringent
energy efficiency levels as potential
standards, and is still considering them
in this proposed rulemaking. However,
DOE has tentatively concluded that the
potential burdens of the more-stringent
14 See section III.E.2 of this document for further
discussion of how DOE determines whether energy
savings are ‘‘significant’’ within the context of the
statute.
15 The TSD is available in the docket for this
proposed rulemaking at www.regulations.gov/
docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
energy efficiency levels would outweigh
the projected benefits.
Based on consideration of the public
comments DOE receives in response to
this document and related information
collected and analyzed during the
course of this rulemaking effort, DOE
may adopt energy efficiency levels
presented in this document that are
either higher or lower than the proposed
standards, or some combination of
level(s) that incorporate the proposed
standards in part.
II. Introduction
The following section briefly
discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed rule, as well
as some of the relevant historical
background related to the establishment
of standards for RCWs.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the
energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of
EPCA established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles.
These products include RCWs, the
subject of this document. (42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(7)) EPCA prescribed energy
conservation standards for these
products (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(2) and
(9)(A)), and directs DOE to conduct
future rulemakings to determine
whether to amend these standards. (42
U.S.C. 6295(g)(4) and (9)(B)) EPCA
further provides that, not later than 6
years after the issuance of any final rule
establishing or amending a standard,
DOE must publish either a notice of
determination that standards for the
product do not need to be amended, or
a NOPR including new proposed energy
conservation standards (proceeding to a
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1))
The energy conservation program
under EPCA consists essentially of four
parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the
establishment of Federal energy
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
13526
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
conservation standards, and (4)
certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of
EPCA specifically include definitions
(42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42
U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42
U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation
standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the
authority to require information and
reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C.
6296).
Federal energy efficiency
requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally
supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing,
labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C.
6297(a)–(c)) DOE may, however, grant
waivers of Federal preemption for
particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and
other provisions set forth under EPCA.
(See 42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Subject to certain criteria and
conditions, DOE is required to develop
test procedures to measure the energy
efficiency, energy use, or estimated
annual operating cost of each covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(r))
Manufacturers of covered products must
use the prescribed DOE test procedure
as the basis for certifying to DOE that
their products comply with the
applicable energy conservation
standards adopted under EPCA and
when making representations to the
public regarding the energy use or
efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C.
6293(c) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Similarly, DOE must use these test
procedures to determine whether the
products comply with standards
adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for
RCWs appear at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix J (‘‘appendix J’’)
and appendix J2 (‘‘appendix J2’’).
DOE must follow specific statutory
criteria for prescribing new or amended
standards for covered products,
including RCWs. Any new or amended
standard for a covered product must be
designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that
the Secretary of Energy (‘‘Secretary’’)
determines is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may
not adopt any standard that would not
result in the significant conservation of
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a
standard if DOE determines by rule that
the standard is not technologically
feasible or economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In deciding
whether a proposed standard is
economically justified, DOE must
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
determine whether the benefits of the
standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this
determination after receiving comments
on the proposed standard, and by
considering, to the greatest extent
practicable, the following seven
statutory factors:
(1) The economic impact of the
standard on the manufacturers and on
the consumers of the products subject to
such standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of
the covered product in the type (or
class) compared to any increase in the
price of, or in the initial charges for, or
maintenance expenses of, the covered
products which are likely to result from
the imposition of the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of
energy, or as applicable, water, savings
likely to result directly from the
imposition of the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the
performance of the covered products
likely to result from the imposition of
the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing
by the Attorney General, that is likely to
result from the imposition of the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and
water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary
considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII))
Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable
presumption that a standard is
economically justified if the Secretary
finds that the additional cost to the
consumer of purchasing a product
complying with an energy conservation
standard level will be less than three
times the value of the energy savings
during the first year that the consumer
will receive as a result of the standard,
as calculated under the applicable test
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA also contains what is known as
an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, which
prevents the Secretary from prescribing
any amended standard that either
increases the maximum allowable
energy use or decreases the minimum
required energy efficiency of a covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the
Secretary may not prescribe an amended
or new standard if interested persons
have established by a preponderance of
the evidence that the standard is likely
to result in the unavailability in the
United States in any covered product
type (or class) of performance
characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes
that are substantially the same as those
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
generally available in the United States.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
Additionally, EPCA specifies
requirements when promulgating an
energy conservation standard for a
covered product that has two or more
subcategories. DOE must specify a
different standard level for a type or
class of product that has the same
function or intended use, if DOE
determines that products within such
group: (A) consume a different kind of
energy from that consumed by other
covered products within such type (or
class); or (B) have a capacity or other
performance-related feature which other
products within such type (or class) do
not have and such feature justifies a
higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a
performance-related feature justifies a
different standard for a group of
products, DOE must consider such
factors as the utility to the consumer of
the feature and other factors DOE deems
appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing
such a standard must include an
explanation of the basis on which such
higher or lower level was established.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
Finally, pursuant to the amendments
contained in the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (‘‘EISA 2007’’),
Public Law 110–140, any final rule for
new or amended energy conservation
standards promulgated after July 1,
2010, is required to address standby
mode and off mode energy use. (42
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when
DOE adopts a standard for a covered
product after that date, it must, if
justified by the criteria for adoption of
standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and
off mode energy use into a single
standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt
a separate standard for such energy use
for that product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)) DOE’s current test
procedures for RCWs address standby
mode and off mode energy use as part
of the EER metric. In this rulemaking,
DOE intends to incorporate such energy
use into any amended energy
conservation standards that it may
adopt.
B. Background
1. Current Standards
The current energy conservation
standards for RCWs were established in
a direct final rule published on May 31,
2012. 77 FR 32308 (‘‘May 2012 Final
Rule’’).16 These standards are consistent
with a joint proposal submitted to DOE
16 DOE published a confirmation of effective date
and compliance date for the direct final rule on
October 1, 2012. 77 FR 59719.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13527
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
by interested parties representing
manufacturers, energy and
environmental advocates, and consumer
groups.17
The current standards are defined in
terms of a minimum allowable
integrated modified energy factor
(‘‘IMEF’’), measured in cubic feet per
kilowatt-hour per cycle (‘‘ft3/kWh/
cycle’’), and maximum allowable
integrated water factor (‘‘IWF’’),
measured in gallons per cycle per cubic
foot (‘‘gal/cycle/ft3’’), as measured
according to appendix J2. Id. The May
2012 Final Rule established four classes
of RCW: top-loading, compact (less than
1.6 ft3 capacity); top-loading, standardsize (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity); frontloading, compact (less than 1.6 ft3
capacity); and front-loading, standardsize (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity). 77 FR
32308, 32316–32320. The May 2012
Final Rule established a two-phase
compliance date—the first phase of
amended standards applied to RCWs
manufactured on or after March 7, 2015.
77 FR 32308, 32380. The second phase
of amended standards, which is
currently applicable, applies to RCWs
manufactured on or after January 1,
2018. Id.
The current energy conservation
standards for RCWs are set forth in
DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(g)(4)
and are shown in Table II.1.
TABLE II.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
Minimum integrated
modified
energy factor
3
(ft /kWh/cycle)
Product class
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Top-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) .........................................................................
Top-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) ...............................................................
Front-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) ......................................................................
Front-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) .............................................................
1.15
1.57
1.13
1.84
Maximum integrated
water factor
(gal/cycle/ft3)
12.0
6.5
8.3
4.7
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for
Residential Clothes Washers
On August 2, 2019, DOE published a
request for information (‘‘RFI’’) to
initiate an effort to determine whether
to amend the current energy
conservation standards for RCWs. 84 FR
37794 (‘‘August 2019 RFI’’).
Specifically, through the August 2019
RFI, DOE sought data and information
that could enable the agency to
determine whether DOE should propose
a ‘‘no new standard’’ determination
because a more stringent standard: (1)
would not result in a significant savings
of energy; (2) is not technologically
feasible; (3) is not economically
justified; or (4) any combination of
foregoing. Id.
On September 29, 2021, DOE
published a notification of the
availability of a preliminary technical
support document for RCWs
(‘‘September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis’’). 86 FR 53886. In that
notification, DOE sought comment on
the analytical framework, models, and
tools that DOE used to evaluate
potential standards for RCWs, the
results of preliminary analyses
performed, and the potential energy
conservation standard levels derived
from these analyses, which DOE
presented in the accompanying
Preliminary TSD (‘‘September 2021
Preliminary TSD’’).18 Id. On October 29,
2021, DOE extended the comment
period for the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis for an additional
45 days. 86 FR 59889.
The September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis was conducted based on
energy and water use metrics as
measured according to proposed
amendments to the test procedure as
published in a NOPR on September 1,
2021 (‘‘September 2021 TP NOPR’’). 86
FR 49140. Part of this analysis included
developing translations between the
metrics established by the current
appendix J2 test procedure (i.e., IMEF
and IWF) and the new metrics proposed
to be established by the new appendix
J test procedure (i.e., EER and WER).
On April 13, 2022, DOE published a
notification of data availability
(‘‘NODA’’) presenting the results of
additional testing conducted in
furtherance of the development of the
translations between the current test
procedure and the proposed new test
procedure. 87 FR 21816 (‘‘April 2022
NODA’’). The April 2022 NODA
included a larger sample size of RCWs
than the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis (44 units compared to 16 in the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis,
and covering all proposed product
classes). The April 2022 NODA
presented detailed energy and water use
measurements for each model as well as
a summary of key characteristics
pertaining to each model (e.g., product
class, capacity, cabinet width, etc.). On
May 19, 2022, DOE reopened the
comment period for the April 2022
NODA and provided additional
information in response to stakeholder
questions. 87 FR 30433.
DOE received comments in response
to the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis and April 2022 NODA from
the interested parties listed in Table II.2.
17 Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/
EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019-0032.
18 September 2021 Residential Clothes Washers
Energy Conservation Standards Preliminary
Technical Support Document. Available online at
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BTSTD0014-0030.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13528
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.2—WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE SEPTEMBER 2021 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS AND APRIL
2022 NODA
Comment No. in the docket
In response to
September 2021
Preliminary
Analysis
Commenter
type
Commenter(s)
Abbreviation
In response to
April 2022
NODA
Ameren Illinois, Commonwealth Edison Company, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Northwest Power and Conservation Council Staff.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for
an Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation of America, Natural Resources Defense Council.
Art Fraas .........................................................................................
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers .............................
Ameren et al .........
42
* n/a
ASAP et al ............
37
51
Fraas .....................
AHAM ....................
35
40
n/a
53
Commonwealth Edison Company and Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.
ComEd and NEEA
n/a
50
GE Appliances ................................................................................
Members of the committee of the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority ....
GEA ......................
NAS Members ......
38
34
n/a
n/a
NYSERDA .............
36
n/a
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric,
and Southern California Edison; collectively, the California Investor-Owned Utilities.
Samsung ........................................................................................
Whirlpool Corporation .....................................................................
CA IOUs ................
43
52
Individual.
Trade Association.
Utility & Efficiency Organization.
Manufacturer.
National Advisors.
Public Benefit
Corporation.
Utilities.
Samsung ...............
Whirlpool ...............
41
39
n/a
n/a
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Efficiency Organization &
Utilities.
Efficiency Organizations.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
* ‘‘n/a’’ signifies that the commenter or group of commenters did not provide a comment in response to the particular notification.
A parenthetical reference at the end of
a comment quotation or paraphrase
provides the location of the item in the
public record.19 To the extent that
interested parties have provided written
comments that are substantively
consistent with any oral comments
provided during the November 10, 2021,
public meeting, DOE cites the written
comments throughout this document.
Any oral comments provided during the
webinar that are not substantively
addressed by written comments are
summarized and cited separately
throughout this document.
GEA commented in support of
AHAM’s comments and incorporated
AHAM’s comments into its own by
reference. (GEA, No. 38 at p. 2)
Whirlpool commented that it supports
and echo AHAM’s positions.
(Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 2) Whirlpool
added that its comments expand upon
AHAM’s comments and provide
additional detail or data to reinforce its
positions, as well as to comment on
areas where AHAM cannot comment.
(Id.)
19 The parenthetical reference provides a
reference for information located in the docket of
DOE’s rulemaking to develop energy conservation
standards for RCWs. (Docket NO. EERE–2017–BT–
STD–0014, which is maintained at
www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged
as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID
number, page of that document).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
NYSERDA commented that it
supports the detailed comments
provided by ASAP et al., most notably
investigating the correlation between
clothes washer capacity and measured
efficiency. (NYSERDA, No. 36 at p. 2)
AHAM specified that its comments in
response to the April 2022 NODA do
not supplant its previous comments
submitted in response to the September
2021 Preliminary Analysis, but instead
supplement those comments. (AHAM,
No. 53 at p. 2)
C. Deviation From Appendix A
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10
CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A
(‘‘appendix A’’), DOE notes that it is
deviating from the provision in
appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR
stages for an energy conservation
standards rulemaking. Section 6(a)(2) of
appendix A states that if the Department
determines it is appropriate to proceed
with a rulemaking, the preliminary
stages of a rulemaking to issue or amend
an energy conservation standard that
DOE will undertake will be a framework
document and preliminary analysis, or
an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking. While DOE published a
preliminary analysis for this
rulemaking, DOE did not publish a
framework document in conjunction
with the preliminary analysis. DOE
notes, however, chapter 2 of the
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
September 2021 Preliminary TSD that
accompanied the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis—entitled
Analytical Framework, Comments from
Interested Parties, and DOE Responses—
describes the general analytical
framework that DOE uses in evaluating
and developing potential amended
energy conservation standards.
Additionally, prior to the notification of
the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis, DOE published an RFI in
which DOE identified and sought
comment on the analyses conducted in
support of the most recent energy
conservation standards rulemakings for
RCWs. 84 FR 37794. As such,
publication of a separate framework
document would be largely redundant
of previously published documents.
Section 6(f)(2) of appendix A specifies
that the length of the public comment
period for a NOPR will vary depending
upon the circumstances of the particular
rulemaking, but will not be less than 75
calendar days. For this NOPR, DOE has
opted to instead provide a 60-day
comment period. DOE requested
comment in the August 2019 RFI on the
technical and economic analyses and
provided stakeholders a 60-day
comment period, after publishing the
comment period extension. 84 FR
37794, 84 FR 44557. Additionally, DOE
initially provided a 75-day comment
period for the September 2021
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Preliminary Analysis with an extension
to 120 days. 86 FR 53886, 86 FR 59889.
DOE also provided a 30-day comment
period for the April 2022 NODA and reopened the comment period for an
additional 9 days. 87 FR 21816, 87 FR
30433. The analytical methods used for
this NOPR are similar to those used in
previous rulemaking notices. As such,
DOE believes a 60-day comment period
is necessary and appropriate and will
provide interested parties with a
meaningful opportunity to comment on
the proposed rule.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
III. General Discussion
DOE developed this proposal after
considering oral and written comments,
data, and information from interested
parties that represent a variety of
interests. The following discussion
addresses issues raised by these
commenters.
A. General Comments
This section summarizes general
comments received from interested
parties regarding rulemaking timing and
process.
AHAM commented that publishing
the September 2021 TP NOPR and the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis
concurrently did not allow sufficient
time for stakeholders to provide
meaningful comments on either
publication. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 2–4)
AHAM commented that although DOE
missed the statutory deadlines for both
the test procedure and standards
rulemakings, it is disingenuous to claim
that the only option is to move forward
concurrently on these rulemakings. (Id.)
AHAM suggested that DOE should have
published the test procedure earlier,
considered implementing fewer changes
to the test procedure, or made changes
that do not require testing to evaluate or
reestablish the baseline energy
conservation standards. (Id.) AHAM
expressed concern that DOE moving
forward concurrently with these
rulemakings will likely lead to DOE
needing to conduct additional analysis
based on the finalized test procedure
before proposing a new energy
conservation standard, and that DOE is
missing the opportunity to receive
meaningful feedback on the September
2021 Preliminary Analysis. (Id.) AHAM
added that despite DOE’s desire to move
quickly to rectify missed statutory
deadlines, DOE must ensure it meets
other statutory criteria, including that a
standard must be technically and
economically justified. (Id.)
AHAM noted that the comment
periods for the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis and the September
2021 TP NOPR overlapped by 34 days.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
AHAM noted that it requested a 92-day
comment period extension for the
September 2021 TP NOPR to provide
adequate time to evaluate the proposed
changes to the test procedure through
testing. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 2) AHAM
added that while it appreciated DOE
considering that request and extending
the comment period by 28 days, that
extension was insufficient to complete
the robust testing plan developed by
AHAM and its members, gather the test
data, and analyze the results. (AHAM,
No. 40 at pp. 2–4; AHAM, No. 53 at p.
2)
AHAM stated that because of the
insufficient time, it was unable to
provide detailed comment on the
accuracy, repeatability, and testing
burden associated with the proposed
test procedure and on its potential
impact on measured efficiency, or fully
comment on the proposed test
procedures implications related to the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis.
(AHAM, No. 53 at p. 2) AHAM further
stated that it was planning its own
testing in order to fully understand and
evaluate DOE’s proposed changes.
(AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 2–4)
AHAM commented that it was poor
process for DOE to issue a test
procedure final rule before receiving
comments on the April 2022 NODA,
and to do so during a brief comment
period extension. (Id.) AHAM added
that DOE finalizing the test procedure
during the brief NODA comment period
extension made it nearly impossible for
AHAM to review and analyze the final
test procedure in addition to the new
data and responses to AHAM’s
questions in order to formulate
complete comments on the NODA. (Id.)
AHAM further commented that
although DOE did not hold a public
meeting for the April 2022 NODA, it
appreciated that DOE answered its
questions and provided more time for
comments in order to allow commenters
to review the updates. (AHAM, No. 53
at pp. 2–3) AHAM stated, however, that
the timing of when DOE provided links
to the updated data and responses to
questions left very little time for review
and analysis of the additional data and
information. (Id.)
AHAM noted that although the April
2022 NODA is technically part of the
energy conservation standards docket,
comments on DOE’s test data could
relate to both the energy conservation
standards and test procedure
rulemakings. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 3)
AHAM stated that its comments in
response to the April 2022 NODA
therefore address both the test
procedure and the energy conservation
standards. (Id.) AHAM commented that
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13529
it was poor process for DOE to issue a
test procedure final rule before receiving
comments on the April 2022 NODA,
and to do so during a brief comment
period extension. (Id.) AHAM further
explained that even though DOE
answered or deferred most of AHAM’s
requests in the test procedure final rule
and in the April 2022 NODA, AHAM’s
comments on the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis indicated that
additional information was needed in
order to provide full feedback to DOE on
the test procedure. (Id.) AHAM added
that DOE finalizing the test procedure
during the brief NODA comment period
extension made it nearly impossible for
AHAM to review and analyze the final
test procedure in addition to the new
data and responses to AHAM’s
questions in order to formulate
complete comments on the NODA. (Id.)
AHAM requested that DOE allow for
180 days between the publication of the
test procedure final rule and the end of
the comment period for the energy
conservation standards NOPR. (AHAM,
No. 40 at pp. 4–6; AHAM, No. 53 at p.
12)
Samsung also commented that, given
the scope of changes proposed in
appendix J, more data would be needed
to establish the baseline and efficiency
levels, which could further delay the
finalization of the next energy
conservation standards. (Samsung, No.
41 at p. 3) Samsung commented that it
therefore believes more time and test
data are needed to fully adopt appendix
J. (Id.)
NYSERDA encouraged DOE to
quickly proceed in this rulemaking to
unlock additional significant savings for
New Yorkers. (NYSERDA, No. 36 at p.
3)
In response to AHAM’s comments
regarding the timing of the September
2021 TP NOPR and the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis, DOE notes that
the timing of the test procedure and
energy conservation standards
rulemakings have been conducted in
accordance with DOE’s procedures at
appendix A to subpart C of part 430,
Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies
for Consideration of New or Revised
Energy Conservation Standards and
Test Procedures for Consumer Products
and Certain Commercial/Industrial
Equipment (‘‘appendix A’’ or ‘‘Process
Rule’’). The Process Rule inherently
recognizes a certain amount of overlap
between test procedure and energy
conservation standards rulemakings. In
particular, the Process Rule specifies
that new test procedures and amended
test procedures that impact measured
energy use or efficiency will be finalized
at least 180 days prior to the close of the
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
13530
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
comment period for a NOPR proposing
new or amended energy conservation
standards or a notice of proposed
determination that standards do not
need to be amended. Section 8(d)(1) of
appendix A. Inherent to this
requirement is a recognition that the
earlier stages of the test procedure
rulemaking (i.e., the test procedure
NOPR stage) would be conducted
concurrently with the pre-NOPR stages
of the energy conservation standards
rulemaking (i.e., the preliminary
analysis stage). In other words, the
implication of the timing established by
the Process Rule is that a test procedure
NOPR may provide the basis for a
standards preliminary analysis; while a
test procedure final rule provides the
basis for a standards NOPR. DOE
published a test procedure final rule on
June 1, 2022 (‘‘June 2022 TP Final
Rule’’). 87 FR 33316. This standards
NOPR is publishing more than 180 days
after the publication of the June 2022 TP
Final Rule, in accordance with the
requirements of the Process Rule.
As acknowledged by AHAM, DOE is
conducting this rulemaking in
fulfillment of its statutory obligations
under EPCA. DOE recognizes and
appreciates the information and data
provided by multiple interested parties
in response to the September 2021 TP
NOPR, September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis, and April 2022 NODA. As
discussed throughout this NOPR, DOE
has incorporated data and other
information received during these prior
rulemaking stages into the analyses
conducted for this NOPR.
In response to the September 2021
Preliminary TSD, AHAM commented
that DOE did not provide sufficient data
to support the September 2021
Preliminary TSD, and that DOE’s
analysis was not transparent. (AHAM,
No. 40 at pp. 4–6) AHAM asserted that
by providing summary data and
conclusions without providing further
detail, DOE failed to meet the
requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act or the Data Quality Act.
(Id.) AHAM further commented that the
summary information that DOE
provided as part of the September 2021
Preliminary TSD was somewhat helpful
but did not allow stakeholders to fully
assess the data and did not clearly
demonstrate that DOE’s proposed
translation between appendix J2 and
proposed appendix J was accurate. (Id.)
AHAM requested that DOE provide its
full test data by model for all models
tested to appendix J2 and new appendix
J, via a NODA or other appropriate
regulatory tool. (Id.) AHAM also
requested that DOE share the model
numbers of the clothes washers it tested
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
since it would help stakeholders, such
as AHAM and its members, determine
the representativeness of the sample.
(Id.) Specifically, AHAM requested that
all data released contain all variables
including, but not limited to: total
weighted per-cycle hot water energy
consumption (‘‘HET’’), total weighted
per-cycle machine electrical energy
consumption (‘‘MET’’), total per-cycle
energy consumption for removal of
moisture (‘‘DET’’), combined per-cycle
low power mode energy consumption
(‘‘ETLP’’), and total weighted per-cycle
water consumption (‘‘QT’’). (Id.) AHAM
asked that if DOE cannot provide the
information AHAM requested, DOE
should issue an explanation as to why
it cannot produce the data. (Id.) AHAM
added that it will consider sharing its
data confidentially with DOE once its
analysis is complete so that DOE can
include its analysis on the docket. (Id.)
AHAM stated that DOE should not
issue an energy conservation standards
NOPR until it publishes a NODA that
provides updated data from DOE and
AHAM members’ testing. (AHAM, No.
40 at pp. 4–6)
In response to the April 2022 NODA,
AHAM commented that it had tested 26
RCW models that represent a crosssection of the market in terms of
capacity and features. (AHAM, No. 53 at
pp. 6–7) AHAM tested each model one
to three times and averaged the results.
(Id.) AHAM presented data comparing
IMEF versus EER and IWF versus WER
for the 26 units tested by AHAM and the
44 units tested by DOE in the April 2022
NODA, by product class. (Id.) AHAM
concluded that DOE’s data presented in
the April 2022 NODA appears to be
similar to AHAM’s data in terms of test
results, distribution of models, and
variability. (Id.) AHAM commented that
while it appreciates DOE including
equations and other transparent
information in the April 2022 NODA,
DOE still has not provided model
numbers for the units it tested. (Id.)
AHAM therefore noted that it is
impossible for AHAM to know whether
DOE and AHAM tested some of the
same models. (Id.)
The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to
disclose clothes washer cycle time,
length of spin time for extracting rinse
water, and the maximum spin speed for
the 62 clothes washers tested by DOE so
that interested parties could better
ascertain the trade-offs related to cycle
time and gain a better understanding of
the differences between the remaining
moisture content (‘‘RMC’’) 20 as
20 The
RMC represents the amount of moisture
remaining in the test load at the end of the washer
cycle. RMC is used to calculate the drying energy
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
calculated using appendix J2 versus
appendix J. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 4)
The CA IOUs commented that in the
September 2021 Preliminary TSD,
higher spin speeds and longer spin
times were both used as design options
for efficiency level (‘‘EL’’) 3 and EL 4,
depending on the product class and that
based on the publicly available
information, they were unable to assess
the potential impacts to the overall
cycle time or to understand the
potential trade-offs for higher spin
speeds in lieu of longer cycle times. (Id.)
As discussed in section II.B.2 of this
document, the April 2022 NODA
presented additional test data and
detailed information characterizing each
tested model. This data included the
key energy and water use parameters
requested by AHAM (i.e., HET, MET,
DET, ETLP, and QT) for each of the
models tested. DOE also provided a
number of key characteristics pertaining
to each model (e.g., product class,
capacity, cabinet width, etc.) that
illustrate the types of units on the
market that were represented by DOE’s
test program. DOE appreciates the
additional test data subsequently
provided by AHAM. As discussed in
section IV.C.5 of this document, DOE
used AHAM’s data in combination with
DOE’s data to evaluate the appendix J2
to appendix J efficiency metric
translation methods under
consideration.
Regarding the CA IOUs’ comment
requesting disclosure of the cycle time
measured for each unit in DOE’s test
sample, although the April 2022 NODA
did not indicate the measured cycle
time of each unit in DOE’s test sample,
DOE has characterized the average cycle
time associated with each defined
efficiency level for each product, as
described in chapter 5 of the NOPR
TSD.
NAS Members commented generally
on DOE’s analytical approach to setting
efficiency standards and offered
findings and recommendations for
improving DOE’s methodology, and
ultimately, the net social benefits of the
efficiency standards DOE establishes
under EPCA. (NAS Members, No. 34 at
pp. 1–7)
AHAM commented that National
Academy of Sciences (‘‘NAS’’) recently
released a peer review of methods used
by DOE in setting appliance and
equipment standards. (AHAM, No. 40 at
p. 9) AHAM recommended that DOE
determine how it will address the NAS
component of IMEF and EER. On most clothes
washers, the drying energy component represents
the largest portion of energy captured in the IMEF
and EER metrics.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
report before engaging in further
rulemakings or new amended standards.
(Id.) AHAM acknowledged that
although this may not be feasible given
the number of missed deadlines and the
need to move forward to mitigate further
missed deadlines, AHAM and its
members are reviewing the NAS report
and may have additional comments on
how DOE should revise its methodology
for future rulemakings both generally,
and with regard to RCWs. (Id.)
In response to AHAM, DOE is
addressing the contents of the NAS
report 21 in a separate rulemaking, in
parallel with other ongoing rulemakings
including this RCW rulemaking.
B. Scope of Coverage
This NOPR covers those consumer
products that meet the definition of
‘‘clothes washer.’’ 10 CFR 430.2.
EPCA does not define the term
‘‘clothes washer.’’ DOE has defined a
‘‘clothes washer’’ as a consumer product
designed to clean clothes, utilizing a
water solution of soap and/or detergent
and mechanical agitation or other
movement, that must be one of the
following classes: automatic clothes
washers, semi-automatic clothes
washers, and other clothes washers. Id.
An ‘‘automatic clothes washer’’ is a
class of clothes washer that has a
control system that is capable of
scheduling a preselected combination of
operations, such as regulation of water
temperature, regulation of the water fill
level, and performance of wash, rinse,
drain, and spin functions without the
need for user intervention subsequent to
the initiation of machine operation.
Some models may require user
intervention to initiate these different
segments of the cycle after the machine
has begun operation, but they do not
require the user to intervene to regulate
the water temperature by adjusting the
external water faucet valves. Id.
A ‘‘semi-automatic clothes washer’’ is
a class of clothes washer that is the
same as an automatic clothes washer
except that user intervention is required
to regulate the water temperature by
adjusting the external water faucet
valves. Id. ‘‘Other clothes washer’’
means a class of clothes washer that is
not an automatic or semi-automatic
clothes washer. Id.
See section IV.A.1 of this document
for discussion of the product classes
analyzed in this NOPR.
21 The Consensus Study Report, ‘‘Review of
Methods Used by the U.S. Department of Energy in
Setting Appliance and Equipment Standards,’’
January 7, 2022. Available at www.nap.edu/catalog/
25992/review-of-methods-used-by-the-usdepartment-of-energy-in-setting-appliance-andequipment-standards.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
Other definitions relevant to RCWs
have been established by the
Environmental Protection Agency
(‘‘EPA’’) for purposes of the ENERGY
STAR program. For example, Version
8.1 of the Program Requirements
Product Specification for Clothes
Washers (‘‘ENERGY STAR Version 8.1
Specification’’) 22 defines a
‘‘combination all-in-one washer-dryer’’
as a consumer product that meets the
definition of an RCW and an electric
clothes dryer or gas clothes dryer, which
cleans and dries clothes in a single
tumble-type drum; a drying cycle can be
performed independently without first
performing a wash cycle. During the
drying cycle, combination all-in-one
washer-dryers use one of two methods
to dry the clothing load: either using
circulated air (without the use of water)
to cool and condense moisture from the
dryer process air (i.e., ‘‘combination allin-one washer-dryers with air-only
drying’’), or consuming water to cool
and condense moisture from the dryer
process air (i.e., ‘‘combination all-in-one
washer-dryers with water-cooled
drying’’). In the ENERGY STAR Version
8.1 Specification, combination all-inone washer-dryers with air-only drying
are eligible for ENERGY STAR
certification, whereas combination allin-one washer-dryers with water-cooled
drying are ineligible for ENERGY STAR
certification.
The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to
investigate water-cooled combination
all-in-one washer-dryers and to take
steps to address water usage concerns
raised by the ENERGY STAR Version
8.1 Specification published in April
2021. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 6–7) The
CA IOUs noted that combination all-inone washer-dryers with water-cooled
drying are not currently subject to any
water use standards or water-usage
testing requirements despite the recent
changes finalized by the clothes dryer
test procedure final rule published on
October 8, 2021. (See 86 FR 56608; Id.)
The CA IOUs expressed concern that
there is unmeasured and unregulated
water use in products that seemingly
include a water standard for the
washing mode of the same product. (Id.)
The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to find
ways to disclose this information,
including requiring public disclosure of
any product configurations that use
22 ENERGY STAR Version 8.1 Program
Requirements Product Specification for Clothes
Washers. Available online at www.energystar.gov/
sites/default/files/asset/document/
ENERGY%20STAR%20Version%208.1
%20Clothes%20Washer%20Final
%20Specificaiton%20%20Partner%20Commitments%20and
%20Eligibility%20Criteria.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13531
water during the drying cycle as part of
the certification requirements and
relevant product labeling; making
changes to the consumer clothes dryer
test procedure to measure water use for
combination clothes washer products;
and developing a separate test
procedure and standard for combination
all-in-one washer-dryers and laundry
centers that include both the washing
and drying functions. (Id.)
Evaluating or developing test
procedures is outside the scope of this
energy conservation standards
rulemaking. DOE is not proposing any
certification or labeling requirements in
this NOPR. Instead, DOE may consider
proposals to establish certification
requirements and reporting for RCWs
under a separate rulemaking regarding
appliance and equipment certification.
C. Test Procedure
EPCA sets forth generally applicable
criteria and procedures for DOE’s
adoption and amendment of test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293)
Manufacturers of covered products must
use these test procedures to certify to
DOE that their product complies with
energy conservation standards and to
quantify the efficiency of their product.
DOE’s current energy conservation
standards for RCWs are expressed in
terms of IMEF and IWF as measured
using appendix J2. (See 10 CFR
430.32(g)(4).)
1. History of Appendix J
As discussed, the September 2021 TP
NOPR proposed a new test procedure at
appendix J, which proposed to define
new energy efficiency metrics: an
energy efficiency ratio (i.e., EER) and a
water efficiency ratio (i.e., WER). 86 FR
49140, 49172. EER is defined as the
weighted-average load size in pounds
(‘‘lbs’’) divided by the sum of (1) the
per-cycle machine energy, (2) the percycle water heating energy, (3) the percycle drying energy, and (4) the percycle standby and off mode energy
consumption, in kilowatt-hours
(‘‘kWh’’). Id. WER is defined as the
weighted-average load size in lbs
divided by the total weighted per-cycle
water consumption for all wash cycles
in gallons. Id. For both EER and WER,
a higher value indicates more efficient
performance. Id. The September 2021
Preliminary Analysis was performed
using the appendix J test procedure as
it was proposed in the September 2021
TP NOPR.
As discussed, DOE finalized the new
appendix J test procedure in the June
2022 TP Final Rule. 87 FR 33316. DOE
used appendix J as finalized in the June
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13532
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2022 TP Final Rule as the basis for the
analysis in this NOPR.
AHAM commented that DOE did not
finalize appendix J as proposed in the
September 2021 TP NOPR and that the
test procedure changes described in the
June 2022 TP Final Rule could impact
measured energy and water efficiency.
(AHAM, No. 53 at p. 12) AHAM
asserted that it may be premature to use
the April 2022 NODA data or AHAM’s
additional data to inform the translation
from appendix J2 metric to appendix J
metrics because appendix J is not
identical to the test procedure proposed
in the September 2021 TP NOPR. (Id. at
p. 3)
AHAM commented that it is still
reviewing finalized appendix J and
noted that even if DOE’s and AHAM’s
samples together represent a significant
portion of shipments, it may be
necessary to reconsider the September
2021 Preliminary Analysis based on
finalized appendix J. (Id.)
The appendix J test procedure
finalized by the June 2022 TP Final Rule
included only one change that affects
measured energy consumption.
Specifically, the June 2022 TP Final
Rule updated the assumed final
moisture content (‘‘FMC’’) assumption
in the drying energy formula from 4
percent as proposed in the September
2021 NOPR to 2 percent in finalized
appendix J. Id. at 87 FR 33354. DOE
specifically discussed in the September
2021 NOPR that it would consider
updating the FMC from 4 percent to 2
percent. 86 FR 49140, 49176. The
updated FMC value affects only the
drying energy calculation and can be
implemented formulaically on any test
data that was acquired using the version
of appendix J as proposed in the
September 2021 TP NOPR. In the April
2022 NODA, DOE published two sets of
translation equations corresponding to
an FMC of 4 percent and 2 percent,
respectively, providing interested
parties with the opportunity to evaluate
the data under both approaches. 87 FR
21816, 21817.
2. Metrics
As discussed, under appendix J2,
energy efficiency is measured using the
IMEF metric, measured in ft3/kWh/
cycle, and water efficiency is measured
using the IWF metric, measured in gal/
cycle/ft3. Under appendix J, energy
efficiency is measured using the EER
metric, measured in lb/kWh/cycle, and
water efficiency is measured using the
WER metric, measured in lb/gal/cycle.
Samsung commented in support of
the efficiency metric changes shifting
from capacity-based to load size-based,
stating that it would be better
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
understood by consumers. (Samsung,
No. 41 at p. 3) Samsung recommended,
however, that this be the only change
that DOE implements to calculate the
new energy and water efficiency metrics
EER and WER. (Id.) Samsung added that
shifting the metrics to EER and WER in
this way will only result in a change in
the numeric quantity of measured
efficiency, given that the capacity and
weighted-average load size relationship
is linear. (Id.) Samsung commented that
changing only the metric calculation
would ease burden for manufacturers
while making it easier for consumers to
understand their clothes washer’s
efficiency. (Id.)
EPCA requires that any test
procedures prescribed or amended by
DOE shall be reasonably designed to
produce test results which measure
energy efficiency, energy use or
estimated annual operating cost of a
covered product or equipment during a
representative average use cycle or
period of use, and shall not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3)) As presented in the June
2022 TP Final Rule, in general the
changes in appendix J in comparison to
appendix J2 improve the
representativeness of test results and
reduce test burden, among other
benefits. 87 FR 33316, 33320–33321. In
this NOPR, DOE is proposing standards
based on the new metrics defined in
appendix J as finalized. To aid
interested parties in understanding the
translation between the current metrics
and the new metrics, the engineering
analysis is presented using both the
current metrics (i.e., IMEF and IWF) and
the new metrics (i.e., EER and WER), as
discussed in section IV.C of this
document.
ASAP et al., commented in support of
DOE’s change to make the efficiency
metrics based on load size instead of
capacity, which they asserted will help
mitigate the current bias toward largecapacity clothes washers. (ASAP et al.,
No. 37 at p. 2) ASAP et al., expressed
concern, however, that for top-loading
standard-size clothes washers, largecapacity clothes washers still achieve
higher efficiency ratings. (Id.) ASAP et
al., stated that while the correlation
between large capacity and high
efficiency is less pronounced for EER
than for IMEF, it persists based on the
data presented in the September 2021
Preliminary TSD. (Id.) ASAP et al.,
therefore encouraged DOE to investigate
whether this correlation results from
larger clothes washers being inherently
more efficient, larger clothes washers
employing additional technology
options that improve efficiency, or some
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
remaining inherent bias toward larger
capacity clothes washers. (Id.)
The CA IOUs commented that while
they agree that the appendix J test
procedure offers improvements to the
test procedure to reduce some inherent
biases between efficiency metrics and
capacity, tub capacity can still
contribute to improved efficiency
because a larger amount of clothing can
be washed using an incremental
increase in the quantity of water, and a
larger drum diameter can exert a higher
g-force on clothing, thereby removing
more water during the final spin and
reducing the drying energy. (CA IOUs,
No. 43 at pp. 2–3)
Whirlpool commented that based on
its initial testing, it does not agree with
DOE’s conclusion that there is no
benefit to larger capacities using the
EER metric. Whirlpool commented that
since capacity is still factored into the
load sizes used for testing, and those
load sizes remain a part of the EER
calculation, capacity will still affect
efficiency ratings. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at
p. 19)
In the June 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE
noted that under the current metrics in
appendix J2, energy use (i.e., the
denominator of the IMEF equation)
scales with weighted-average load size,
whereas capacity (i.e., the numerator of
the IMEF equation) scales with
maximum load size. 87 FR 33316,
33349. This provides an inherent
numerical advantage to large-capacity
clothes washers that is disproportionate
to the efficiency advantage that can be
achieved through ‘‘economies of scale’’
associated with washing larger loads. Id.
This advantage means that a largercapacity clothes washer consumes more
energy to wash a pound of clothes than
a smaller-capacity clothes washer with
the same IMEF rating. Id. This
relationship applies similarly to water
efficiency through the IWF equation. Id.
This disproportionate benefit increases
as average clothes washer capacity
increases over time. Id. To avoid
providing bias for large-capacity clothes
washers, DOE changed the energy and
water efficiency metrics in new
appendix J by replacing the capacity
term with the weighted-average load
size. Id. Under appendix J, energy and
water use scale proportionally with
weighted-average load size, thus
eliminating the efficiency ‘‘bias’’
currently provided to large-capacity
clothes washers. Id.
To the extent that larger clothes
washers continue to achieve higher
ratings than smaller clothes washers
under the new metrics, such higher
performance reflects inherent design
option advantages applicable to larger-
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
capacity clothes washers. For example,
as noted by the CA IOUs, large-capacity
clothes washers typically have wider
drum diameters, which can exert higher
g-forces on the load during the spin
cycle for a given spin speed, effectively
yielding a lower RMC measurement
(i.e., reduced drying energy) compared
to an otherwise identical smaller clothes
washer with a narrower drum diameter.
Having removed the numerical ‘‘bias’’
inherent within the current IMEF and
IWF metrics, any remaining
performance advantage provided to
larger-capacity clothes washers under
the new metrics is an accurate and
representative reflection of differences
in efficiency between smaller- and
larger-capacity clothes washers on a perpound of clothing basis.
AHAM commented that it appreciates
that the appendix J test procedure
results in a reduction of test burden and
that DOE could even further reduce test
burden by eliminating the requirement
to measure and calculate standby
energy. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 13) AHAM
further commented that in most cases,
the standby energy is so low that it is
not offset by a benefit to the
environment or consumers under EPCA.
(Id.) AHAM added that because standby
energy use is so low, it is unlikely that
manufacturers will reduce it further in
order to meet future energy conservation
standards; and because manufactures
are not likely to increase standby energy
use since they have already invested in
reducing it, standby energy use will not
be a differentiator between products.
(Id.) AHAM therefore recommended
eliminating the standby measurement
requirement because it will not have a
material effect on overall energy savings
or individual energy testing results. (Id.)
As discussed, EPCA requires that any
test procedure for RCWs prescribed in a
final rule after June 30, 2009 must
include standby mode and off mode
energy consumption, taking into
consideration the most current versions
of Standards 62301 and 62087 of the
International Electrotechnical
Commission, with such energy
consumption integrated into the overall
energy efficiency, energy consumption,
or other energy descriptor for each
covered product, unless the Secretary
determines that either the current test
procedures already fully account for and
incorporate the standby mode and off
mode energy consumption of the
covered product; or such an integrated
test procedure is technically infeasible
for a particular covered product, in
which case EPCA requires the Secretary
to prescribe a separate standby mode
and off mode energy use test procedure
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
13533
measured RMC of each clothes washer
is used to calculate the drying energy,
which has a significant impact on the
3. Test Cloth
final IMEF or EER value. Application of
Both appendix J2 and appendix J
these correction factors significantly
require the use of specialized test cloth
reduces lot-to-lot variation in RMC,
that conforms to the specifications
from over 10 percentage points
outlined in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
uncorrected to around 3 percentage
appendix J3 (‘‘appendix J3’’). As
points corrected. 87 FR 33316, 33369.
discussed in the June 2022 TP Final
AHAM commented that it recently
Rule, the specifications for the energy
notified DOE of an issue concerning Lot
test cloth were developed to be
24 of the test cloth used in clothes
representative of the range of fabrics
washer testing, stating that AHAM’s
comprising consumer wash loads: a 50initial investigations have revealed
percent cotton/50-percent polyester
serious issues with variation in Lot 24
blended material was specified to
that are impacting certification,
approximate the typical mix of cotton,
verification, and regulatory testing
cotton/polyester blend, and synthetic
efforts. (AHAM, No. 53 at pp. 4–5)
articles that are machine-washed by
AHAM specified that the correction
consumers. 87 FR 33316, 33366. In
developing the test cloth specifications, factor for Lot 24 is not accurate across
the entire lot. (Id.) AHAM further
DOE also considered:
explained that this has resulted in an
• Manufacturability: A 50/50 cottonincreased difficulty in meeting the
polyester momie weave was specified
applicable standard because the
because at the time, such cloth was
inaccurate correction factor is negatively
produced in high volume, had been
impacting efficiency. (Id.) AHAM also
produced to a consistent specification
specified that it is more difficult to
for many years, and was expected to be
certify products correctly or with
produced on this basis for the
certainty because the variation in results
foreseeable future. 66 FR 3314, 3331.
and enforcement are major concerns.
• Consistency in test cloth
(Id.) AHAM also expressed concern that
production: The cloth material
testing related to appendix J may be
properties were specified in detail,
questionable given the Lot 24 correction
including fiber content, thread count,
factor variation since both DOE and
and fabric weight; as well as
AHAM used Lot 24 for over half the
requirements to verify that water
units in their test samples. (Id.) AHAM
repellent finishes are not applied to the
therefore concluded that the results of
cloth. Id.
DOE’s and AHAM’s testing should not
• Consistency of the RMC
be used to reestablish a baseline, as they
measurement among different lots: A
likely do not accurately represent
procedure was developed to generate
measured energy or water efficiency.
correction factors for each new ‘‘lot’’
(i.e., batch) of test cloth to normalize test (Id.) AHAM further commented that it
convened its test cloth task force to
results and ensure consistent RMC
measurements regardless of which lot is address the correction factor variation
issue with the goal of providing
used for testing. Id.
Test cloth is manufactured in batches recommendations for DOE, and has
sought guidance and an enforcement
called ‘‘lots,’’ which are quantities of
policy from DOE to address the Lot 24
test cloth that have been manufactured
issues in the short-term. (Id.) AHAM
with the same batches of cotton and
noted that since the test cloth Lot 24
polyester during one continuous
variation will likely impact the accuracy
process. Due to differences between
of DOE and AHAM’s testing, AHAM
batches of cotton and polyester used to
will conduct further review of its data
manufacture the test cloth, each lot has
and may need to submit revised data
slightly different absorption properties.
and/or comments once the impact of
To account for these differences in
this variation on the test data is better
absorption during the RMC
understood. (Id.) AHAM recommended
measurement, appendix J3 specifies a
that DOE work to understand the impact
procedure to determine correction
of this variation on the accuracy of its
factors for each lot that correlate the
test data and standards analysis. (Id.)
measured RMC values of the new test
For example, AHAM noted that if it has
cloth lot with a set of standard RMC
been more difficult to meet current
values established as the historical
reference point. These correction factors standards due to the uncertainty in Lot
24’s correction factor, DOE will need to
are applied to the RMC test results in
understand whether current products
appendix J and appendix J2 to ensure
have been tuned to be more efficient just
the repeatability and reproducibility of
because of the test cloth. (Id.) AHAM
test results performed using different
added that this could impact DOE’s
lots of test cloth. In particular, the
for the covered product, if technically
feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)–(B))
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
13534
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
analysis of more stringent standards, as
some technology options may already be
in use due to the correction factor issue.
(Id.) AHAM also recommended that
DOE conduct its own analysis of
AHAM’s data, as well as the combined
AHAM and DOE dataset, which should
include an evaluation of the Lot 24
variation. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 12)
AHAM also commented that for some
time, several manufacturers and, likely
other testing laboratories, have
experienced delays in obtaining test
cloth. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 5) AHAM
further explained that delays in
obtaining test cloth mean that some
companies need to ration testing and
may not be able to do testing other than
certification and/or audit testing until
test cloth is received. (Id.) AHAM added
that it will therefore take more time for
AHAM and its members to provide test
results to support DOE’s rulemaking
efforts related to clothes washers and
clothes dryers. (Id.) AHAM requested
that DOE ensure it does not move so
quickly that its analysis (and
manufacturers’ comments) are unable to
account for these test cloth challenges.
(Id.)
DOE is acutely aware of the issues
regarding variation in Lot 24 and is
participating in the AHAM test cloth
task force to help determine the root
causes of the observed variation and to
develop solutions to mitigate these
concerns for Lot 24 as well as for future
test cloth lots. Subsequent to the
submission of AHAM’s comment, the
AHAM test cloth task force determined
to divide Lot 24 into four distinct ‘‘sublots,’’ each with its own correction
factors developed using the process
specified by appendix J3. DOE has
added these sub-lot correction factors to
the RCW test report template published
on the DOE website.23 Establishing
these separate sub-lots, each with
separate correction factors, has
mitigated much of the concern regarding
variability throughout Lot 24. DOE is
aware that the task force continues to
investigate the extent to which any
variability that remains within each sublot can be further mitigated, and DOE
continues to participate in those efforts.
With regard to delays in obtaining test
cloth, DOE is aware that the causes of
delay have largely been addressed and
that the test cloth supplier is currently
working to fulfill the backlog of test
cloth orders.
23 DOE’s test report templates are available at
energy.gov/eere/buildings/standardized-templatesreporting-test-results.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
4. Other Test Procedure-Related
Comments
In response to the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis and the April 2022
NODA, a number of stakeholders made
comments pertaining to the clothes
washer test procedure, many of which
DOE subsequently addressed in the June
2022 TP Final Rule. Comments
regarding certain test procedure issues
that were not discussed in the June 2022
TP Final Rule are summarized in the
paragraphs that follow. Addressing test
procedure concerns is outside the scope
of this energy conservation standards
rulemaking; however, DOE encourages
stakeholders to resubmit these
comments during the next clothes
washer test procedure rulemaking.
AHAM commented in opposition to
DOE’s decision to change the FMC
assumption from 4 percent in appendix
J2 to 2 percent in appendix J. (AHAM,
No. 53 at p. 12) AHAM stated that the
change in FMC assumption from 4 to 2
percent will overstate the impact of
drying energy and will likely drive
many clothes washer designs to increase
spin speeds and spin times beyond an
acceptable level. (Id.) AHAM expressed
concern that this could change a clothes
washer’s core functionality into a water
extractor, and in effect, remove the
consumer functionality of washing the
clothes. (Id.) AHAM commented that
the test procedure should not drive
design changes of this magnitude, and
added that this change will limit the
opportunity in the energy conservation
standards rulemaking for
technologically feasible and cost
efficient improvements because there
are limits on how much spin speeds can
increase before the chassis needs to be
redesigned or before safety and
consumer utility are impacted. (Id.)
AHAM commented that if DOE moves
forward with changing FMC from 4 to
2 percent, it must address the impact of
the apparent mismatch between clothes
washer drying energy and total percycle electric dryer energy consumption
defined in the clothes dryer test
procedures at 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B, appendix D2 (‘‘appendix D2’’) or 10
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1
(‘‘appendix D1’’). (AHAM, No. 53 at p.
13) AHAM further explained that
currently, the drying impact of a clothes
washer is significantly over-credited as
a result of the mismatch in clothes loads
between the clothes washer and clothes
dryer test procedures. (Id.) For example,
AHAM noted that the average weight of
the load in appendix J can be nearly 50
percent greater than the weight of a load
in the clothes dryer test procedure. (Id.)
AHAM stated that according to the
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
clothes washer test procedure, the
annual weight to dry for a 6 ft3 clothes
washer is 2,917 pounds per year,
whereas the annual weight to dry
according to the clothes dryer test
procedure is 1,994 pounds per year,
despite the units being a matching pair.
(Id.) AHAM commented that it
acknowledges that this difference makes
sense because consumers do not dry in
the clothes dryer all the clothes they
wash in the clothes washer. (Id.)
However, AHAM emphasized that
lowering the FMC to 2 percent for
clothes washer exacerbates this
mismatch in energy contribution. (Id.)
ASAP et al. commented that both
DOE’s recent analysis for clothes dryers
and real-world data suggest that drying
energy usage in the clothes washers
analysis is being underestimated and
encouraged DOE to update its drying
energy use calculations in the test
procedure to better align with DOE’s
clothes dryers analysis and real-world
energy usage. (ASAP et al., No. 37 at pp.
3–4) ASAP et al. noted that in the
September 2021 Preliminary TSD, DOE
stated that drying energy use represents
75 to 83 percent of total energy usage.
(Id.) ASAP et al. therefore commented
that changes in drying energy estimates
can have a significant impact on overall
energy savings and economic analysis.
(Id.) ASAP et al. emphasized that, based
on DOE’s April 2021 Clothes Dryers
Preliminary TSD,24 the active-mode
energy use of a clothes dryer is between
67 and 93 percent greater than the
estimated drying energy usage presented
in the September 2021 Preliminary TSD
for top-loading standard-size and frontloading clothes washers, respectively.25
(Id.) ASAP et al. further commented that
the clothes dryer analysis more closely
agrees with real-world clothes dryer
energy use estimates from data from the
Energy Information Administration’s
(‘‘EIA’s’’) 2015 Residential Energy
Consumption Survey (‘‘RECS 2015’’),26
which estimates 776 kWh per year, and
NEEA’s Dryer Field Study published in
2014 (‘‘NEEA’s Dryer Field Study’’),27
which estimates 915 kWh per year. (Id.)
ASAP et al. therefore commented that
higher, more realistic drying energy
24 Available online at www.regulations.gov/
document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0016.
25 ASAP et al. based this estimate on energy use
of 700 kWh/year for clothes dryers, 419 kWh/year
for top-loading clothes washers and 362 kWh/year
for front-loading clothes washers.
26 U.S. Department of Energy—Energy
Information Administration, Residential Energy
Consumption Survey: 2015 Public Use Data Files,
2015. Available at www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/
recspubuse15/pubuse15.html.
27 Dryer Field Study, 2014. Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance. Available online at neea.org/
resources/rbsa-laundry-study.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
usage estimates should further improve
the cost-effectiveness of higher
efficiency clothes washers that reduce
drying energy use. (Id.)
Ameren et al. encouraged DOE to
mathematically adjust RMC to account
for the drying energy of 100 percent
cotton textiles using the relationship
established in the 2020 NEEA report 28
that analyzed the RMC of two types of
test loads across a broad range of RCW
efficiency levels and technology types:
the 100-percent cotton load specified in
AHAM’s HLW–1–2013 test procedure
and the 50/50 cotton-polyester momie
weave test cloth specified in appendix
J2 and appendix J. (Ameren et al., No.
42 at pp. 12–13) The NEEA report also
developed a linear mathematical
relationship between the two types of
load. (Id.) Ameren et al. found that this
relationship has an R-squared value
close to 1 and determined that it could
be used to adjust the measured RMC of
an appendix J2 test load to the expected
RMC when using an AHAM load. (Id.)
Ameren et al. stated that adjusting the
RMC of an appendix J2 test load to an
RMC typical of 100 percent cotton
textiles would more realistically
account for RCW impacts on drying
energy use. (Id.) Ameren et al. further
commented that most typical laundry
loads have a much higher cotton
content, which they asserted means that
mathematically adjusting the RMC
before calculating drying energy would
better account for typical energy use.
(Id.) Ameren et al. also commented that
adjusting the RMC of appendix J2
textiles to an RMC typical of 100
percent cotton textiles would increase
the alignment between the September
2021 Preliminary TSD’s clothes washer
drying energy use calculation and the
measured appendix D2 clothes dryer
energy use. (Id.) Ameren et al. added
that while other constants such as
DEF 29 in appendix J2 and appendix J
are relatively consistent with most
appendix D1 and D2 dryer
measurements, the typical drying energy
calculated in the existing appendix J2
clothes washer test procedure is much
lower than the energy consumed by a
conventional clothes dryer tested by
appendix D1 or D2. (Id.) Ameren et al.
further explained that the clothes dryer
test procedures use an initial moisture
28 Foster Porter, Suzanne; Denkenberger, Dave.
2020. Coming Clean: Revealing Real-World
Efficiency of Clothes Washers. Portland, OR.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. Available
online at: neea.org/resources/comingcleanrevealing-real-world-efficiency-of-clotheswashers.
29 ‘‘DEF’’ is defined in section 4.3 of appendix J2
and section 4.4 of appendix J as the nominal energy
required for a clothes dryer to remove moisture
from clothes and is set equal to 0.5 kWh/lb.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
content of 57.5 percent for the clothes
dryer test load, and using NEEA’s
mathematical adjustment to increase
RMC before calculating drying energy
would make the drying energy
calculated in appendix J2 and J more
similar to the drying energy calculated
in appendix D1 and D2. (Id.)
ASAP et al. commented that one
potential partial explanation for the
apparent underestimation of drying
energy usage in the clothes washer
analysis is the estimate for DEF. (ASAP
et al., No. 37 at p. 4) ASAP et al. noted
that while DOE assumes a DEF of 0.5
kWh per pound of moisture removed
from clothes, ASAP et al. estimated a
higher nominal DEF of about 0.6 kWh
per pound of moisture removed using
weighted-average clothes dryer
efficiency ratings and parameters from
the clothes dryers test procedure. (Id.)
ASAP et al. also commented that a 2022
NEEA study 30 suggests that even the
clothes dryer test procedure can
underestimate drying energy usage,
particularly when a non-ENERGY
STAR-rated top-loading clothes washer
is paired with a non-ENERGY STAR
electric dryer. (Id.) ASAP et al. further
noted that the Northwest Regional
Technical Forum’s most recent estimate
for DEF is 0.65 kWh per pounds of
moisture removed.31 (Id.)
As discussed, DOE is not addressing
test procedure changes in this energy
conservation standards rulemaking.
DOE notes that FMC and the drying
energy calculations were specifically
addressed in section III.G.2 of the June
2022 TP Final Rule. 87 FR 33316,
33353–33354.
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
In each energy conservation standards
rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening
analysis based on information gathered
on all current technology options and
prototype designs that could improve
the efficiency of the products or
equipment that are the subject of the
rulemaking. As the first step in such an
analysis, DOE develops a list of
technology options for consideration in
consultation with manufacturers, design
engineers, and other interested parties.
DOE then determines which of those
means for improving efficiency are
technologically feasible. DOE considers
30 Perfect Pairings? Testing the Energy Efficiency
of Matched Washer-Dryer Sets, 2022. Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance. Available online at
neea.org/resources/perfect-pairings-testing-theenergy-efficiency-of-matched-washer-dryer-sets.
31 Regional Technical Forum, Residential Clothes
Washers, 2021. ‘‘Residential Clothes Washers v7.1.’’
Available online at rtf.nwcouncil.org/measure/
clothes-washers-0.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13535
technologies incorporated in
commercially-available products or in
working prototypes to be
technologically feasible. Sections
6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of the Process Rule.
After DOE has determined that
particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further
evaluates each technology option in
light of the following additional
screening criteria: (1) practicability to
manufacture, install, and service; (2)
adverse impacts on product utility or
availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway
proprietary technologies. Sections
6(b)(3)(ii)–(v) and 7(b)(2)–(5) of the
Process Rule. Section IV.B of this
document discusses the results of the
screening analysis for RCWs,
particularly the designs DOE
considered, those it screened out, and
those that are the basis for the standards
considered in this rulemaking. For
further details on the screening analysis
for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the
NOPR TSD.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible
Levels
When DOE proposes to adopt an
amended standard for a type or class of
covered product, it must determine the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency or maximum reduction in
energy use that is technologically
feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the
engineering analysis, DOE determined
the maximum technologically feasible
(‘‘max-tech’’) improvements in energy
efficiency for RCWs, using the design
parameters for the most efficient
products available on the market or in
working prototypes. The max-tech
levels that DOE determined for this
rulemaking are described in section IV.C
of this proposed rule and in chapter 5
of the NOPR TSD.
E. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
For each trial standard level (i.e.,
TSL), DOE projected energy savings
from application of the TSL to RCWs
purchased in the 30-year period that
begins in the year of compliance with
the proposed standards (2027–2056).32
The savings are measured over the
entire lifetime of RCWs purchased in
the previous 30-year period. DOE
quantified the energy savings
32 Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency
levels for each product class. The TSLs considered
for this NOPR are described in section V.A of this
document. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis
that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9year period.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13536
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
attributable to each TSL as the
difference in energy consumption
between each standards case and the nonew-standards case. The no-newstandards case represents a projection of
energy consumption that reflects how
the market for a product would likely
evolve in the absence of amended
energy conservation standards.
DOE used its national impact analysis
(‘‘NIA’’) spreadsheet model to estimate
national energy savings (‘‘NES’’) and
national water savings (‘‘NWS’’) from
potential amended or new standards for
RCWs. The NIA spreadsheet model
(described in section IV.H of this
document) calculates energy savings in
terms of site energy, which is the energy
directly consumed by products at the
locations where they are used. For
electricity, DOE reports national energy
savings in terms of primary energy
savings, which is the savings in the
energy that is used to generate and
transmit the site electricity. For natural
gas, the primary energy savings are
considered to be equal to the site energy
savings. DOE also calculates NES in
terms of FFC energy savings. The FFC
metric includes the energy consumed in
extracting, processing, and transporting
primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas,
petroleum fuels), and thus presents a
more complete picture of the impacts of
energy conservation standards.33 DOE’s
approach is based on the calculation of
an FFC multiplier for each of the energy
types used by covered products or
equipment. For more information on
FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.2
of this document.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2. Significance of Savings
To adopt any new or amended
standards for a covered product, DOE
must determine that such action would
result in significant energy savings. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
The significance of energy savings
offered by a new or amended energy
conservation standard cannot be
determined without knowledge of the
specific circumstances surrounding a
given rulemaking.34 For example, some
covered products and equipment have
most of their energy consumption occur
during periods of peak energy demand.
The impacts of these products on the
energy infrastructure can be more
33 The FFC metric is discussed in DOE’s
statement of policy and notice of policy
amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
34 The numeric threshold for determining the
significance of energy savings established in a final
rule published on February 14, 2020 (85 FR 8626,
8670), was subsequently eliminated in a final rule
published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70892).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
pronounced than products with
relatively constant demand.
Accordingly, DOE evaluates the
significance of energy savings on a caseby-case basis, taking into account the
significance of cumulative FFC national
energy savings, the cumulative FFC
emissions reductions, and the need to
confront the global climate crisis, among
other factors. As discussed in section
V.C.1 of this document, DOE is
proposing to adopt TSL 4, which would
save an estimated 1.45 quads of energy
(FFC) over 30 years. DOE has initially
determined the energy savings from the
proposed standard levels are
‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).
F. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
As noted previously, EPCA provides
seven factors to be evaluated in
determining whether a potential energy
conservation standard is economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–
(VII)) The following sections discuss
how DOE has addressed each of those
seven factors in this proposed
rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers
and Consumers
In determining the impacts of a
potential amended standard on
manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA,
as discussed in section IV.J of this
document. DOE first uses an annual
cash-flow approach to determine the
quantitative impacts. This step includes
both a short-term assessment—based on
the cost and capital requirements during
the period between when a regulation is
issued and when entities must comply
with the regulation—and a long-term
assessment over a 30-year period. The
industry-wide impacts analyzed include
(1) INPV, which values the industry on
the basis of expected future cash flows,
(2) cash flows by year, (3) changes in
revenue and income, and (4) other
measures of impact, as appropriate.
Second, DOE analyzes and reports the
impacts on different types of
manufacturers, including impacts on
small manufacturers. Third, DOE
considers the impact of standards on
domestic manufacturer employment and
manufacturing capacity, as well as the
potential for standards to result in plant
closures and loss of capital investment.
Finally, DOE takes into account
cumulative impacts of various DOE
regulations and other regulatory
requirements on manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures
of economic impact include the changes
in LCC and PBP associated with new or
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
amended standards. These measures are
discussed further in the following
section. For consumers in the aggregate,
DOE also calculates the national net
present value of the consumer costs and
benefits expected to result from
particular standards. DOE also evaluates
the impacts of potential standards on
identifiable subgroups of consumers
that may be affected disproportionately
by a standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared
to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the
savings in operating costs throughout
the estimated average life of the covered
product in the type (or class) compared
to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance
expenses of, the covered product that
are likely to result from a standard. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts
this comparison in its LCC and PBP
analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase
price of a product (including its
installation) and the operating expense
(including energy, maintenance, and
repair expenditures) discounted over
the lifetime of the product. The LCC
analysis requires a variety of inputs,
such as product prices, product energy
consumption, energy prices,
maintenance and repair costs, product
lifetime, and discount rates appropriate
for consumers. To account for
uncertainty and variability in specific
inputs, such as product lifetime and
discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of
values, with probabilities attached to
each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of
time (in years) it takes consumers to
recover the increased purchase cost
(including installation) of a moreefficient product through lower
operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP
by dividing the change in purchase cost
due to a more-stringent standard by the
change in annual operating cost for the
year that standards are assumed to take
effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE
assumes that consumers will purchase
the covered products in the first year of
compliance with new or amended
standards. The LCC savings for the
considered efficiency levels are
calculated relative to the case that
reflects projected market trends in the
absence of new or amended standards.
DOE’s LCC and PBP analysis is
discussed in further detail in section
IV.F of this document.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of
energy is a separate statutory
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
requirement for adopting an energy
conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic
justification of a standard, to consider
the total projected energy savings that
are expected to result directly from the
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III))
As discussed in section III.E of this
document, DOE uses the NIA
spreadsheet models to project national
energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of
Products
In establishing product classes and in
evaluating design options and the
impact of potential standard levels, DOE
evaluates potential standards that would
not lessen the utility or performance of
the considered products. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data
available to DOE, the standards
proposed in this document would not
reduce the utility or performance of the
products under consideration in this
proposed rulemaking.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
e. Impact of Any Lessening of
Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the
impact of any lessening of competition,
as determined in writing by the
Attorney General, that is likely to result
from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the
Attorney General to determine the
impact, if any, of any lessening of
competition likely to result from a
proposed standard and to transmit such
determination to the Secretary within 60
days of the publication of a proposed
rule, together with an analysis of the
nature and extent of the impact. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will
transmit a copy of this proposed rule to
the Attorney General with a request that
the Department of Justice (‘‘DOJ’’)
provide its determination on this issue.
DOE will publish and respond to the
Attorney General’s determination in the
final rule. DOE invites comment from
the public regarding the competitive
impacts that are likely to result from
this proposed rule. In addition,
stakeholders may also provide
comments separately to DOJ regarding
these potential impacts. See the
ADDRESSES section for information to
send comments to DOJ.
f. Need for National Energy
Conservation
DOE also considers the need for
national energy and water conservation
in determining whether a new or
amended standard is economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI))
The energy savings from the proposed
standards are likely to provide
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
improvements to the security and
reliability of the Nation’s energy system.
Reductions in the demand for electricity
also may result in reduced costs for
maintaining the reliability of the
Nation’s electricity system. DOE
conducts a utility impact analysis to
estimate how standards may affect the
Nation’s needed power generation
capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of
this document.
DOE maintains that environmental
and public health benefits associated
with the more efficient use of energy are
important to take into account when
considering the need for national energy
conservation. The proposed standards
are likely to result in environmental
benefits in the form of reduced
emissions of air pollutants and
greenhouse gases associated with energy
production and use. DOE conducts an
emissions analysis to estimate how
potential standards may affect these
emissions, as discussed in section IV.K
of this document; the estimated
emissions impacts are reported in
section V.B.6 of this document. DOE
also estimates the economic value of
climate and health benefits from certain
emissions reductions resulting from the
considered TSLs, as discussed in
section IV.L of this document.
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy
conservation standard is economically
justified, DOE may consider any other
factors that the Secretary deems to be
relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII))
To the extent DOE identifies any
relevant information regarding
economic justification that does not fit
into the other categories described
previously, DOE could consider such
information under ‘‘other factors.’’
2. Rebuttable Presumption
As set forth in 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a
rebuttable presumption that an energy
conservation standard is economically
justified if the additional cost to the
consumer of a product that meets the
standard is less than three times the
value of the first year’s energy savings
resulting from the standard, as
calculated under the applicable DOE
test procedure. DOE’s LCC and PBP
analyses generate values used to
calculate the effects that proposed
energy conservation standards would
have on the payback period for
consumers. These analyses include, but
are not limited to, the 3-year payback
period contemplated under the
rebuttable-presumption test. In addition,
DOE routinely conducts an economic
analysis that considers the full range of
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13537
impacts to consumers, manufacturers,
the Nation, and the environment, as
required under 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this
analysis serve as the basis for DOE’s
evaluation of the economic justification
for a potential standard level (thereby
supporting or rebutting the results of
any preliminary determination of
economic justification). The rebuttable
presumption payback calculation is
discussed in section IV.F.9 of this
proposed rule.
IV. Methodology and Discussion of
Related Comments
This section addresses the analyses
DOE has performed for this rulemaking
with regard to RCWs. Separate
subsections address each component of
DOE’s analyses.
DOE used several analytical tools to
estimate the impact of the standards
proposed in this document. The first
tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the
LCC savings and PBP of potential
amended or new energy conservation
standards. The national impacts
analysis uses a second spreadsheet set
that provides shipments projections and
calculates national energy savings and
net present value of total consumer
costs and savings expected to result
from potential energy conservation
standards. DOE uses the third
spreadsheet tool, the Government
Regulatory Impact Model (‘‘GRIM’’), to
assess manufacturer impacts of potential
standards. These three spreadsheet tools
are available on the DOE website for this
rulemaking: www.regulations.gov/
docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014.
Additionally, DOE used output from the
latest version of the EIA’s Annual
Energy Outlook (‘‘AEO’’), a widely
known energy projection for the United
States, for the emissions and utility
impact analyses.
A. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE develops information in the
market and technology assessment that
provides an overall picture of the
market for the products concerned,
including the purpose of the products,
the industry structure, manufacturers,
market characteristics, and technologies
used in the products. This activity
includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily
on publicly-available information. The
subjects addressed in the market and
technology assessment for this
rulemaking include (1) a determination
of the scope of the rulemaking and
product classes, (2) manufacturers and
industry structure, (3) existing
efficiency programs, (4) shipments
information, (5) market and industry
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13538
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
trends; and (6) technologies or design
options that could improve the energy
efficiency of RCWs. The key findings of
DOE’s market assessment are
summarized in the following sections.
See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for
further discussion of the market and
technology assessment.
1. Product Classes
When evaluating and establishing
energy conservation standards, DOE
may establish separate standards for a
group of covered products (i.e., establish
a separate product class) if DOE
determines that separate standards are
justified based on the type of energy
used, or if DOE determines that a
product’s capacity or other
performance-related feature justifies a
different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In
making a determination whether a
performance-related feature justifies a
different standard, DOE must consider
factors such as the utility of the feature
to the consumer and other factors DOE
determines are appropriate. (Id.)
DOE currently defines separate energy
conservation standards for four RCW
product classes (10 CFR 430.32(g)(4)):
• Top-loading, compact (less than 1.6
ft3 capacity)
• Top-loading, standard-size (1.6 ft3 or
greater capacity)
• Front-loading, compact (less than 1.6
ft3 capacity)
• Front-loading, standard-size (1.6 ft3 or
greater capacity)
In the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis, DOE analyzed four potential
product classes for RCWs using a
threshold of 3.0 ft3 to differentiate
between compact and standard-size
front-loading RCWs, in contrast to the
existing threshold of 1.6 ft3, resulting in
the following product classes being
analyzed:
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
• Top-loading, compact (less than 1.6
ft3 capacity)
• Top-loading, standard-size (1.6 ft3
capacity or greater)
• Front-loading, compact (less than 3.0
ft3 capacity)
• Front-loading, standard-size (3.0 ft3
capacity or greater)
As noted in chapter 2 of the
September 2021 Preliminary TSD, there
are no front-loading RCWs with a
capacity less than 1.6 ft3 certified to
DOE, indicating that the current
threshold of 1.6 ft3 may no longer be a
relevant differentiator of capacity within
the front-loading RCW market. Based on
front-loading RCW models certified in
DOE’s Compliance Certification
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
Database (‘‘CCD’’),35 DOE identified a
gap in front-loading capacity between
2.8 ft3 and 3.4 ft3 (i.e., no products are
available on the market within this
range). The capacity gap is directly
related to cabinet size—capacities less
than 2.8 ft3 correspond to a 24-inch
cabinet width, and capacities larger than
3.4 ft3 correspond to a 27-inch cabinet
width. In the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis, DOE evaluated an
updated capacity threshold of 3.0 ft3
between compact-size and standard-size
to align more closely with product
differentiation in the market.
In the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis, DOE requested comment on
whether it should revise the definitions
of the front-loading product classes by
increasing the capacity threshold of the
front-loading compact product class to
3.0 ft3. DOE also requested comment on
whether any other changes to product
class definitions are warranted.
Prior to the May 2012 Final Rule, DOE
also defined a separate RCW product
class for top-loading semi-automatic
clothes washers. Semi-automatic clothes
washers are designed to be
intermittently attached to a kitchen or
bathroom faucet and require user
intervention to regulate the water
temperature by adjusting the external
water faucet valves. Top-loading semiautomatic clothes washers were subject
to a design standard requiring an
unheated rinse water option, as
established by the National Appliance
Energy Conservation Act of 1987, Public
Law 100–12 (‘‘NAECA’’). NAECA
amended EPCA to require that all rinse
cycles of RCWs shall include an
unheated water option, but may have a
heated water rinse option, for products
manufactured on or after January 1,
1988.
In the May 2012 Final Rule, DOE
eliminated the top-loading semiautomatic product class distinction,
having determined based on its market
research and comments submitted by
AHAM and three manufacturers that
such products were no longer available
on the market. 77 FR 32308, 32317. The
top-loading standard-size levels that
were established in the May 2012 Final
Rule were based on consideration of
only top-loading automatic clothes
washers.
In chapter 2 of the September 2021
Preliminary TSD, DOE discussed that it
is now aware of multiple top-loading
semi-automatic clothes washers on the
market, from multiple manufacturers.
DOE stated that it was considering
35 DOE’s Compliance Certification Database is
available at www.regulations.doe.gov/certificationdata.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
whether it should reinstate an RCW
product class definition for top-loading
semi-automatic clothes washers, and
whether it should consider a
performance-based standard rather than
the design standard established by
EPCA as amended. DOE noted,
however, that because the user of a
semi-automatic clothes washer controls
the water temperature by adjusting the
external water faucet valves, semiautomatic clothes washers inherently
provide the option for an unheated
rinse. Therefore, DOE believes that a
design standard that requires an
unheated rinse option may be
superfluous for semi-automatic clothes
washers.
In the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis, DOE requested comment on
whether it should reinstate a product
class definition for top-loading semiautomatic clothes washers. DOE
requested comment on its preliminary
conclusion that that a design standard
that requires an unheated rinse option
may be superfluous for semi-automatic
clothes washers.
AHAM presented data indicating the
shipment weighted average capacity for
clothes washers from 1981–2020.
(AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 13–14) Based on
this data, AHAM commented that a
reassessment of the ‘‘compact’’
definition would be justified since
clothes washer capacities in general
have increased from an average of 2.63
ft3 in 1990 to 4.25 ft3 in 2020. (Id.)
AHAM recommended that DOE
change the definition of the compact
product class in order to retain
consumer utility of smaller-capacity and
smaller-width products for consumers.
(AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 13–15) AHAM
recommended that DOE add an upper
width limit of 24 inches in the proposed
compact product class definition, such
that a top-loading or front-loading
compact product would either have a
capacity less than 1.6 ft3, or a width less
than or equal to 24 inches. (Id.) AHAM
also commented that typically, based on
a review of retailer websites, products
advertised as ‘‘compact’’ or ‘‘portable’’
today appear to be under 1.6 ft3 or 24
inches in width or less. (Id.) AHAM
commented that it agrees with DOE’s
assessment that products with smaller
widths and capacities provide a utility
to consumers since they can be used in
smaller spaces, can be moved more
easily from place-to-place, or can be
used together with a standard-size
clothes washer. (Id.) AHAM also agrees
with DOE’s acknowledgement that these
products, due to their smaller size,
cannot achieve the same levels of
efficiency as larger products due to
technological limitations such as drum
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
diameter and capacity, or due to being
geared toward niche consumer usage
such as portability or an add-on to a
standard-size clothes washer. (Id.)
Whirlpool commented that it agrees
with DOE’s proposal to change the
threshold for the front-loading compact
product class and suggested that DOE
make further product class changes.
(Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 19) Whirlpool
specifically suggested that DOE change
the definition of compact clothes
washers to be based on product width,
corresponding to how they are marketed
to consumers as compact or standard
size. (Id.) Whirlpool added that clothes
washers with 24-inch widths and
smaller are overwhelmingly marketed as
‘‘compact,’’ regardless of their capacity.
(Id.)
Whirlpool also recommended that for
standard-size clothes washers, DOE
separate the standard-size product class
into three product classes: standard,
small (≤4.0 ft3); standard, medium (>4.0
ft3 to ≤5.0 ft3); and standard, large (>5.0
ft3 and above). (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p.
19) Whirlpool commented that there are
numerous performance, technology,
efficiency, and consumer-relevant
differences between clothes washers in
Whirlpool’s suggested product classes.
(Id.) Whirlpool further explained that
entry-level price point clothes washers
generally have capacities less than or
equal to 4 ft3 and that the smaller
diameter wash baskets of these units
create challenges in driving water
extraction. (Id.) Whirlpool added that
these clothes washers also have shorter
cycle times and more basic feature sets
and controls. (Id.)
Whirlpool added that even with a
removal of the capacity benefit in the
EER and WER efficiency metrics, there
are still other technological challenges
for clothes washers with smaller cabinet
widths since spatial limitations prevent
adding technologies that increase
efficiency, including larger motors and
larger wash baskets to increase spin
speed. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 19)
The CA IOUs commented that
adjustments to increase the size of the
front-loading compact product class are
not warranted, and added that they are
instead supportive of an equation-based
metric that can account for the
efficiency differences related to
capacity. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 3–4)
The CA IOUs added that they believe
the definition of standard-size versus
compact product classes artificially
segments the data, and that performance
is correlated with capacity without a
clear delineation. (Id.) The CA IOUs
expressed three primary concerns
related to the changes to the product
class definitions. (Id.) First, the CA IOUs
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
commented that the proposed changes
to capacity definitions would create a
different definition of ‘‘compact’’ for
top- and front-loading RCWs, which the
CA IOUs asserted would add confusion
to the market. (Id.) Second, the CA IOUs
commented that there likely remains an
inherent relationship between capacity
and performance in the test procedure,
which is insufficiently represented by
the two large discrete product class
groupings of compact size and standard
size. (Id.) The CA IOUs noted that there
was significant interest from
stakeholders in response to the August
2019 RFI for DOE to consider narrower
capacity ranges to facilitate a separate
analysis for larger clothes washers. (Id.)
The CA IOUs commented that, while
they believe this may result in some
statistical improvement in the original
analysis, they would prefer an equationbased standard that can correct for the
continuum of product capacities. (Id.)
The CA IOUs also specified that creating
more narrow capacity ranges may have
unintended consequences of
incentivizing manufacturers to produce
products in one capacity size over
another due to less stringent efficiency
standards in neighboring classes. (Id.)
Third, the CA IOUs commented that
while DOE can use capacity or another
‘‘performance related’’ feature to justify
a higher or lower standard under EPCA,
the CA IOUs expressed concern
regarding the arbitrary nature of the
capacity definitions, particularly for
front-loading clothes washers. (Id.) The
CA IOUs added that under the appendix
J2 efficiency metrics, product
efficiencies strongly varied with
capacity and may continue to do so
under the appendix J efficiency metrics.
(Id.) The CA IOUs commented that a
more appropriate approach would be to
use an equation-based standard with a
capacity, similar to what is used under
the consumer refrigerators/refrigeratorfreezers/freezers standard. (Id.)
Ameren et al. commented that while
they do not have a specific
recommendation for the compact RCW
definition, they encourage DOE to
ensure that changing the compact
product class to incorporate larger
capacities does not enable backsliding.
(Ameren et al., No. 42 at p. 18) Ameren
et al. commented that DOE’s working
definition of less than 1.6 ft3 for toploading clothes washers and less than
2.5 ft3 for front-loading clothes washers
would not result in backsliding because
there is not a front-loading product less
than 1.6 ft3 on the market. (Id.)
However, Ameren et al. noted that, if
defined differently, RCW models
presently considered standard-sized
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13539
(and therefore subject to a higher
efficiency standard) could be
recategorized as compact (and therefore
subject to a lower efficiency standard).
(Id.)
As discussed, currently, no frontloading products with a capacity less
than 1.6 ft3 are certified to DOE as being
available on the market, indicating that
the current threshold of 1.6 ft3 is no
longer a relevant differentiator of
capacity within the front-loading RCW
market. DOE analysis tentatively
confirms AHAM and Whirlpool’s
comments that despite the removal of
the capacity ‘‘bias’’ in the EER and WER
efficiency metrics, the reduced
dimensions of smaller-width products
limit the use of certain technologies for
increasing efficiency, such as larger
wash baskets that can exert a higher
g-force on clothing. For this reason, DOE
tentatively concludes that a separate
product class is warranted for spaceconstrained front-loading RCWs at a
revised threshold that is more relevant
to the current market.
DOE recognizes that one of the
defining characteristics of front-loading
RCWs marketed as ‘‘compact’’ is the
width-constrained design (i.e., the
ability for the clothes washer to be
installed in narrow space that would not
accommodate a full-size clothes
washer). DOE considered defining the
front-loading compact-size product
classes on the basis of width. Based on
DOE’s market research, and supported
by comments from AHAM and
manufacturers, products marketed as
‘‘compact’’ typically have a nominal
cabinet width of 24-inches, whereas
full-size products most typically have a
nominal cabinet width of 27 inches.
DOE has identified a number of
practical challenges in basing the
product class distinction on a
measurement of the width of a clothes
washer. The test procedure would need
to require measuring the width of the
clothes washer and would need to
specify how the measurement would be
performed. While DOE could consider
such amendments to its test procedure,
DOE has identified nuances in product
design that could create complexities in
defining such a measurement. For
example, on front-loading clothes
washers, DOE has observed that certain
aesthetic features, such as the borders of
the control panel, may extend beyond
the width of the main body of the
cabinet. In general, certain
measurements of width may not provide
an appropriate representation of product
width as it relates to product class
designation. DOE also notes that
although front-loading clothes washers
are most often marketed according to
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
13540
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
their nominal width as a whole number,
the actual width may be a fraction of an
inch higher or lower than the advertised
nominal width. Furthermore, DOE is
concerned that by defining the
‘‘compact-size’’ threshold as a width
equal to or less than 24 inches, for
example, if a manufacturer were to bring
to market a 25-inch width product, such
a product would be defined as standardsize but would presumably share many
of the same inherent efficiency
constraints as a 24-inch product (i.e., a
25-inch product may be more
appropriately classified as compact-size
rather than standard-size).
Having considered these challenges in
defining the front-loading compact-size
threshold on the basis of product width,
DOE further considered defining the
threshold based on an updated capacity
value that would be more relevant to the
current market than the existing
threshold of 1.6 ft3. Based on frontloading RCW models currently certified
in DOE’s CCD, there is a gap in frontloading capacity between 2.8 ft3 and 3.4
ft3 (i.e., no products are available on the
market within this range), consistent
with DOE’s findings presented in the
September 2021 Preliminary TSD. DOE
evaluated every front-loading model in
the CCD and has determined that this
capacity gap directly correlates with
nominal cabinet size—capacities less
than 2.8 ft3 correspond to a nominal 24inch cabinet width, and capacities larger
than 3.4 ft3 correspond to a nominal 27inch cabinet width or greater. Based on
this analysis, DOE tentatively concludes
that for front-loading RCWs, using a
capacity threshold rather than a width
threshold would provide a perfectly
correlated proxy for differentiating
between standard-size products and
space-constrained products. DOE
therefore proposes to define a threshold
of 3.0 ft3 to differentiate between
compact-size and standard-size frontloading RCWs. DOE further notes that
given the current gap in capacity
between 2.8 ft3 and 3.4 ft3 for units
currently on the market, defining the
threshold at 3.0 ft3 would provide
opportunities for manufacturers to
introduce compact-size products with
slightly higher capacity, or standard-size
products with slightly lower capacity,
with such potential products being
classified within the appropriate
product class. DOE would consider
other means for defining the threshold
between the compact-size and standardsize front-loading product classes if in
the future a capacity threshold were to
no longer provides a clear proxy to
distinguish between standard-size
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
products and space-constrained
products.
Specific to the front-loading standardsize product class, DOE evaluated the
merits of separately defining a larger
product class (e.g., greater than 5.0 ft3),
as suggested by multiple commenters.
Data submitted by AHAM indicates a
shipment-weighted average capacity of
around 4.2 ft3 for all RCWs, and the
results of the engineering analysis
indicate that a capacity of 4.2 ft3 is
representative of the baseline efficiency
level for the standard-size front-loading
product class. DOE’s testing and
teardown analysis indicates that all of
the evaluated efficiency levels for the
standard-size front-loading product
class can be achieved by units at 4.2 ft3
capacity (i.e., an increase in capacity is
not required as a means for achieving
the higher efficiency levels analyzed).
On this basis, DOE tentatively
determines that additional capacitybased product classes within the
standard-size front-loading product
class are not warranted.
For top-loading clothes washers, DOE
proposes in this NOPR to maintain the
existing ‘‘compact’’ and ‘‘standard’’
product class distinctions (i.e., using a
capacity threshold of 1.6 ft3 to
differentiate the two classes); however,
DOE continues to consider alternative
approaches as discussed further in the
paragraphs that follow and in chapter 3
and chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
Unlike for front-loading RCWs, toploading compact-size products are
available on the market at capacities less
than 1.6 ft3 (i.e., the current threshold).
Considering only automatic top-loading
clothes washers,36 those with capacity
less than 1.6 ft3 are exclusively heightconstrained ‘‘companion’’ clothes
washers, which are designed to serve as
an auxiliary clothes washer for washing
a small or delicate load while
simultaneously washing a ‘‘normal’’
load in the accompanying standard-size
RCW.37 Among standard-size toploading clothes washers (i.e., those with
capacity equal to or greater than 1.6 ft3),
DOE’s CCD indicates a relatively
continuous spectrum of capacities
available on the market across the entire
range (i.e., no large gaps in capacity),
36 As discussed further in section IV.C.2.c of this
document, the CCD includes both automatic clothes
washer models and semi-automatic clothes washer
models certified within the top-loading compact
product class.
37 Companion clothes washers are currently
available in two different configurations: (1)
Integrated into (i.e., built into) the cabinet above a
standard-size front-loading RCW, and (2) built into
a pedestal drawer for installation underneath a
standard-size front-loading RCW. Both
configurations are constrained in the height
dimension.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
with no apparent capacity threshold
that closely correlates with product
differentiation on the market.
For standard-size top-loading RCWs,
DOE’s engineering analysis indicates
that despite the removal of capacity
‘‘bias’’ from the EER and WER metrics,
increases in capacity are required to
achieve higher efficiency levels beyond
EL 1. (See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD).
DOE continues to consider whether this
conclusion justifies separating the
standard-size product class into separate
product classes, as suggested by
Whirlpool. Given this close relationship
between efficiency and capacity, DOE
also continues to consider whether to
specify an equation-based standard for
the top-loading standard-size product
class, as suggested by the CA IOUs.
Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD provides
further details of DOE’s consideration of
these potential alternate product class
definitions for top-loading standard-size
RCWs.
DOE recognizes that an equationsbased standards approach would be
unfamiliar to RCW stakeholders and
would significantly alter the structure of
the standards analysis. As such, the
analysis of potential amended
standards, and how such standards
would impact the existing market, could
be difficult for stakeholders to interpret,
particularly given the proposed change
in metrics to EER and WER. DOE also
recognizes that implementing equationbased standards could potentially
increase compliance burden from
manufacturers. For example, a simple
modification made to the balance ring
on a top-loading model or the door
shape on a front-loading model for
aesthetic purposes could change the
model’s measured capacity, which
would in turn change the standard
applicable to that unit and would
therefore require corresponding changes
to the controls to reduce energy and
water use. As manufacturers iterate
product designs, any change that would
affect a model’s measured capacity
would result in the model being subject
to a different standard.
In addition, defining an equationbased standard for only the top-loading
standard-size product class would
create complexity that may lead to
confusion or added regulatory burden
for manufacturers.
At this time, DOE tentatively
determines that the increased
complexity and potential burdens of an
equation-based standard outweigh the
benefits. As discussed, in this NOPR,
DOE proposes a numerically based
standard for the top-loading standardsize product class.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
In response to the CA IOUs’ concern
that having a different definition of the
‘‘compact’’ threshold for top-loading
and front-loading RCWs would add
confusion to the market, DOE is
proposing to rename the product class
for top-loading RCWs with capacities
less than 1.6 ft3 as ‘‘ultra-compact.’’
In response to Ameren et al.’s
comment that changing the compact
product class threshold should not
enable backsliding, DOE notes that, as
discussed, EPCA contains what is
known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’
provision, which prevents the Secretary
from prescribing any amended standard
that either increases the maximum
allowable energy use or decreases the
minimum required energy efficiency of
a covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(1)) As discussed in section
IV.C.2.a of this document, DOE used the
current DOE standard applicable to
front-loading standard-size clothes
washers as the baseline efficiency level
for the newly created front-loading
compact-size product class, which
prevents any possibility of backsliding.
Ameren et al. provided comments
pertaining to portable clothes washers,
which the comment equates with semiautomatic clothes washers. (Ameren et
al., No. 42 at pp. 6–8). Ameren et al.
commented that since the last standards
rulemaking, portable RCWs are now
widely available for sale through
national retailers and online direct-toconsumer marketplaces. (Id.) Ameren et
al. referenced NEEA research as
verifying that the portable RCWs
currently on the market meet or exceed
current standards, and that therefore
they do not require a separate product
class. (Id.) Ameren et al. also
commented that nothing should prevent
efficient technologies employed in
conventional automatic top-loading
RCWs from being leveraged in portable
top-loading RCWs, including wash
plates and higher spin speeds. (Id.)
DOE cautions that portable clothes
washers 38 as a whole represent a
broader category of clothes washers than
semi-automatic clothes washers
specifically. Although all semiautomatic clothes washers currently on
the market are portable, not all portable
clothes washers on the market are semiautomatic—certain portable clothes
washers are automatic (i.e., they provide
means for internal regulation of water
temperature, as opposed to requiring the
38 In this NOPR, DOE uses the term ‘‘portable
clothes washer’’ to mean a clothes washer, typically
with caster wheels, designed to be easily moved by
the consumer.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
user to adjust the water temperature
externally to the clothes washer).
With regard to Ameren et al.’s
comment that portable RCWs currently
on the market meet or exceed current
standards and therefore do not require
a separate product class, DOE does not
agree that this conclusion can be
applied to semi-automatic clothes
washers specifically, since many of the
data points referenced by Ameren et al.
correspond to automatic top-loading
clothes washers. In addition, appendix
J includes significant changes to the
testing of semi-automatic clothes
washers—which improve the
representativeness of the test results
while reducing test burden—such that
when tested under appendix J, a semiautomatic clothes washer uses
significantly more hot water (and
therefore has inherently lower EER
values) than would a similarly-sized
automatic clothes washer.39 Section
IV.C.2.c of this document provides
further discussion of the efficiency level
analysis for semi-automatic clothes
washers.
Given the reemergence of semiautomatic clothes washers on the
market, and improvements to the test
procedure to improve the
representativeness of test results for
semi-automatic clothes washers, DOE is
proposing to re-establish a separate
product class for semi-automatic clothes
washers and to establish performancebased standards for semi-automatic
clothes washers.
In summary, for this NOPR, DOE
analyzed five product classes for RCWs
as follows:
• Semi-automatic clothes washers
• Automatic clothes washers: 40
Æ Top-loading, ultra-compact (less
than 1.6 ft3 capacity)
Æ Top-loading, standard-size (1.6 ft3
or greater capacity)
Æ Front-loading, compact (less than
3.0 ft3 capacity)
Æ Front-loading, standard-size (3.0 ft3
or greater capacity)
DOE seeks comment on the product
class structure analyzed in this NOPR.
39 For example, most automatic clothes washers
offer only a cold rinse, whereas appendix J requires
semi-automatic clothes washers to be tested on both
Hot Wash/Hot Rinse, and Warm Wash/Warm Rinse
cycles, based on the assumption that the user would
not adjust the water temperature during the cycle.
87 FR 33316. Significantly more hot water is used
in these cycles than on the equivalent cycles (Hot
Wash/Cold Rinse and Warm Wash/Cold Rinse) on
an automatic clothes washer.
40 For simplicity, many of the tables in the
following sections of this document omit the
designation that these four product classes pertain
to automatic clothes washers.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13541
2. Technology Options
In the preliminary market analysis
and technology assessment, DOE
identified a comprehensive list of
technology options that would be
expected to improve the efficiency of
RCWs, as measured by the DOE test
procedures.41 Initially, these
technologies encompass all those that
DOE believes are technologically
feasible.
In the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis, DOE requested information on
any technology options not identified in
the September 2021 Preliminary TSD
that manufacturers may use to attain
higher efficiency levels of RCWs.
Ameren et al. commented in support
of DOE’s inclusion of all relevant
technologies, including those to reduce
drying energy. (Ameren et al., No. 42 at
p. 19) Ameren et al. also commented
that they appreciate DOE’s
consideration of technologies that have
been found in working prototypes in
addition to those available in current
models. (Id.)
In this NOPR, DOE considered the
technology options listed in Table IV.1.
In addition to the technology options
DOE considered for the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis, DOE added
capacity increase as a technology option
for this NOPR.42
TABLE IV.1—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
Methods for Decreasing Water Use: *
Adaptive water fill controls.
Hardware features enabling lower water levels.
Spray rinse.
Polymer bead cleaning.
Methods for Decreasing Machine Energy:
More efficient motor.
Direct drive motor.
Methods for Decreasing Water Heating Energy:
Wash temperature decrease.
Ozonated laundering.
Methods for Decreasing Drying Energy:
Hardware features enabling spin speed increase.
Spin time increase.
Methods for Decreasing Standby Energy:
Lower standby power components.
Methods for Increasing Overall Efficiency:
Capacity increase.
* Most of the methods for decreasing water
use are also methods for decreasing water
heating energy, since less hot water is used.
41 See section 3.15.2 of the September 2021
Preliminary TSD. Available online at
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BTSTD0014-0030.
42 In this NOPR, DOE considers capacity increase
only as a technology option of ‘‘last resort.’’ In
defining a representative ‘‘path’’ that manufacturers
would be expected to use to achieve higher
efficiency levels, DOE included capacity increase
only for those efficiency levels that cannot be
reasonably achieved without an increase in
capacity. See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for more
details.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13542
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD includes
the detailed descriptions of each
technology option.
DOE seeks comment on the
technology options not identified in this
NOPR that manufacturers may use to
attain higher efficiency levels of RCWs.
B. Screening Analysis
DOE uses the following five screening
criteria to determine which technology
options are suitable for further
consideration in an energy conservation
standards rulemaking:
(1) Technological feasibility.
Technologies that are not incorporated
in commercial products or in
commercially viable, existing prototypes
will not be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture,
install, and service. If it is determined
that mass production of a technology in
commercial products and reliable
installation and servicing of the
technology could not be achieved on the
scale necessary to serve the relevant
market at the time of the projected
compliance date of the standard, then
that technology will not be considered
further.
(3) Impacts on product utility. If a
technology is determined to have a
significant adverse impact on the utility
of the product to subgroups of
consumers, or result in the
unavailability of any covered product
type with performance characteristics
(including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are
substantially the same as products
generally available in the United States
at the time, it will not be considered
further.
(4) Safety of technologies. If it is
determined that a technology would
have significant adverse impacts on
health or safety, it will not be
considered further.
(5) Unique-pathway proprietary
technologies. If a proprietary technology
has proprietary protection and
represents a unique pathway to
achieving a given efficiency level, it will
not be considered further due to the
potential for monopolistic concerns.
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix
A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).
In summary, if DOE determines that a
technology, or a combination of
technologies, fails to meet one or more
of the listed five criteria, it will be
excluded from further consideration in
the engineering analysis. The reasons
for eliminating any technology are
discussed in the following sections.
The subsequent sections include
comments from interested parties
pertinent to the screening criteria,
DOE’s evaluation of each technology
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
option against the screening analysis
criteria, and whether DOE determined
that a technology option should be
excluded (‘‘screened out’’) based on the
screening criteria.
1. Screened-Out Technologies
In chapter 4 of the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis, DOE screened out
electrolytic disassociation of water,
ozonated laundering, and polymer bead
cleaning on the basis of their
practicability to install, manufacture
and service. DOE also noted that
electrolytic disassociation of water
could have impacts on product utility or
availability and that polymer bead
cleaning was a unique-pathway
proprietary technology.
In the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis, DOE sought comment on
whether any additional technology
options should be screened out on the
basis of any of the screening criteria.
AHAM commented that decreasing
water temperature, particularly on the
warmest warm wash temperature, could
decrease cleaning and rinsing
performance by making it harder to
remove fatty soils, which are soluble
around 85 degrees Fahrenheit (‘‘°F’’).
(AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 9–10) AHAM
added that despite the existence of some
detergents designed for lower
temperatures, detergents alone cannot
solve this issue. (Id.) AHAM commented
that decreased water temperature could
also have negative impacts on fabric
care resulting from reduced detergent
removal, biofilm accumulation, reduced
particulate removal, and increased
white residues on clothing. (Id.) AHAM
also noted that if wash time is increased
to compensate for a decrease in cleaning
performance at lower wash
temperatures, the cycle time will
consequently increase. (Id.)
Whirlpool suggested that lowering
wash temperatures from current levels
should not be a technology option
considered by DOE. (Whirlpool, No. 39
at pp. 6–8) Whirlpool added that it
strongly believes that wash
temperatures are already low enough,
and that lowering temperatures further
will effectively create a disconnect
between consumer perceptions of
acceptable wash water temperatures and
what Whirlpool could actually offer.
(Id.) Whirlpool commented that this
impact is compounded by the proposed
appendix J test procedure, which
proposes to test the hottest and coldest
Warm Wash/Cold Rinse settings for all
clothes washers instead of using the 25/
50/75 test.43 (Id.) Whirlpool commented
43 The ‘‘25/50/75’’ test refers to the provision in
section 3.5 of appendix J2 that allows a clothes
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
that changing the test procedure at the
same time as the energy conservation
standards may impede Whirlpool’s
ability to offer warm wash temperatures
that consumers find acceptable and
could affect clothes washers’ ability to
consistently clean laundry to the
consumers’ satisfaction, since higher
temperatures are needed to effectively
remove fatty soils, white residue, and
particulates from laundry. (Id.)
Whirlpool further commented that
DOE’s standards should not drive wash
water temperatures below levels that are
acceptable based on consumer
perceptions of these temperatures. (Id.)
Whirlpool recommended that instead,
DOE’s standards should protect the
ability of clothes washers to offer
adequate wash temperatures that align
with consumer expectations and can
deliver on the core purpose of owning
and using a clothes washer, which is to
remove soils and clean clothes. (Id.)
Whirlpool noted that the overall impact
of lowering wash temperature on
improving efficiency is minimal in
comparison to other technology options
like improving spin speed, but it is still
something manufacturers must consider
when making tradeoffs between cost
and efficiency when designing a clothes
washer to meet new standards. (Id.)
Whirlpool further commented that
detergents become less effective at lower
wash temperatures, and that consumers
will see this reduction immediately or
within several loads, depending on the
soil type on the clothing. (Whirlpool,
No. 39 at p. 11) Whirlpool added that
even detergents formulated specifically
for cold water washing may not be
validated for temperatures below 70 °F.
(Id.) Whirlpool noted that in northern
states such as Michigan, yearly ground
water temperatures are in the 42–49 °F
range, and that Whirlpool is not aware
of any detergent that was formulated
and validated for performance at
temperatures that low. (Id.) Whirlpool
stated that many clothes washers on the
market today have tap cold options, and
some have a variety of cold and cool
temperatures that mix in some amount
of hot water. (Id.) Whirlpool commented
that some clothes washers offer these
temperatures in the 55 °F range. (Id.)
Whirlpool expressed concern that, due
to any amendments to the standards that
necessitate a reduction in wash
washer that has four or more Warm Wash/Cold
Rinse temperature selections to be tested at the 25percent, 50-percent, and 75-percent positions of the
temperature selection device between the hottest
hot (≤135 °F (57.2 °C)) wash and the coldest cold
wash. If a selection is not available at the 25-, 50or 75-percent position, in place of each such
unavailable selection, the next warmer temperature
selection shall be used.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
temperatures, the temperature range of
these tap cold, cold, and cool settings
may be driven down well below the
validated temperatures for good
performance for even the best detergent
formulations on the market. (Id.)
Whirlpool added that this problem
would be even more pronounced for the
cheaper and less effective detergents,
which may be popular with low-income
consumers. (Id.) Whirlpool concluded
that detergents would need to be
reformulated to reflect this broad-scale
lowering of wash temperatures in
clothes washers, and Whirlpool is not
sure if it would be possible to validate
a detergent for good performance at
these lower temperatures. (Id.)
Unlike certain other discrete
technology options evaluated by DOE
(e.g., direct drive motor), wash
temperature decrease can be
implemented to varying extents. For
example, some manufacturers may
implement it to small extent (e.g., a
decrease by 0.5 °F), whereas other
manufacturers may implement it to a
significantly larger extent (e.g., a
decrease of 5 °F or more). In addition,
DOE observes through testing that
manufacturers employ a wide variety of
‘‘paths’’ to achieve higher efficiency
levels—some manufacturers may opt to
reduce wash temperatures as a means
for achieving a particular efficiency
level, whereas other manufacturers may
prioritize maintaining wash
temperatures and instead reducing
motor energy use or drying energy.
Indeed, through its testing, as discussed
in a test report accompanying this
NOPR (hereafter, the ‘‘performance
characteristics test report’’), which is
available in the docket for this
rulemaking, DOE has observed a wide
range of wash temperatures available on
the market among products with
identical efficiency ratings. Because of
this variation in implementation from
manufacturer to manufacturer, and
because DOE observes that some
manufacturers choose a ‘‘path’’ to higher
efficiency that includes reduced wash
temperatures, DOE has not screened out
decreased wash temperatures as a
design option for improving efficiency.
In chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD, section
5.5.3 describes the design option paths
most typically associated with each
analyzed efficiency level within each
product class, based on DOE’s testing
and teardowns of a representative
sample of units on the market. For the
top-loading standard-size product class,
the design option path considered by
DOE for the analysis incorporates a
slight reduction in hot wash water
temperatures at EL 3 and a more
substantive reduction in hot wash water
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
temperatures at EL 4, reflecting the most
prevalent design option path used by
units currently on the market at these
ELs. Although the most typical design
option path includes reduced wash
temperatures, DOE’s analysis described
in the performance characteristics test
report suggests that the proposed
efficiency level (in particular, EL 3 for
the top-loading standard-size product
class) can be achieved through a variety
of design option paths, including paths
that do not require a substantive
reduction in wash temperatures
compared to the range of wash
temperatures provided by lowerefficiency units. Such design option
paths could incorporate more efficient
motors or higher spin speeds, for
example, in lieu of any reductions in
wash water temperatures. Such alternate
design option paths would have higher
manufacturing costs than a path that
uses reduction in wash water
temperatures.
Additionally, for this NOPR analysis,
DOE partially screened out capacity
increase as a technology option.
Specifically, DOE screened out any
capacity increase that would require a
corresponding increase in cabinet width
larger than 27 inches, on the basis of the
practicability to install and service
RCWs with cabinet widths larger than
27 inches. DOE recognizes that products
with a width greater than 27 inches may
not be able to fit through many
standards-size interior doorways.
For the reasons discussed in chapter
4 of the NOPR TSD, for this NOPR
analysis DOE screened out ozonated
laundering, and polymer bead cleaning
on the basis of their practicability to
install, manufacture and service.
DOE seeks comment on whether any
additional technology options should be
screened out on the basis of any of the
screening criteria in this NOPR.
2. Remaining Technologies
Through a review of each technology,
DOE retained (i.e., did not screen out)
the technology options listed in Table
IV.2 and tentatively concludes that each
of these technologies meets all five
screening criteria to be examined further
as design options.
TABLE IV.2—RETAINED DESIGN OPTIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES
WASHERS
Methods for Decreasing Water Use: *
Adaptive water fill controls.
Hardware features enabling lower water levels.
Spray Rinse.
Methods for Decreasing Machine Energy:
More efficient motor.
Direct drive motor.
Methods for Decreasing Water Heating Energy:
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13543
TABLE IV.2—RETAINED DESIGN OPTIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES
WASHERS—Continued
Wash temperature decrease.
Methods for Decreasing Drying Energy:
Hardware features enabling spin speed increase.
Spin time increase.
Methods for Decreasing Standby Energy:
Lower Standby power components.
Methods for Increasing Overall Efficiency:
Capacity increase (without requiring a cabinet
width increase).
* Most of the methods for decreasing water
use are also methods for decreasing water
heating energy, since less hot water is used.
DOE has initially determined that
these technology options are
technologically feasible because they are
being used or have previously been used
in commercially available products or
working prototypes. DOE also finds that
all of the remaining technology options
meet the other screening criteria (i.e.,
practicable to manufacture, install, and
service; do not result in adverse impacts
on product utility or product
availability; do not result in adverse
impacts on health or safety; and do not
represent unique-pathway proprietary
technologies). For additional details, see
chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.
C. Engineering Analysis
The purpose of the engineering
analysis is to establish the relationship
between the efficiency and cost of
RCWs. There are two elements to
consider in the engineering analysis; the
selection of efficiency levels to analyze
(i.e., the ‘‘efficiency analysis’’) and the
determination of product cost at each
efficiency level (i.e., the ‘‘cost
analysis’’). In determining the
performance of higher-efficiency
products, DOE considers technologies
and design option combinations not
eliminated by the screening analysis.
For each product class, DOE estimates
the baseline cost, as well as the
incremental cost for the product at
efficiency levels above the baseline. The
output of the engineering analysis is a
set of cost-efficiency ‘‘curves’’ that are
used in downstream analyses (i.e., the
LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).
In this section, DOE discusses
comments received in response to the
prediction tool developed in support of
the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis. In the sections that follow,
DOE details the efficiency levels
analyzed for each product class; the
approach used to develop cost estimates
for each efficiency level and the
resulting cost-efficiency relationship;
the equations used to translate IMEF
and IWF into EER and WER; and the
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13544
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
approach used to develop the
manufacturer markup.
In response to the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis, ASAP et al.
commented generally in support of
DOE’s approach to select efficiency
levels based on the proposed new
efficiency metrics, EER and WER.
(ASAP et al., No. 37 at p. 1)
1. Preliminary Analysis Prediction Tool
In support of the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis, DOE tested a
sample of RCWs under both appendix J2
and appendix J as proposed in the
September 2021 TP NOPR. As described
in chapter 5 of the September 2021
Preliminary TSD, DOE supplemented its
tested dataset with ‘‘predicted’’ EER and
WER values for a larger sample of units.
The EER and WER predictions which
were estimated based on each model’s
measured performance under appendix
J2 and on the model’s physical and
operational characteristics. DOE also
published an explanation of how the
predictive tool was developed,
including a table listing the impacts to
each underlying variable that were
assumed as part of the predictive
analysis. DOE explained that it planned
to continue testing additional units to
appendix J to increase the number of
tested, rather than predicted, EER and
WER values in future stages of the
rulemaking.
AHAM commented that DOE did not
provide sufficient explanation for the
‘‘prediction tool’’ that DOE used to
predict a clothes washer’s EER and WER
values based on appendix J2 test results.
(AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 4–6) AHAM
further explained that its data, which
include models representing
approximately half of total 2020
shipments, contradicted the data
presented in the September 2021
Preliminary TSD. (Id.) AHAM expressed
concern that DOE did not provide any
statistical outcomes to justify the
accuracy of the prediction tool it used
to predict a clothes washers EER and
WER values based on appendix J2 test
results. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 15–17)
AHAM commented that without data on
statistical outcomes, AHAM cannot
assess the accuracy of the prediction
tool. (Id.) AHAM also commented that
based on the analysis that transposes
efficiency levels, DOE’s prediction tool
appears to be inaccurate and that under
the best-fit line method for front-loading
clothes washers, the R-squared values
show the prediction tool is insufficient.
(Id.) AHAM therefore recommended
that DOE update its analysis based on
tested data instead of predicted data,
especially for top-loading standard
clothes washers with capacities less
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
than 3.0 ft3, and for front-loading
compact clothes washers. (Id.) AHAM
also requested that DOE provide
appendix J2 and appendix J test data;
the statistical data demonstrating
correlation of the prediction tool; the
data supporting the development of the
tool, including the equations the
prediction tool used; and DOE’s
comparison between predicted and
tested EER where applicable. (Id.)
AHAM noted that, unlike DOE, its data
was all based on actual testing instead
of using a model or prediction tool. (Id.)
AHAM presented a table showing the
variation in tested HET, MET, DET, ETLP,
QT, and corrected RMC between
appendix J2 and appendix J for the
AHAM data, DOE data, and the
combined AHAM and DOE dataset.
(AHAM, No. 53 at pp. 7–8) AHAM
measured variation by measuring the
percent difference in each metric
between appendix J2 and appendix J for
all units, and presented an overall
variation in each metric by calculating
the average percent differences for each
metric, the standard deviation of the
percent differences for each metric, and
the range of percent differences for each
metric. (Id.) AHAM noted that on
average, values for HET, MET, DET, ETLP,
QT, and corrected RMC were higher
under appendix J than under appendix
J2. (Id.) AHAM also noted that the level
of variation was particularly high for
DET and ETLP. (Id.) AHAM commented
that, while the overall impact of standby
energy in the final calculation for energy
efficiency is quite small, the impact of
dryer energy on the final calculated
efficiency is significant. (Id.) Based on
its analysis, AHAM concluded that this
variation shows that a direct translation
between the appendix J2 and appendix
J test procedures is not possible. (Id.)
AHAM specifically pointed out that the
total dryer energy consumption showed
an average increase of 22.5 percent, but
that the range of differences with the
tested models is quite wide, indicating
that it is impossible to predict the
impact of appendix J on dryer energy
consumption. (Id.) AHAM added that
the appendix J2 to appendix J
translation has a similar effect on
corrected RMC, and is most apparent
with respect to ETLP, where measured
values varied by as much as 221
percent. (Id.) AHAM further explained
that the relatively high standard
deviations of percent differences
underscore the wide ranges in the
measured value differences between
appendix J2 and appendix J. (Id.)
Samsung commented that the
prediction tool used in the September
2021 Preliminary TSD does not have a
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
high correlation between EER and IMEF.
(Samsung, No. 41 at p. 3)
ASAP et al. commented that they
support DOE’s approach to use its
predictive tool and that they support
conducting additional testing using the
new proposed appendix J test procedure
to refine this approach. (ASAP et al.,
No. 37 at p. 1)
Ameren et al. expressed support for
DOE’s approach to predict EER and
WER values from tested IMEF and IWF
value and commented that they support
future testing with appendix J to collect
more results with the proposed new
appendix J test procedure. (Ameren et
al., No. 42 at pp. 19–20). Ameren et al.
added that DOE’s RMC and Warm Wash
temperature results are consistent with
findings in the 2020 NEEA report. (Id.)
Ameren et al. added that the non-linear
nature of the relationship between IMEF
and IWF values and EER and WER
values is similar to the non-linearity
that NEEA identified in a translation of
appendix J2 tests to real-world energy
use. (Id.)
As noted, DOE stated in the
September 2021 Preliminary TSD that it
planned to continue testing additional
units to appendix J to increase the
number of tested, rather than predicted,
EER and WER values for future stages of
this proposed rulemaking.
As described in the April 2022
NODA, DOE has tested additional 28
additional RCW models to both
appendix J2 and appendix J in order to
provide additional data points for the
translation equations and to eliminate
the need to rely on ‘‘predicted’’ EER and
WER values in the translation analysis.
87 FR 21816, 21817. DOE’s total test
sample includes 44 units across all five
product classes analyzed for this NOPR.
DOE made available detailed appendix
J and appendix J2 test data for its full
set of tested units as part of the April
2022 NODA. As discussed in section
IV.C.5 of this document, for this NOPR
DOE relied exclusively on tested data
for developing translation equations for
each automatic clothes washer product
class and did not continue the usage of
its prediction tool as part of its analysis.
The discontinuation of the prediction
tool addresses many of the concerns
expressed by AHAM and Samsung. As
detailed in section IV.C.5 of this
document, the comprehensive dataset
has enabled DOE to develop robust
translations between the appendix J2
and appendix J metrics.
2. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two
approaches to develop energy efficiency
levels for the engineering analysis: (1)
relying on observed efficiency levels in
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13545
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
the market (i.e., the efficiency-level
approach), or (2) determining the
incremental efficiency improvements
associated with incorporating specific
design options to a baseline model (i.e.,
the design-option approach). Using the
efficiency-level approach, the efficiency
levels established for the analysis are
determined based on the market
distribution of existing products (in
other words, based on the range of
efficiencies and efficiency level
‘‘clusters’’ that already exist on the
market). Using the design option
approach, the efficiency levels
established for the analysis are
determined through detailed
engineering calculations and/or
computer simulations of the efficiency
improvements from implementing
specific design options that have been
identified in the technology assessment.
DOE may also rely on a combination of
these two approaches. For example, the
efficiency-level approach (based on
actual products on the market) may be
extended using the design option
approach to ‘‘gap fill’’ levels (to bridge
large gaps between other identified
efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate
to the max-tech level (particularly in
cases where the max-tech level exceeds
the maximum efficiency level currently
available on the market).
For this NOPR, DOE used an
efficiency-level approach,
supplemented with the design-option
approach for certain ‘‘gap fill’’ efficiency
levels. The efficiency-level approach is
appropriate for RCWs, given the
availability of certification data to
determine the market distribution of
existing products and to identify
efficiency level ‘‘clusters’’ that already
exist on the market.
In conducting the efficiency analysis
for the automatic clothes washer
product classes, DOE first identified
efficiency levels in terms of the current
IMEF and IWF metrics defined in
appendix J2 that are the most familiar to
interested parties. DOE also initially
determined the cost-efficiency
relationships based on these metrics.
Following that, DOE translated each
efficiency level into its corresponding
EER and WER values using the
translation equations developed for each
product class, as discussed further in
section IV.C.5 of this document.
For the semi-automatic product class,
for which reliable certification data is
unavailable, DOE tested a representative
sample of units to appendix J and used
that set of data points to determine the
baseline and higher efficiency levels, as
described further in section IV.C.2.c of
this document.
The efficiency levels that DOE
considered in the engineering analysis
are attainable using technologies
currently available on the market in
RCWs. DOE used the results of the
testing and teardown analyses to
determine a representative set of
technologies and design strategies that
manufacturers use to achieve each
higher efficiency level. This information
provides interested parties with
additional transparency of assumptions
and results, and the ability to perform
independent analyses for verification.
Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD describes
the methodology and results of the
analysis used to derive the costefficiency relationships.
a. Baseline Efficiency Levels
For each product class, DOE generally
selects a baseline model as a reference
point for each class, and measures
changes resulting from potential energy
conservation standards against the
baseline. The baseline model in each
product class represents the
characteristics of a product typical of
that class (e.g., capacity, physical size).
Generally, a baseline model is one that
just meets current energy conservation
standards, or, if no standards are in
place, the baseline is typically the most
common or least efficient unit on the
market.
In the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis, DOE presented an initial set of
baseline levels for each product class, as
shown in Table IV.3.
TABLE IV.3—PRELIMINARY BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVELS PRESENTED IN THE SEPTEMBER 2021 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
Minimum IMEF
(ft3/kWh/cycle)
Product class
Source
Top-Loading, Compact (<1.6 ft3) * ..........................
Top-Loading, Standard-Size (≥1.6 ft3) ....................
Front-Loading, Compact (<3.0 ft3) ..........................
Current DOE standard ...........................................
Current DOE standard ...........................................
Current DOE standard for front-loading, standardsize (≥1.6 ft3) **.
ENERGY STAR v. 7.0 *** ......................................
Front-Loading, Standard-Size (≥3.0 ft3) .................
Maximum IWF
(gal/cycle/ft3)
1.15
1.57
1.84
12.0
6.5
4.7
2.38
3.7
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
* As discussed in section IV.A.1 of this document, DOE is proposing in this NOPR to rename the top-loading compact product class analyzed
in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis to top-loading ‘‘ultra-compact.’’
** Although the current DOE standard for front-loading, compact (<1.6 ft3) is 1.13 IMEF/8.3 IWF, no front-loading units are currently on the
market with a capacity <1.6 ft3. The proposed baseline efficiency level reflects the currently applicable standard for front-loading RCWs with capacities between 1.6 and 3.0 ft3.
*** Although the current DOE standard for front-loading standard-size (≥1.6 ft3) is 1.84 IMEF/4.7 IWF, at the time of analysis, the least efficient
front-loading standard-size RCW available on the market had an efficiency rating of 2.38 IMEF/3.7 IWF.
Additionally, in the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis, DOE sought
comment on whether the baseline
efficiency levels identified in its
analysis for each product class were
appropriate.
The CA IOUs presented data from
their analysis of front-loading standardsize products available on DOE’s CCD.
(CA IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 5–6) The CA
IOUs commented that, according to
their analysis of the CCD, eight models
ranging from 4.3 ft3 to 5 ft3 are rated at
the current federal minimum standard
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
of 1.84 IMEF and 4.7 IWF, and
recommended that DOE update the
baseline definition to the current
minimum efficiency levels to prevent an
undercount of the overall savings
potential. (Id.) The CA IOUs also
identified some models rated at 2.92
IMEF and 4.5 IWF in the CCD, which
reflects a worse IWF (although a better
IMEF) than the baseline level analyzed
in the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis. (Id.)
NYSERDA commented that DOE’s
CCD shows front-loading standard-size
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
clothes washers from 4.3 to 5.0 ft3 rated
at the current minimum standard level
of 1.84 IMEF. (NYSERDA, No. 36 at p.
2) NYSERDA recommended that DOE
therefore consider the existing standard
as the baseline for these products
instead of the ENERGY STAR 2015 level
of 2.38 IMEF. (Id.)
In response to the CA IOUs and
NYSERDA’s comment that the CCD
includes standard-size front-loading
clothes washers that are rated at the
current standard level of 1.84 IMEF,
DOE has determined through testing
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13546
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
that these units perform significantly
above their rated value at the current
standard level. DOE has also confirmed
these findings through confidential
manufacturer interviews.
In response to the CA IOUs’ comment
that the CCD also includes a model with
a worse IWF rating of 4.5 IWF, DOE
notes that this unit’s rating appears to be
a typographical error. DOE notes that
this unit is listed in the ENERGY STAR
database with an IWF rating of 2.9 and
a capacity of 4.5 ft3, suggesting that the
capacity measurement was
inadvertently reported as the IWF value
in DOE’s CCD.
For these reasons, DOE tentatively
concludes that for the standard-size
front-loading product class, the lowest
available efficiency on the market is
2.38 IMEF and 3.7 IWF, and this level
is an appropriate representation of
baseline efficiency.
Accordingly, in this NOPR, DOE
analyzed the baseline efficiency levels
shown in Table IV.4 for each automatic
product class.44
TABLE IV.4—BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVELS ANALYZED IN THIS NOPR
Minimum IMEF
(ft3/kWh/cycle)
Product class
Source
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact (<1.6 ft3) ...................
Top-Loading, Standard-Size (≥1.6 ft3) ....................
Front-Loading, Compact (<3.0 ft3) ..........................
Current DOE standard ...........................................
Current DOE standard ...........................................
Current DOE standard for front-loading, standardsize (≥1.6 ft3) *.
ENERGY STAR v. 7.0 ** ........................................
Front-Loading, Standard-Size (≥3.0 ft3) .................
Maximum IWF
(gal/cycle/ft3)
1.15
1.57
1.84
12.0
6.5
4.7
2.38
3.7
* Although the current DOE standard for front-loading compact (<1.6 ft3) is 1.13 IMEF/8.3 IWF, no front-loading units are currently on the market with a capacity <1.6 ft3. The proposed baseline efficiency level reflects the currently applicable standard for front-loading RCWs with capacities between 1.6 and 3.0 ft3.
** Although the current DOE standard for front-loading standard-size (≥1.6 ft3) is 1.84 IMEF/4.7 IWF, at the time of analysis, the least efficient
front-loading standard-size RCW available on the has an efficiency rating of 2.38 IMEF/3.7 IWF.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
DOE seeks comment on whether the
baseline efficiency levels analyzed in
this NOPR for each product class are
appropriate.
b. Higher Efficiency Levels
To establish higher efficiency levels
for the analysis, DOE reviewed data in
DOE’s CCD to evaluate the range of
efficiencies for RCWs currently
available on the market.45
As part of DOE’s analysis, the
‘‘maximum available’’ efficiency level is
the highest efficiency unit currently
available on the market. DOE also
defines a ‘‘max-tech’’ efficiency level to
represent the maximum possible
efficiency for a given product in each
product class. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1))
DOE typically determines max-tech
levels based on technologies that are
either commercially available or have
been demonstrated as working
prototypes. If the max-tech design meets
DOE’s screening criteria, DOE considers
the design in further analysis.
DOE has tentatively determined that
the max-tech efficiency level for each
RCW product class corresponds to the
maximum available level for each
product class. In other words, DOE has
not defined or analyzed any efficiency
levels higher than those currently
available on the market.
As noted, EPCA requires that any new
or amended energy conservation
44 See section IV.C.2.c of this document for a
discussion of efficiency levels for the semiautomatic product class.
45 DOE’s Compliance Certification Database is
available at www.regulations.doe.gov/certificationdata. Analysis conducted May 2022.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
standard be designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically
feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) For
RCWs, a determination of technological
feasibility must encompass not only an
achievable reduction in energy and/or
water consumption, but also the ability
of the product to perform its intended
function (i.e., wash clothing) at reduced
energy or water levels.46 Attributes that
are relevant to consumers encompass
multiple aspects of RCW operation such
as stain removal, solid particle removal,
rinsing effectiveness, fabric gentleness,
cycle time, noise, vibration, and others.
Each of these attributes may be affected
by energy and water efficiency levels,
and achieving better performance in one
attribute may require a tradeoff with one
or more other attributes. DOE does not
have the means to be able to determine
whether a product that uses less water
or energy than the maximum efficiency
level available on the market would
represent a viable (i.e., technologically
feasible) product that would satisfy
consumer expectations regarding all the
other aspects of RCW performance that
are not measured by the DOE test
procedure. As far as DOE is aware, the
complexity of the interdependence
among all these attributes precludes
being able to use a computer model or
other similar means to predict changes
in these product attributes as a result of
reduced energy and water levels. Rather,
as far as DOE is aware, such
determinations are made in an iterative
fashion through extensive product
testing as part of manufacturers’ design
processes.
In the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis, for all product classes except
top-loading compact, DOE considered
efficiency levels higher than baseline
levels based on specifications
prescribed by ENERGY STAR® and the
Consortium for Energy Efficiency
(‘‘CEE’’)’s Super Efficient HomeAppliances Initiative,47 as well as gapfill levels. At the time of the September
2021 Preliminary Analysis, large
clusters of models were available at the
ENERGY STAR and CEE Tier levels, as
evident in the market distribution plots
presented in chapter 3 of the September
2021 Preliminary TSD. At the time of
the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis, no automatic top-loading
compact RCWs were available on the
market that exceeded the baseline level.
Accordingly, DOE did not consider any
higher efficiency levels for this product
class.
In chapter 5 of the September 2021
Preliminary TSD, DOE established the
preliminary efficiency levels for each
product class as presented in Table IV.5
through Table IV.8.
46 As an extreme example, DOE could consider a
hypothetical RCW that reduces its water
consumption to near-zero, but such a product
would not be viable for washing clothing, given
current technology.
47 CEE Super-Efficient Home Appliance Initiative
available at cee1.org/content/cee-programresources. Accessed July 13, 2022.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
13547
TABLE IV.5—TOP-LOADING, COMPACT * (<1.6 ft3) PRELIMINARY EFFICIENCY LEVELS, AS PRESENTED IN THE SEPTEMBER
2021 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
IMEF
(ft3/kWh/cycle)
EL
Efficiency level description
Baseline .........
Current DOE standard ....................................................................................................
IWF
(gal/cycle/ft3)
1.15
12.0
* As discussed in section IV.A.1 of this document, DOE is proposing in this NOPR to rename the top-loading compact product class analyzed
in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis to top-loading ‘‘ultra-compact.’’
TABLE IV.6—TOP-LOADING, STANDARD-SIZE (≥1.6 ft3) PRELIMINARY EFFICIENCY LEVELS, AS PRESENTED IN THE
SEPTEMBER 2021 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
IMEF
(ft3/kWh/cycle)
EL
Efficiency level description
Baseline .........
1 .....................
2 .....................
3 .....................
4 .....................
Current DOE standard ....................................................................................................
Gap fill .............................................................................................................................
ENERGY STAR (v. 8.1) ..................................................................................................
2015–2017 CEE Tier 1 ...................................................................................................
2015 ENERGY STAR Most Efficient/Maximum available ..............................................
IWF
(gal/cycle/ft3)
1.57
1.70
2.06
2.38
2.76
6.5
5.0
4.3
3.7
3.5
TABLE IV.7—FRONT-LOADING, COMPACT (<3.0 ft3) PRELIMINARY EFFICIENCY LEVELS, AS PRESENTED IN THE SEPTEMBER
2021 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
IMEF
(ft3/kWh/cycle)
EL
Efficiency level description
Baseline .........
1 .....................
2 .....................
3 .....................
4 .....................
Current DOE standard for front-loading, standard-size (≥1.6 ft3) ...................................
ENERGY STAR v. 8.1 level for units ≤2.5 ft3 .................................................................
2018–2022 ENERGY STAR Most Efficient for units ≤2.5 ft3 .........................................
ENERGY STAR v. 7.0 level for units >2.5 ft3 .................................................................
ENERGY STAR v. 8.1 level for units >2.5 ft3/Maximum available .................................
IWF
(gal/cycle/ft3)
1.84
2.07
2.20
2.38
2.76
4.7
4.2
3.7
3.7
3.2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE IV.8—FRONT-LOADING, STANDARD-SIZE (≥3.0 ft3) PRELIMINARY EFFICIENCY LEVELS, AS PRESENTED IN THE
SEPTEMBER 2021 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
IMEF
(ft3/kWh/cycle)
EL
Efficiency level description
Baseline .........
1 .....................
2 .....................
3 .....................
4 .....................
ENERGY STAR v. 7.0 ....................................................................................................
Gap fill .............................................................................................................................
ENERGY STAR v. 8.1 ....................................................................................................
2018–2022 ENERGY STAR Most Efficient ....................................................................
Maximum available ..........................................................................................................
DOE sought comment on whether the
preliminary higher efficiency levels
identified in the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis for each product
class were appropriate.
The CA IOUs, ASAP et al., and
NYSERDA recommended that DOE
consider revisiting max-tech and higher
efficiency levels based on currently
available products, for the top-loading
compact product class. (CA IOUs, No.
43 at pp. 4–5; ASAP et al., No. 37 at p.
4; NYSERDA, No. 36 at p. 2) These
stakeholders expressed concern that
DOE did not consider any products
above the baseline levels of 1.15 IMEF
and 12.0 IWF, since the ratings in DOE’s
CCD indicates top-loading compact
models that exceed these levels. (Id.)
ASAP et al. noted that DOE’s CCD
includes 8 top-loading compact models
with IMEF ratings between 1.24 and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
1.36. (ASAP et al., No. 37 at p. 4)
Furthermore, ASAP et al. commented
that the new proposed test procedure
could change the relative rankings and
range of efficiency ratings for toploading compact models. (Id.)
DOE’s CCD currently includes both
automatic clothes washer models and
semi-automatic clothes washer models
certified within the top-loading compact
product class. While the certification
database does not differentiate between
automatic and semi-automatic
configurations, DOE conducted an
analysis of product literature for each
certified model to identify the
configuration of each model in the CCD.
DOE’s analysis indicates that
considering only automatic top-loading
compact clothes washers, models are
available only at the baseline efficiency
level. All of the other top-loading
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2.38
2.60
2.76
2.92
3.00
IWF
(gal/cycle/ft3)
3.7
3.5
3.2
3.2
2.9
compact-size models in the CCD at
higher efficiency levels are semiautomatic top-loading clothes washers
with capacities less than 1.6 ft3. When
evaluating only automatic top-loading
compact clothes washers in the CCD,
only products with baseline efficiency
have been certified to DOE. Therefore,
because DOE is not aware of any
automatic top-loading compact RCWs
available on the market at the time of
this analysis that exceed the baseline
level, DOE is not proposing any higher
efficiency levels for this product class.
Section IV.C.2.c of this document
discusses the efficiency levels that DOE
proposes for semi-automatic clothes
washers.
The CA IOUs and NYSERDA also
recommended that DOE consider
revisiting max-tech and higher
efficiency levels based on currently
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13548
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
available products, for the top-loading
standard-size product class. (CA IOUs,
No. 43 at p. 5; NYSERDA, No. 36 at p.
2) These stakeholders commented that
according to their analysis of the CCD,
nine models are certified to lower (more
efficient) IWFs than the most efficient
considered efficiency level presented in
the September 2021 Preliminary TSD.
(Id.) The CA IOUs therefore
recommended that DOE adjust the
maximum achievable efficiency level to
reflect the market availability of toploading standard-size products. (CA
IOUs, No. 43 at p. 5) NYSERDA
recommended that DOE add an EL 5
using the maximum technologically
available efficiency ratings rather than
the 2015 ENERGY STAR Most Efficient
level to better reflect the constantly
improving market. (NYSERDA, No. 36 at
p. 2)
The CA IOUs and NYSERDA also
recommended that DOE consider
revisiting max-tech and higher
efficiency levels based on currently
available products, for the front-loading
standard-size product class. (CA IOUs,
No. 43 at pp. 5–6; NYSERDA, No. 36 at
p. 2) These stakeholders commented
that the CCD contains units with higher
efficiencies than the max-tech level DOE
considered in the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis and recommended
that DOE adjust the highest efficiency
levels to reflect the availability of these
products. (Id.) The CA IOUs identified
11 models that surpass the IMEF and
IWF maximum available level presented
in the September 2021 Preliminary TSD,
at 3.1 IMEF and 2.7 and 2.9 IWF. (CA
IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 5–6)
In response to changes in availability
on the market since the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis, as reflected by the
models in DOE’s CCD identified by
commenters, DOE has updated the maxtech levels for the top-loading standardsize and front-loading standard-size
product classes to reflect the maximum
efficiency available in the CCD at the
time of this NOPR analysis. The
updated max-tech level for top-loading
standard-size is 2.76 IMEF/3.2 IWF,
which DOE notes corresponds to the
2016/2017 ENERGY STAR Most
Efficient criteria. The updated max-tech
level for front-loading standard-size is
3.10 IMEF/2.9 IWF. Although DOE also
identified two RCW models in DOE’s
CCD that are rated at 3.10 IMEF/2.7
IWF, these units have extra-large
capacity drums that necessitate cabinet
widths greater than 27 inches. As
discussed in section IV.B.1 of this
NOPR, DOE excluded from
consideration any drum capacities
increase that require a cabinet width
increase beyond 27 inches.
DOE also updated the definition of
the top-loading standard-size gap-fill
level (i.e., EL 1) to reflect changes in the
market since September 2021
Preliminary Analysis. In the September
2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE defined
EL 1 as 1.70 IMEF/5.0 IWF based on a
small cluster of units in DOE’s CCD
rated at or near that level. Subsequent
to the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis, these units have been
discontinued from the market and are
no longer listed in DOE’s CCD; in
addition, DOE’s market research
indicates that the brand associated with
these units no longer offers top-loading
clothes washers for sale in the U.S.
market. In lieu of any product offerings
currently on the market between the
baseline level (corresponding to the
DOE minimum standard) and EL 2
(corresponding to the applicable
ENERGY STAR criteria), in this NOPR
DOE has defined EL 1 as the numerical
midpoint between the baseline and EL
2 levels.
Lastly, DOE updated the definition of
EL 3 for the front-loading compact
product class to better align with an
existing market cluster. In the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis,
DOE had defined EL 3 as 2.38 IMEF/3.7
IWF, which represented the ENERGY
STAR v. 7.0 level for units with capacity
greater than 2.5 ft3. This resulted in a
relatively large gap in IMEF between EL
3 and EL 4 (2.38 to 2.76 IMEF). For this
NOPR, DOE has instead defined EL 3 as
2.50 IMEF/3.5 IWF as a gap fill level
representing a market cluster at that
point. This also results in EL 3 being
closer to the midpoint of EL 2 and EL
4.
In summary, for this NOPR, DOE
analyzed the efficiency levels for each
product class shown in Table IV.9
through Table IV.12.
TABLE IV.9—TOP-LOADING, ULTRA-COMPACT (<1.6 ft3) EFFICIENCY LEVELS ANALYZED IN THIS NOPR
IMEF
(ft3/kWh/cycle)
EL
Efficiency level description
Baseline .........
Current DOE standard ....................................................................................................
IWF
(gal/cycle/ft3)
1.15
12.0
TABLE IV.10—TOP-LOADING, STANDARD-SIZE (≥1.6 ft3) EFFICIENCY LEVELS ANALYZED IN THIS NOPR
IMEF
(ft3/kWh/cycle)
EL
Efficiency level description
Baseline .........
1 .....................
2 .....................
3 .....................
4 .....................
Current DOE standard ....................................................................................................
Gap fill .............................................................................................................................
ENERGY STAR v. 8.1 ....................................................................................................
2015–2017 CEE Tier 1 ...................................................................................................
Maximum available (2016/2017 ENERGY STAR Most Efficient) ...................................
IWF
(gal/cycle/ft3)
1.57
1.82
2.06
2.38
2.76
6.5
5.4
4.3
3.7
3.2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE IV.11—FRONT-LOADING, COMPACT (<3.0 ft3) EFFICIENCY LEVELS ANALYZED IN THIS NOPR
IMEF
(ft3/kWh/cycle)
EL
Efficiency level description
Baseline .........
1 .....................
2 .....................
3 .....................
4 .....................
Current DOE standard for front-loading, standard-size (≥1.6 ft3) ...................................
ENERGY STAR v. 8.1 level for units ≤2.5 ft3 .................................................................
2023 ENERGY STAR Most Efficient for units ≤2.5 ft3 ...................................................
Gap fill .............................................................................................................................
Maximum available (ENERGY STAR v. 8.1 level for units >2.5 ft3) ..............................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
1.84
2.07
2.20
2.50
2.76
03MRP2
IWF
(gal/cycle/ft3)
4.7
4.2
3.7
3.5
3.2
13549
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IV.12—FRONT-LOADING, STANDARD-SIZE (≥3.0 ft3) EFFICIENCY LEVELS ANALYZED IN THIS NOPR
IMEF
(ft3/kWh/cycle)
EL
Efficiency level description
Baseline .........
1 .....................
2 .....................
3 .....................
4 .....................
ENERGY STAR v. 7.0 ....................................................................................................
Gap fill .............................................................................................................................
ENERGY STAR v. 8.1 ....................................................................................................
2023 ENERGY STAR Most Efficient ..............................................................................
Maximum available ..........................................................................................................
DOE seeks comment on whether the
higher efficiency levels analyzed in this
NOPR for each product class are
appropriate.
c. Semi-Automatic
As discussed, DOE’s CCD includes
both automatic clothes washer models
and semi-automatic clothes washer
models certified within the top-loading
compact product class. While the
certification database does not
differentiate between automatic and
semi-automatic configurations, DOE
conducted an analysis of product
literature for each certified model to
identify whether each model is
automatic or semi-automatic.
In the September 2021 Preliminary
TSD and the April 2022 NODA, DOE
did not present any data or analysis for
semi-automatic clothes washers. As
discussed in section IV.A.1 of this
document, in this NOPR, DOE is
proposing to re-establish a separate
product class for semi-automatic clothes
washers and to establish performancebased standards for semi-automatic
clothes washers.
As discussed previously, CCD
currently includes both automatic
clothes washer models and semiautomatic clothes washer models
certified within the top-loading compact
product class. While the certification
database does not differentiate between
automatic and semi-automatic
configurations, DOE conducted an
analysis of product literature for each
certified model to identify the semiautomatic models in the CCD.
To define the efficiency levels for
analysis for the semi-automatic product
class, DOE did not rely on any ratings
currently provided in the CCD. As
discussed in the September 2021 TP
NOPR, DOE identified areas in which
the current test procedure does not
provide explicit instruction with regard
to semi-automatic clothe washers. 86 FR
49140, 49147. As a result, DOE stated
that it recognizes that the proposed
specifications for testing semi-automatic
clothes washers in appendix J may
differ from how manufacturers are
currently testing semi-automatic clothes
washers under appendix J2. Id. at 86 FR
49168.
As finalized, appendix J includes
significant changes to the testing of
semi-automatic clothes washers, which
2.38
2.60
2.76
2.92
3.10
IWF
(gal/cycle/ft3)
3.7
3.5
3.2
3.2
2.9
improve the representativeness of the
test results while reducing test burden.
Given the lack of specificity in appendix
J2 regarding semi-automatic clothes
washers, and the significant differences
in testing between appendix J2 versus
appendix J for semi-automatic clothes
washers, DOE tentatively determined
that it could not develop an accurate
correlation between appendix J2 metrics
(i.e., IMEF and IWF) and appendix J
metrics (i.e., EER and WER) for semiautomatic clothes washers. Therefore, in
this NOPR analysis, DOE defined
efficiency levels in terms of EER and
WER directly rather than first defining
efficiency levels in terms of IMEF and
IWF and then developing translation
equations to translate those levels to
EER and WER. DOE defined the
proposed efficiency levels for semiautomatic clothes washers by testing a
representative sample of models on the
market and observing the range of EER
and WER results. Table IV.13 shows the
proposed efficiency levels for the semiautomatic product class. See chapter 5
of the NOPR TSD for more details.
TABLE IV.13—SEMI-AUTOMATIC EFFICIENCY LEVELS ANALYZED IN THIS NOPR
Efficiency level description
Baseline .........
1 .....................
2 .....................
Minimum available ...........................................................................................................
Gap fill .............................................................................................................................
Maximum available ..........................................................................................................
DOE seeks comment on whether the
efficiency levels analyzed in this NOPR
for semi-automatic RCWs are
appropriate.
3. Cost Analysis
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
EER
(ft3/kWh/cycle)
EL
The cost analysis portion of the
engineering analysis is conducted using
one or a combination of cost
approaches. The selection of cost
approach depends on a suite of factors,
including the availability and reliability
of public information, characteristics of
the regulated product, the availability
and timeliness of purchasing the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
product on the market. The cost
approaches are summarized as follows:
• Physical teardowns: Under this
approach, DOE physically dismantles a
commercially available product,
component-by-component, to develop a
detailed bill of materials for the product.
• Catalog teardowns: In lieu of
physically deconstructing a product,
DOE identifies each component using
parts diagrams (available from
manufacturer websites or appliance
repair websites, for example) to develop
the bill of materials for the product.
• Price surveys: If neither a physical
nor catalog teardown is feasible (for
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1.60
2.12
2.51
WER
(gal/cycle/ft3)
0.17
0.27
0.36
example, for tightly integrated products
such as fluorescent lamps, which are
infeasible to disassemble and for which
parts diagrams are unavailable) or costprohibitive and otherwise impractical
(e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE
conducts price surveys using publicly
available pricing data published on
major online retailer websites and/or by
soliciting prices from distributors and
other commercial channels.
In the present case, DOE conducted
the analysis using the physical
teardown approach. For each product
class, DOE tore down a representative
sample of models spanning the entire
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13550
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
range of efficiency levels, as well as
multiple manufacturers within each
product class. DOE aggregated the
results so that the cost-efficiency
relationship developed for each product
class reflects DOE’s assessment of a
market-representative ‘‘path’’ to achieve
each higher efficiency level. The
resulting bill of materials provides the
basis for the manufacturer production
cost (‘‘MPC’’) estimates.
The detailed description of DOE’s
determination of costs for baseline and
higher efficiency levels is provided in
chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
Ameren et al. noted that the vast
majority of RCW energy savings
documented in the September 2021
Preliminary TSD is driven by the toploading standard-size product class, and
recommended that DOE take a rigorous
approach to evaluate the baseline
technologies, likely technology
pathways, and associated incremental
cost for this product class. (Ameren et
al., No. 42 at pp. 3–4) As discussed,
DOE followed a rigorous approach to
developing the cost-efficiency
relationship for each product class.
4. Cost-Efficiency Results
In the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis, DOE conducted teardowns on
31 models, which covered the entire
range of efficiency levels within each
analyzed product class.
The preliminary baseline MPCs
presented in the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis for each product
class are shown in Table IV.14.
TABLE IV.14—PRELIMINARY BASELINE MANUFACTURER PRODUCTION COSTS (2020$), AS PRESENTED IN THE SEPTEMBER
2021 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
Manufacturer
production cost
Product class
Top-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) * ...................................................................................................................
Top-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) ...........................................................................................................
Front-Loading, Compact (less than 3.0 ft3 capacity) ..................................................................................................................
Front-Loading, Standard-Size (3.0 ft3 or greater capacity) .........................................................................................................
$311.00
241.97
292.85
410.15
* As discussed in section IV.A.1 of this document, DOE is proposing in this NOPR to rename the top-loading compact product class analyzed
in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis to top-loading ‘‘ultra-compact.’’
The incremental MPCs presented in
the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis for top-loading standard-size;
front-loading compact; and frontloading standard-size product classes
are shown in Table IV.15 through Table
IV.17, respectively. As described
previously, DOE did not analyze any
higher efficiency levels for the toploading compact product class in the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis
since no units on the market exceeded
the baseline level.
TABLE IV.15—PRELIMINARY INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURER PRODUCTION COSTS FOR TOP-LOADING, STANDARD-SIZE
(≥1.6 ft3) PRODUCT CLASS (2020$), AS PRESENTED IN THE SEPTEMBER 2021 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
EL
IMEF
Baseline ...............................................................................................................................
1 ...........................................................................................................................................
2 ...........................................................................................................................................
3 ...........................................................................................................................................
4 ...........................................................................................................................................
IWF
1.57
1.70
2.06
2.38
2.76
Incremental cost
6.5
5.0
4.3
3.7
3.5
................................
$39.44
69.34
112.83
115.50
TABLE IV.16—PRELIMINARY INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURER PRODUCTION COSTS FOR FRONT-LOADING, COMPACT (<3.0
ft3) PRODUCT CLASS (2020$), AS PRESENTED IN THE SEPTEMBER 2021 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
EL
IMEF
Baseline ...............................................................................................................................
1 ...........................................................................................................................................
2 ...........................................................................................................................................
3 ...........................................................................................................................................
4 ...........................................................................................................................................
IWF
1.84
2.07
2.20
2.38
2.76
Incremental cost
4.7
4.2
3.7
3.7
3.2
................................
$17.97
45.58
83.81
94.53
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE IV.17—PRELIMINARY INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURER PRODUCTION COSTS FOR FRONT-LOADING, STANDARD-SIZE
(≥3.0 ft3) PRODUCT CLASS (2020$), AS PRESENTED IN THE SEPTEMBER 2021 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
EL
IMEF
Baseline ...............................................................................................................................
1 ...........................................................................................................................................
2 ...........................................................................................................................................
3 ...........................................................................................................................................
4 ...........................................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
IWF
1.57
1.70
2.06
2.38
2.76
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
Incremental cost
6.5
5.0
4.3
3.7
3.5
03MRP2
................................
$39.44
69.34
112.83
115.50
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
In the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis, DOE sought comment on the
cost efficiency relationships developed
for each product class. In particular,
DOE sought data and information that
could be used to further improve the
determination of cost at each efficiency
level.
Ameren et al. commented that NEEA
commissioned a laboratory engineering
teardown study (‘‘2019 NEEA
Teardown’’), comparing appendix J2
testing and teardown results of a toploading standard-size RCW rated at the
ENERGY STAR level with a similar toploading standard-size RCW rated at the
baseline level. (Ameren et al., No. 42 at
pp. 13–14) Ameren et al. stated that the
2019 NEEA Teardown revealed the key
difference between the two RCW models
was technology that improved water
extraction and therefore reduced drying
energy. (Id.) Specifically, the ENERGY
STAR model had a 0.4 horsepower
motor, whereas the baseline model had
a 0.33 horsepower motor, and the
ENERGY STAR model had a slightly
larger diameter pully that enabled a
higher spin speed of 800 rpm compared
to the 700 rpm of the baseline model.
(Id.) Ameren et al. added that even
though these differences resulted in
slightly higher machine energy use for
the ENERGY STAR model, the overall
IMEF was better than the baseline
model because the ENERGY STAR
model had better water extraction
capability. (Id.) Based on the data from
the 2019 NEEA Teardown, Ameren et
al. recommended that DOE consider an
increased motor size and alternate pully
ratio as a lower-cost compliance
pathway to enable higher spin speeds
and lower drying energy sufficient to
meet EL 2 as proposed in the September
2021 Preliminary TSD. (Id.) Ameren et
al. added that this lower-cost
technology pathway may be more likely
given the higher manufacturing cost of
the significant redesign needed to
employ a direct drive motor for
compliance with EL 2. (Id.)
As noted, DOE conducted teardowns
on a wide range of top-loading RCWs to
inform the cost-efficiency relationships
presented in the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis and in this NOPR.
DOE’s analysis confirms Ameren et al.’s
finding that reduced drying energy
through improved water extraction is a
key difference between the baseline
level and the ENERGY STAR level (i.e.,
EL 2) in the top-loading standard-size
product class. As noted by Ameren et
al., DOE’s teardown analysis conducted
in support of the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis indicated that to
achieve EL 2, manufacturers would
likely incorporate a wash plate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
(sometimes also called an ‘‘impeller’’);
direct-drive motor; spray rinse; and
other hardware features to enable a spin
speed increase. As described previously,
the cost-efficiency relationship
developed for each product class
reflects DOE’s assessment of a marketrepresentative ‘‘path’’ to achieve each
higher efficiency level; i.e., it does not
necessarily reflect the lowest-cost
pathway employed by a particular
manufacturer. Through the breadth of
models torn down at the baseline level
and EL 2, DOE determined that the most
typical approach currently being used
by manufacturers to achieve EL 2 is
through the use of a direct-drive motor.
DOE also notes that regardless of
whether higher spin speeds are
achieved through the use of a
conventional motor or direct-drive
motor, other hardware-related changes
must also be employed to safely enable
higher spin speeds. The cost-efficiency
relationship reflects the totality of these
costs.
The CA IOUs commented that the
September 2021 Preliminary TSD does
not appear to incorporate lower standby
components at any efficiency levels for
top-loading clothes washers, despite
lower standby power being listed in
remaining design options of the
screening analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at
p. 5) The CA IOUs therefore
recommended that DOE consider adding
lower standby power components as a
design option for top-loading products
when incorporating changes to its
analysis. (Id.)
Through its testing and teardowns
conducted in support of the September
2021 Preliminary Analysis as well as
this NOPR, DOE has not observed any
consistent trend of lower-standby power
components being used to achieve
higher efficiency levels within the toploading standard-size product class. As
discussed, the cost-efficiency
relationship developed for each product
class reflects DOE’s assessment of a
market-representative ‘‘path’’ to achieve
each higher efficiency level. DOE notes
that given the relatively small
contribution of standby power to the
total energy measured by the test
procedure, reducing standby power has
a relatively minor impact on EER
compared to other design options.
AHAM commented that based on its
test data, it would be challenging for
low priced top-loading clothes washers
to meet the efficiency levels DOE
analyzed in the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis. (AHAM, No. 40 at
p. 16) Whirlpool commented that many
of the design options DOE suggested in
the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis to reach EL 2 would present
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13551
significant challenges to manufacturers
and cautioned DOE against considering
some of these design options as viable
technology options. (Whirlpool, No. 39
at p. 3)
With regard to top-loading standardsize EL 2 specifically, in the September
2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE
indicated that the following design
options are used: wash plate, directdrive motor, spray rinse, and hardware
features enabling spin speed increase.
As discussed, DOE’s identification of
design options reflects DOE’s
observations through teardowns of those
design options that manufacturers are
currently employing to achieve each
higher efficiency level. DOE’s analyses
consider the costs required to
implement these design options as well
as other implications that may be
associated with each higher efficiency
level.
Ameren et al. commented that
NEEA’s market research identified key
characteristics of baseline top-loading
standard-size RCWs, including capacity,
water fill control, number of programs,
number of wash temperatures, price,
and wash basket material type, based on
a sample of 9 RCWs, representing 6
brands, and comprising 32 percent of
total top-loading standard-size RCW
sales. (Ameren et al., No. 42 at p. 3–6)
Ameren et al. concluded that NEEA’s
data matched well with DOE’s
characterization of the baseline product
market with one key exception: NEEA
observed a dominance of stainless-steel
wash baskets in the baseline market,
while DOE characterizes the baseline
product as having an enameled steel
wash basket. (Id.) NEEA found that,
among RCWs with a retail price less
than $600, 64 percent of top-loading
baseline efficiency RCWs had stainlesssteel wash baskets, and that among
RCWs with a retail price less than $500,
51 percent of RCWs had stainless-steel
wash baskets. (Id.) Given NEEA’s
findings, Ameren et al. recommended
that DOE adjust the engineering analysis
to include stainless-steel wash baskets
in its characterization of the baseline
model by either adopting a
representative baseline model with a
stainless-steel wash basket to represent
the baseline top-loading standard-size
RCWs, or developing a sales-weighted
average cost of the top-loading RCW
baseline model and a sales-weighted
average incremental cost for EL 1 and
EL 2. (Id.)
Whirlpool also commented on the use
of stainless-steel wash baskets as a
design option. Whirlpool commented
that its testing confirmed DOE’s
statement that drying energy is the
largest component of overall efficiency
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
13552
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
and stated that a faster and longer spin
speed is the number one technology
option for many clothes washer models
to enable increased efficiency as
measured using IMEF or EER.
(Whirlpool, No. 39 at pp. 4–6)
Whirlpool added that for some clothes
washers, increasing spin speed or spin
time would be the only viable path to
meet EL 2. (Id.) Whirlpool commented
that using stainless-steel wash baskets
instead of porcelain ones is a necessary
technology upgrade to increase spin
speed and spin time because porcelain
tends to chip or crack at higher speeds,
which exposes the underlying steel,
which then rusts. (Id.) Whirlpool
commented that an increase to amended
standards could drive porcelain wash
baskets out of the market and force a
massive costly shift to stainless-steel
wash baskets. (Id.) Whirlpool noted that
clothes washers with porcelain wash
baskets comprise a majority of its
opening-price-point top-loading
standard-size clothes washers, which
are popular with consumers for their
traditional look and affordability. (Id.)
Whirlpool expressed concern that the
transition to using stainless-steel wash
baskets would lead to increased costs
for redesign, retooling, lost sales
volume, reduced margins, marketing
and reflooring, and potential job losses,
all of which may be a cost burden to
bear by low-income consumers. (Id.)
DOE defines a baseline model for each
product class as a reference point
against which any changes resulting
from energy conservation standards can
be measured. The baseline model in
each product class represents the
characteristics of common or typical
products in that class. Typically, a
baseline model is one that exactly meets
the current minimum energy
conservation standards. DOE’s cost
efficiency curves are intended to
represent incremental costs associated
with design options that are required in
order to achieve higher efficiency levels
above the baseline. For top-loading
standard-size clothes washers, the faster
spin speed at EL 2 requires the use of
a stainless-steel wash basket, which has
higher strength than the enameled steel
material used in baseline models. For
top-loading standard-size products at
lower efficiency levels (i.e., baseline and
EL 1), stainless steel may be used for
aesthetic purposes but is not required in
order to operate at that efficiency level.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
DOE teardowns indicate that use of an
enameled steel material is
representative of a ‘‘true’’ baseline toploading compact RCW, and DOE
maintains this as the basis for its
baseline manufacturing cost estimate in
this NOPR. However, DOE notes that its
industry conversion cost estimates
account for the costs associated with
transitioning the portion of the market
using porcelain wash baskets to
stainless-steel wash baskets.
Whirlpool also commented that in
addition to using a stainless-steel wash
basket, other hardware features would
be needed to enable the higher spin
speeds required under EL 2 including
motor power and powertrain upgrades;
more robust product structure such as
drive stampings, suspension, and
attachments; and components that keep
noise and vibration levels consistent
with current products. (Id.) Whirlpool
concluded that, while DOE captured
some of the design options needed to
increase spin speed and spin time,
DOE’s analysis may not be
comprehensive of the number and scale
of changes needed when simultaneously
changing the test procedure and
standards. (Id.)
Whirlpool commented that, while
implementing a direct drive motor
could use up to 50 percent less motor
energy, which corresponds with about 5
percent less total energy, the larger
savings would come from the increase
to spin speed enabled by these new
motors and powertrain systems.
(Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 6) Whirlpool
also commented that most ENERGY
STAR level clothes washers have a
direct drive motor or more advanced
brushless permanent magnet (‘‘BPM’’)
motor, while baseline models typically
use a permanent split capacitor (‘‘PSC’’)
motor, which is less expensive, but is
not capable of reaching higher speeds
without tradeoffs. (Id.)
AHAM commented that increasing
spin speed and spin time will drive
motor structure and other product
design changes including larger
counterweights in front-loading clothes
washers. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 9–10)
AHAM further commented that
increasing spin speed and spin time
could cause increased vibration and
noise, negatively impact fabric care due
to tangling and wrinkling, and increase
cycle time. (Id.)
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Whirlpool commented that more
efficient spray rinses are a critical piece
in the package of technology options
needed to meet EL 2 for top-loading
standard-size clothes washers.
(Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 6) Whirlpool
further explained that while spray rinse
is already being used for most models,
a further reduction of the amount of
water used during spray rinses will be
necessary at higher efficiency levels.
(Id.) Whirlpool commented that changes
to make spray rinse technology even
more efficient may impact the design of
dispensers and hydraulic components to
use less water for the removal of
detergent from the load. (Id.) Whirlpool
commented that it is uncertain whether
DOE has adequately captured these
additional design considerations for
spray rinse technology and
recommended that DOE ensure that they
are captured. (Id.)
In response to Whirlpool and
AHAM’s comments regarding the costs
associated with specific design options,
DOE notes that it developed its costefficiency relationships based on
comprehensive teardowns in which
DOE physically dismantles
commercially available products,
component-by-component, to develop a
detailed bill of materials for the product.
In this regard, any ancillary components
or parts that accompany the major
design options indicated in chapter 5 of
the NOPR TSD would also be accounted
for in DOE’s cost estimates. In
particular, with regard to hardware
features needed to enable higher spin
speeds, DOE’s teardown costs include
the cost increases associated with motor
structure, bearings, and counterweights.
With regard to hardware features
needed to enable spray rinse, DOE’s
teardown costs include the cost
increases associated with water
dispensers and tubing.
As discussed, DOE conducted
additional testing and teardowns
following the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis. Table IV.18
shows the updated MPCs for each
product class. Table IV.19 through Table
IV.22 provide the incremental MPCs for
each higher efficiency level for each
product class. As discussed, no
automatic top-loading compact RCWs
are available on the market that exceed
the baseline level. Accordingly, DOE
did not consider any higher efficiency
levels for this product class.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13553
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IV.18—BASELINE MANUFACTURER PRODUCTION COSTS
[2021$]
Manufacturer
production cost
Product class
Semi-Automatic ............................................................................................................................................................................
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) ............................................................................................................
Top-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) ...........................................................................................................
Front-Loading, Compact (less than 3.0 ft3 capacity) ..................................................................................................................
Front-Loading, Standard-Size (3.0 ft3 or greater capacity) .........................................................................................................
$192.96
374.62
272.42
326.18
525.52
TABLE IV.19—INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURER PRODUCTION COSTS FOR SEMI-AUTOMATIC PRODUCT CLASS
[2021$]
EL
EER
Baseline ...............................................................................................................................
1 ...........................................................................................................................................
2 ...........................................................................................................................................
WER
1.60
2.12
2.51
Incremental cost
0.17
0.27
0.36
................................
$5.45
9.55
TABLE IV.20—INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURER PRODUCTION COSTS FOR TOP-LOADING, STANDARD-SIZE (≥1.6 ft3)
PRODUCT CLASS
[2021$]
EL
IMEF
Baseline ...............................................................................................................................
1 ...........................................................................................................................................
2 ...........................................................................................................................................
3 ...........................................................................................................................................
4 ...........................................................................................................................................
IWF
1.57
1.82
2.06
2.38
2.76
Incremental cost
6.5
5.4
4.3
3.7
3.5
................................
$55.49
108.76
114.95
117.90
TABLE IV.21—INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURER PRODUCTION COSTS FOR FRONT-LOADING, COMPACT (<3.0 ft3) PRODUCT
CLASS
[2021$]
EL
IMEF
Baseline ...............................................................................................................................
1 ...........................................................................................................................................
2 ...........................................................................................................................................
3 ...........................................................................................................................................
4 ...........................................................................................................................................
IWF
1.84
2.07
2.20
2.50
2.76
Incremental cost
4.7
4.2
3.7
3.5
3.2
................................
$32.21
62.07
82.10
84.04
TABLE IV.22—MANUFACTURER PRODUCTION COSTS FOR FRONT-LOADING, STANDARD-SIZE (≥3.0 ft3) PRODUCT CLASS
[2021$]
EL
IMEF
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Baseline ...............................................................................................................................
1 ...........................................................................................................................................
2 ...........................................................................................................................................
3 ...........................................................................................................................................
4 ...........................................................................................................................................
DOE seeks comment on the baseline
MPCs and incremental MPCs developed
for each product class.
5. Translations
As discussed in section III.C of this
document, the June 2022 TP Final Rule
established a new test procedure,
appendix J, which established new
efficiency metrics: EER and WER.
Appendix J also incorporates a number
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
of revisions that affect the per-cycle
energy and water use in comparison to
results obtained under the current
appendix J2 test procedure.
a. Preliminary Analysis Approach
In chapter 5 of the September 2021
Preliminary TSD, DOE performed an
initial analysis to translate the appendix
J2 efficiency levels into appendix J
efficiency levels, expressed in EER and
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
IWF
1.57
1.70
2.06
2.38
2.76
Incremental cost
6.5
5.0
4.3
3.7
3.5
................................
$11.41
19.71
30.52
43.64
WER. Since appendix J was not yet
finalized at the time of publication for
the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis, DOE’s initial analysis was
performed using the version of
appendix J proposed in the September
2021 TP NOPR.
In the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis, DOE explored two potential
methods for translating the IMEF and
IWF efficiency levels into equivalent
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13554
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
values of EER and WER: using a best-fit
line equation for each product class, and
using a more qualitative market-cluster
method. The IMEF–EER plots generally
had lower R-squared values 48 than the
IWF–WER plots, indicating a weaker
correlation between EER and IMEF than
the relatively stronger correlation
between WER and IWF. In particular,
the front-loading standard-size product
class had an R-squared value of 0.08—
indicating a high amount of variance
around the line of best fit—such that the
linear translation formula would not
provide a robust prediction of how
individual front-loading standard-size
models would be rated under appendix
J compared to under appendix J2.
Conversely, the top-loading standardsize product class had a higher Rsquared value of 0.77 for the IMEF to
EER translation, indicating a much
higher degree of confidence in the
prediction of how individual toploading standard-size models would be
rated under appendix J. Given the lack
of strong R-squared value correlation for
the front-loading product classes using
the best-fit line method, for the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis,
DOE used a market-cluster approach to
define the EER and WER levels
corresponding to the selected IMEF and
IWF efficiency levels.
The translated EER and WER
efficiency levels presented in the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis
are shown in Table IV.23 through Table
IV.26.
TABLE IV.23—TOP-LOADING, COMPACT * (<1.6 ft3) PRELIMINARY EFFICIENCY LEVELS ANALYZED IN THE SEPTEMBER 2021
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
IMEF
(ft3/kWh/cycle)
EL
Efficiency Level Description
Baseline .........
Current DOE standard .........................................
IWF
(gal/cycle/ft3)
1.15
EER
(lb/kWh/cycle)
12.0
WER
(lb/gal/cycle)
4.26
0.33
* As discussed in section IV.A.1 of this document, DOE is proposing in this NOPR to rename the top-loading compact product class analyzed
in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis to top-loading ‘‘ultra-compact.’’
TABLE IV.24—TOP-LOADING, STANDARD-SIZE (≥1.6 ft3) PRELIMINARY EFFICIENCY LEVELS ANALYZED IN THE SEPTEMBER
2021 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
IMEF
(ft3/kWh/cycle)
EL
Efficiency level description
Baseline ............................................
1 ........................................................
2 ........................................................
3 ........................................................
4 ........................................................
Current DOE standard .....................
Gap fill ..............................................
ENERGY STAR v. 8.1 .....................
2015–2017 CEE Tier 1 ....................
2015 ENERGY STAR Most Efficient/Maximum available.
IWF
(gal/cycle/ft3)
1.57
1.70
2.06
2.38
2.76
6.5
5.0
4.3
3.7
3.5
EER
(lb/kWh/cycle)
WER
(lb/gal/cycle)
3.73
4.05
4.37
4.96
5.30
0.42
0.54
0.65
0.73
0.73
TABLE IV.25—FRONT-LOADING, COMPACT (<3.0 ft3) PRELIMINARY EFFICIENCY LEVELS ANALYZED IN THE SEPTEMBER
2021 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
IMEF
(ft3/kWh/cycle)
EL
Efficiency level description
Baseline ............................................
Current DOE standard for front-loading, standard-size (≥1.6 ft3).
ENERGY STAR v. 8.1 level for .......
units ≤2.5 ft3 .....................................
2018–2022 ENERGY STAR Most
Efficient for units ≤2.5 ft3.
ENERGY STAR v. 7.0 level for .......
units >2.5 ft3 .....................................
ENERGY STAR v. 8.1 level for .......
units >2.5 ft3/Maximum available .....
1 ........................................................
2 ........................................................
3 ........................................................
4 ........................................................
IWF
(gal/cycle/ft3)
EER
(lb/kWh/cycle)
WER
(lb/gal/cycle)
1.84
4.7
4.20
0.61
2.07
4.2
4.49
0.66
2.20
3.7
4.78
0.71
2.38
3.7
5.10
0.78
2.76
3.2
5.60
0.88
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE IV.26—FRONT-LOADING, STANDARD-SIZE (≥3.0 ft3) PRELIMINARY EFFICIENCY LEVELS ANALYZED IN THE
SEPTEMBER 2021 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
IMEF
(ft3/kWh/cycle)
EL
Efficiency level description
Baseline ............................................
1 ........................................................
2 ........................................................
3 ........................................................
ENERGY STAR v. 7.0 .....................
Gap fill ..............................................
ENERGY STAR v. 8.1 .....................
2018–2022 ENERGY STAR Most
Efficient.
Maximum available ..........................
4 ........................................................
48 The R-squared values of each line of best fit
represents the variability of the data around the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
EER
(lb/kWh/cycle)
WER
(lb/gal/cycle)
2.38
2.60
2.76
2.92
3.7
3.5
3.2
3.2
4.90
5.10
5.30
5.60
0.81
0.85
0.90
0.90
3.00
2.9
6.06
1.10
lines of best fit. The closer the R-squared value is
to 1.0, the more the equation of best fit is an
PO 00000
IWF
(gal/cycle/ft3)
accurate representation of the conversion between
the two metrics.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
In the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis, DOE sought comment on the
EER and WER levels identified as being
equivalent to the IMEF and IWF
efficiency levels. DOE further requested
data from manufacturers indicating the
EER and WER values equivalent to the
IMEF and IWF values, respectively, for
RCW models currently on the market.
Whirlpool commented that DOE
underestimated the impacts of the
amended test procedure on RCW
efficiency and overestimated the
number of models that could meet the
EER associated with EL 2 in the
September 2021 Preliminary TSD, when
tested under appendix J. (Whirlpool,
No. 39 at p. 3) Whirlpool also
commented that many current ENERGY
STAR certified RCWs meet the IMEF
and IWF levels associated with
preliminary EL 2, but would not meet
the EER and WER levels defined for EL
2. (Id.) Whirlpool commented that this
discrepancy could indicate that the
impact of the proposed amended
standards could be more severe than
DOE analyzed. (Id.)
AHAM commented that without a
proven translation between appendix J2
and appendix J, DOE has no reliable
means to estimate energy savings from
its incremental ELs. (AHAM, No. 40 at
p. 16) AHAM commented that it
attempted to evaluate the accuracy of
DOE’s translation by comparing tested
appendix J2 and appendix J data among
clothes washers that AHAM tested. (Id.)
AHAM presented a table comparing Rsquared values for AHAM test data with
those presented by DOE in the
preliminary analysis. (Id.) AHAM
commented that its results are
consistent with DOE’s statement that the
best-fit line method is insufficient for
front-loading clothes washers. (Id.)
Additionally, AHAM concluded that
DOE’s best-fit line equations show low
levels of correlation between appendix
J2 and appendix J testing, especially for
top-loading standard-size and frontloading compact products. (Id.) AHAM
therefore recommended that DOE
update its analysis to improve the
accuracy of the best-fit line equations
and that DOE further investigate the
impact of changing from a capacitybased test procedure to a load size-based
test procedure on energy and water use.
(Id.)
AHAM also presented data that
plotted DOE’s proposed efficiency levels
as well as EER versus WER data for the
clothes washers that AHAM tested.
(AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 16–17) Based on
the data, AHAM found that 65 percent
of the top-loading standard-size RCWs it
tested, which represent about half of
top-loading standard-size clothes
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
washer shipments, are less efficient than
the EER/WER baseline proposed in the
September 2021 Preliminary TSD. (Id.)
AHAM similarly noted that 44.5 percent
of DOE’s tested and predicted results are
less efficient that the proposed EER/
WER baseline. (Id.) AHAM therefore
recommended that DOE shift the
baseline for top-loading standard-size
clothes washers so that it appropriately
represents the least efficient clothes
washers on the market. (Id.) AHAM
suggested that DOE evaluate a gap-fill
level between a baseline level that
accounts for the RCWs that fall below
DOE’s proposed baseline level and
DOE’s proposed EL 1. (AHAM, No. 40
at p. 18) AHAM further commented that
the baseline EER/WER level DOE
proposed in the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis could serve as a
gap-fill level. (Id.)
AHAM commented that it is
challenging for top-loading standardsize RCWs to reach the EER and WER
levels associated with preliminary EL 2.
(AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 17–18) Since the
IMEF and IWF efficiency levels
associated with preliminary EL 2 are the
same as the current ENERGY STAR
levels, AHAM sought to clarify that DOE
should not assume that the current
ENERGY STAR penetration values
would represent the percentage of
models or shipments that can meet EL
2 when tested under appendix J. (Id.)
Regarding DOE’s method to evaluate
average performance among market
clusters, AHAM commented that since
DOE did not provide critical calculation
and evaluation metrics for its results,
AHAM cannot properly assess this
approach or test the method’s accuracy
using AHAM’s data. (AHAM, No. 40 at
p. 16)
AHAM commented that the models it
tested represent approximately half of
total 2020 shipments, and that its test
results bring into question the accuracy
to DOE’s data. (AHAM, No. 53 at pp.
10–11) AHAM recommended that DOE
carefully evaluate AHAM’s dataset and
integrate it with its own data in order to
update its analysis. (Id.)
ASAP et al. commented that they
support DOE’s approach to use the
market cluster approach outlined in
EPCA to develop efficiency levels.
(ASAP et al., No. 37 at p. 1)
The CA IOUs expressed concern that
for the top-loading compact product
class, the IMEF versus EER and IWF
versus WER translations indicate
opposite trends compared to the other
three product classes, showing a
negative relationship between IMEF and
EER and a positive relationship between
IWF and WER. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p.
3)
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13555
Following publication of the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis,
DOE published the April 2022 NODA,
which presented the results of
additional testing conducted in
furtherance of the development of the
translations between the current test
procedure and the proposed new test
procedure. 87 FR 21816. The improved
translation equations addressed the
concerns expressed by commenters
regarding the translations presented in
the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis. The following section
summarizes the translation approach
presented in the April 2022 NODA.
b. NODA Approach
In the April 2022 NODA, DOE
published updated translation equations
that were developed using data points
from the 44 units it tested to both
appendix J2 and appendix J. In a
separate spreadsheet accompanying the
April 2022 NODA and available in the
rulemaking docket, DOE also published
the underlying test results for each RCW
model in its test sample. 87 FR 21816,
21817. The April 2022 NODA
summarized analyses of RMC and water
fill control system (‘‘WFCS’’) type,
which DOE tentatively determined have
a significant impact on these translation
equations. Id.
To account for the impacts of RMC,
DOE developed values for ‘‘adjusted’’
EER based on an ‘‘adjusted’’ RMC,
which is equivalent to the RMC value
measured under appendix J2 plus 4
percentage points. Id. To account for the
difference in efficiency level correlation
between clothes washers with automatic
and manual WFCS, DOE presented an
alternate set of translation equations
that separate top-loading portable RCWs
(which use manual WFCS) from toploading stationary RCWs (which provide
either automatic WFCS or both manual
and automatic WFCSs). 87 FR 21816,
21820.
The following sections summarize the
adjusted RMC approach presented in
the April 2022 NODA. As discussed
previously, RMC is a significant
contributor to both the IMEF and EER
metrics. The approach presented in the
April 2022 NODA provides the
foundation for the approach used for
this NOPR, as discussed further in
section IV.C.5.c of this document.
i. Adjusted RMC
The following paragraphs explain the
difference in RMC measurement
methodology between appendix J2 and
appendix J. This difference in
methodology underlies DOE’s careful
consideration of RMC in developing the
metric translation equations.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13556
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
As discussed, the RMC is a measure
of the amount of water remaining in the
clothing load after completion of the
clothes washer cycle. The RMC value is
used to calculate the total per-cycle
energy consumption for removal of
moisture from the clothes washer test
load in a clothes dryer to an assumed
final moisture content, i.e., the ‘‘drying
energy,’’ which is one of the factors
contained within both the IMEF and
EER metrics. Lower values of RMC
result in less drying energy and thus
represent more-efficient performance.
Section 3.8.2 of appendix J2 requires
that the RMC be calculated based on a
test run with the maximum load size on
the Cold Wash/Cold Rinse (‘‘Cold/
Cold’’) temperature selection. Section
3.8.4 of appendix J2 requires that for
clothes washers that have multiple spin
settings 49 available within the energy
test cycle that result in different RMC
values, the maximum and minimum
extremes of the available spin settings
must be tested with the maximum load
size on the Cold/Cold temperature
selection.50 In this case, the final RMC
is the weighted average of the maximum
and minimum spin settings, with the
maximum spin setting weighted at 75
percent and the minimum spin setting
weighted at 25 percent.
In contrast, appendix J requires
measuring RMC on each of the energy
test cycles (i.e., each load size and each
wash/rinse temperature combination
included for testing) using the default
spin setting. On some clothes washers,
the default spin setting is not the
maximum spin setting. In section 4.3 of
appendix J, the final RMC is calculated
by weighting the individual RMC
measurements using the same
temperature and load size weighting
factors that apply to the water and
energy measurements.
As discussed in the April 2022
NODA, multiple factors can affect the
RMC of a particular cycle, including the
spin speed and the duration of the spin
portion of the wash cycle. 87 FR 21816,
21818. The size of the load can also
affect RMC—generally, larger load sizes
result in lower (better) RMC values,
whereas smaller load sizes result in
higher (worse) RMC values. Id. These
49 The term ‘‘spin settings’’ refers to spin times or
spin speeds. The maximum spin setting results in
a lower (better) RMC.
50 On clothes washers that provide a Warm Rinse
option, appendix J2 requires that RMC be measured
on both Cold Rinse and Warm Rinse, with the final
RMC calculated as a weighted average using TUFs
of 73 percent for Cold Rinse and 27 percent for
Warm Rinse. DOE has observed very few RCW
models on the market that offer Warm Rinse. For
simplicity throughout this discussion, DOE
references the testing requirements for clothes
washers that offer Cold Rinse only.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
factors result in different measured RMC
values for appendix J and appendix J2,
specifically because under appendix J,
RMC is measured across a wider range
of cycles (compared to only the Cold/
Cold cycle in appendix J2) and because
the appendix J load sizes are smaller
than the appendix J2 maximum load
size (on which the appendix J2 RMC
measurement is based). Id.
In the interest of improving the
translation equations as presented in the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis,
DOE conducted an in-depth analysis of
the differences in RMC between the
appendix J2 and proposed appendix J
test procedures. Id. For each unit that
DOE tested, DOE examined the cycleby-cycle test results to determine the
key driver behind the difference in RMC
when testing to appendix J as compared
to appendix J2. Id. Based on this
analysis, DOE identified three categories
of spin implementations that result in
differences between the appendix J RMC
value and the appendix J2 RMC value,
described as follows.
• The first type, referred to as
‘‘consistent spin’’ throughout the
remainder of this NOPR, is illustrative
of units in which the characteristics of
the spin cycle (e.g., spin speed, spin
time) are consistent across temperature
selections. On these units, RMC values
measured on Warm/Cold, Hot/Cold, and
Extra Hot/Cold cycles are substantially
similar to the RMC value measured on
the Cold/Cold cycle.51
• The second type, referred to as
‘‘Cold/Cold optimized spin’’ throughout
the remainder of this NOPR, is
illustrative of units in which the spin
cycle is optimized on the Cold/Cold
setting with maximum load size,
corresponding to the one cycle
combination for which RMC is
measured under appendix J2. On these
units, the spin portion of the cycle is
significantly faster or longer on either
the Cold/Cold setting, when using a
maximum load size, or both as
compared to the other temperature
settings or load sizes that are tested as
part of the energy test cycle.
• The third type, referred to as ‘‘nondefault maximum spin’’ throughout the
remainder of this NOPR, is illustrative
of units in which the maximum spin
speed setting (which is tested under
appendix J2) is not the default spin
speed setting on the Normal cycle. On
these units, the default spin speed
51 DOE notes that the ‘‘consistent spin’’
designation is not meant to exclude clothes washers
that offer multiple spin speed settings on the
Normal cycle. Rather, the term ‘‘consistent’’ refers
to a particular spin speed setting demonstrating
substantially similar performance regardless of
which wash/rinse temperature is selected.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
setting tested under appendix J would
provide a lower-speed spin or a shorter
spin portion of the cycle. Id.
For clothes washers with ‘‘consistent
spin,’’ the only source of difference
between the measured RMC values
under appendix J and appendix J2 is the
use of smaller load sizes for appendix J.
Id. The observed difference in RMC
between the two test procedures is
relatively consistent among models from
different manufacturers of RCWs with
this characteristic, as discussed further
in this section. Id.
For clothes washers with ‘‘Cold/Cold
optimized spin’’ the difference between
the measured RMC values under
appendix J and appendix J2 is due to a
combination of both the smaller load
sizes for appendix J and the different
spin behavior on the temperature
settings other than Cold/Cold. Id. The
observed difference in RMC between the
two test procedures varies significantly
among models from different
manufacturers of RCWs with ‘‘Cold/
Cold optimized spin,’’ depending on the
degree to which the Cold/Cold RMC
differs from the RMC on all other tested
cycles. Id.
For clothes washers with ‘‘non-default
maximum spin,’’ the difference between
the measured RMC values under
appendix J and appendix J2 is due to a
combination of both the smaller load
sizes for appendix J and the different
spin behavior on the maximum and
default spin settings. Id. Similar to units
with ‘‘Cold/Cold optimized spin,’’ the
observed difference in RMC between the
two test procedures varies significantly
among models from different
manufacturers of RCWs with ‘‘nondefault maximum spin,’’ depending on
the degree to which the maximum spin
setting differs from the default spin
setting. Id.
As discussed, the RMC value is the
most significant contributor to both the
IMEF metric measured by appendix J2
and the EER metric measured by
appendix J. Id. Because of the more
significant variation in RMC between
the two test procedures for ‘‘Cold/Cold
optimized spin’’ and ‘‘non-default
maximum spin’’ units, the correlation
between IMEF and EER for these units
is less strong (i.e., lower ‘‘R-squared’’
values for the best-fit line) than for
‘‘consistent spin’’ units. Id. at 87 FR
21819.
To investigate strategies for defining
translation equations with a stronger
correlation between IMEF and EER,
DOE developed a second set of EER
values based on an ‘‘adjusted’’ RMC
value (substituted for the measured
RMC value) that assumes a ‘‘consistent
spin’’ characteristic for each unit in the
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
test sample. Id. Under this approach,
only the change in load size would be
assumed to impact the RMC values
measured under appendix J as
compared to appendix J2. Id. DOE’s test
data indicated that the smaller load
sizes under appendix J result in an
increase in RMC of 4 percentage points
compared to the RMC values measured
under appendix J2 using the maximum
load size. Id. Therefore, for this
approach, DOE calculated an ‘‘adjusted
RMC’’ for each unit as the tested RMC
value under appendix J2 plus 4
percentage points. Id. DOE substituted
this adjusted RMC for the RMC value in
the drying energy equation within the
EER calculation. Id. As demonstrated in
the second set of ‘‘adjusted’’ translation
plots, this approach produced
translation equations with significantly
higher R-squared values, indicating a
stronger correlation between IMEF and
EER. Id.
Comments submitted by a
manufacturer in response to the
September 2021 NOPR suggested that,
were DOE to amend standards based on
appendix J as proposed, manufacturers
that currently use ‘‘Cold/Cold optimized
spin’’ or ‘‘non-default maximum
spin’’—which yield lower (i.e., better)
RMC values on the Cold/Cold
temperature setting compared to RMC
values obtained using the other
temperature settings for RCWs with
‘‘Cold/Cold optimized spin,’’ and on the
maximum spin setting for RCWs with
‘‘non-default maximum spin’’—would
likely implement similar strategies to
decrease the RMC across all cycles
required for testing under appendix J.
(EERE–2016–BT–TP–0011, Whirlpool,
No. 26 at p. 8–9). Specifically, for
‘‘Cold/Cold optimized spin’’ units,
manufacturers would likely increase the
spin speeds or spin durations across all
temperature settings to match the spin
behavior of the Cold/Cold temperature
setting. For ‘‘non-default maximum
spin’’ units, manufacturers would likely
make the maximum spin speed the
default spin setting to provide the
lowest possible (i.e., best possible) RMC
measurement under appendix J.
In response to stakeholder questions,
DOE published a supplemental data
report providing additional details as to
how it calculated an average increase in
RMC of 4 percentage points due to the
smaller load sizes defined in appendix
J.52 DOE investigated two separate
methods for determining the impact of
test load size on RMC. Both methods
52 Available at www.regulations.gov/document/
EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0048.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
yielded nearly identical results, as
described in the following paragraphs.
For Method 1, DOE compared the
final corrected RMC values obtained
under both test procedures for only
those units that DOE designated as
having a ‘‘consistent spin’’ spin
implementation. As described, units
designated as ‘‘consistent spin’’
demonstrate key characteristics of the
spin cycle (e.g., spin speed, spin time)
that are consistent across temperature
selections; as such, DOE expects that for
these units, the difference between the
two final RMC values is due primarily
to the difference in load sizes between
the two test procedures. Among all the
‘‘consistent spin’’ units in the test
sample, appendix J yielded a final RMC
value 3.7 percentage points higher than
appendix J2, on average.
For Method 2, DOE measured and
compared the cycle-specific corrected
RMC values for only the following
specific Cold/Cold cycles: the appendix
J2 Cold/Cold cycle with a maximum
load size and default spin settings; the
appendix J Cold/Cold cycle with a large
load size and default spin settings; and
the appendix J Cold/Cold cycle with a
small load size and default spin settings.
These three cycles differ only in load
size, such that the differences between
the RMC values are due primarily to the
difference in load sizes.
DOE first calculated the average RMC
value of these two appendix J cycles
(consistent with the equivalent load
weighting factors for the large and small
load sizes defined by appendix J) and
compared the resulting value to the
RMC value for this appendix J2 cycle.
Among all the units in the test sample,
this approach indicated that the average
of the large and small load sizes under
appendix J yielded a final RMC value
3.8 percentage points higher than the
maximum load size under appendix J2,
on average.
In summary, the results from both
Method 1 and Method 2 suggest that the
smaller load sizes under appendix J
result in an increase in RMC of
approximately 4 percentage points, on
average, compared to the RMC values
measured under appendix J2 using the
maximum load size.
In the April 2022 NODA, DOE
requested comment on whether, if DOE
were to establish amended RCW
standards based on appendix J as
proposed, manufacturers that currently
use the ‘‘Cold/Cold optimized spin’’
strategy for their RCWs would modify
the spin behavior across all temperature
settings to match the spin behavior of
the Cold/Cold temperature setting; and
whether manufacturers that currently
use the ‘‘non-default maximum spin’’
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13557
strategy for their RCWs would design
the maximum spin speed to be the
default spin setting. DOE further
requested comment on the impact of
such changes to the energy and water
use, other aspects of consumer-relevant
performance, and life-cycle cost of
RCWs. 87 FR 21816.
The CA IOUs commented that all
three of the spin strategies identified by
DOE are currently on the market, and
that identification of these three types of
RMC strategies implemented in
products currently on the market shows
the value that appendix J will provide,
in contrast to products optimized for the
appendix J2 test rather than what the
CA IOUs characterized as ‘‘real-world’’
operation. (CA IOUs, No. 52 at pp. 1–
2)
According to ComEd and NEEA,
NEEA’s testing of 12 clothes washers
representing more than 20 percent of
sales from May 2018 to April 2019
confirms DOE’s three spin
implementation types for stationary
RCWs; therefore, ComEd and NEEA
encouraged DOE to continue to use
these spin profiles. (ComEd and NEEA,
No. 50 at p. 3)
ComEd and NEEA commented that
they agree with DOE’s assumption that
manufacturers will likely maintain a
similar measured efficiency of RCWs
with the transition to appendix J, and
they support DOE’s assumption that
manufacturers will modify RCWs to
spin consistently across all cycles
tested, enabling a comparable RMC and
drying energy under appendix J.
(ComEd and NEEA, No. 50 at pp. 2–4)
According to ComEd and NEEA, most
RCWs have a delicate wash program
that consumers can use for textiles that
may not be able to withstand higher
spin speeds or longer spin durations,
such that ComEd and NEEA do not
expect changes to RMC as a result of
appendix J to impact RCW utility. (Id.)
For these reasons, ComEd and NEEA
supported DOE’s approach to
developing the adjusted appendix J
efficiency values proposed in the April
2022 NODA and encouraged DOE to
employ the adjusted appendix J
efficiency values to develop future
candidate standards levels for RCW.
(Id.)
ASAP et al. expressed support for
DOE’s April 2022 NODA approach to
develop a more robust translation of
RCW energy and water usage metrics
from the current appendix J2 to the new
appendix J test procedure. (ASAP et al.,
No. 51 at pp. 1–2) Specifically, ASAP et
al. expressed support for the approach
of developing translations and resulting
ELs based on adjusted RMC given the
significant impact of RMC on overall
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
13558
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
energy usage and resulting efficiency
ratings. (Id.) ASAP et al. commented
that given Whirlpool’s comments
suggesting that manufacturers with
RCWs optimized for the appendix J2
spin settings would likely re-program
these units to perform better when
tested under new appendix J, ASAP et
al. find it reasonable to assume that
manufacturers would modify RCW spin
settings if DOE were to establish
amended standards based on the new
appendix J. (Id.)
AHAM commented in response to the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis
that DOE’s proposed changes to the load
sizes in new appendix J would lead to
an increase in RMC. (AHAM, No. 40 at
pp. 9–10) AHAM noted that
accordingly, manufacturers would need
to increase spin speed and spin times to
compensate for this change so that they
continue to comply with future energy
conservation standards. (Id.)
In response to the April 2022 NODA,
AHAM presented data that examined
the corrected RMC of units with
‘‘consistent spin,’’ including units that
were tested by both AHAM and DOE.
(AHAM, No. 53 at pp. 8–10) AHAM’s
data presented RMC for each unit as
tested to appendix J2 and appendix J,
and the difference between those values
for each unit. (Id.) AHAM noted that
when only considering units tested by
AHAM, the average difference in RMC
is 5.9 percent,53 as opposed to the 3.7
percent average RMC difference
calculated when only using the units in
DOE’s test sample from the April 2022
NODA. (Id.) AHAM also noted that
when the AHAM and DOE datasets are
combined, the average RMC difference
is 4.7 percent. (Id.) AHAM commented
that the difference in averages show that
average RMC difference is subject to
changes in sample content and size. (Id.)
AHAM also commented that the range
of RMC differences is wide. (Id.) AHAM
noted that DOE’s sample ranges from
–1.6 to 11.3 percent difference, AHAM’s
sample ranges from –1.0 percent to 16.4
percent difference, and the combined
sample has a range of –1.6 to 16.4
percent difference. (Id.) AHAM further
commented that the models were welldistributed throughout the range and
that the end points of this range are not
outliers. (Id.)
AHAM commented that due to the
wide range of differences in RMC
between appendix J2 and appendix J
testing among units in AHAM’s and
DOE’s test samples, in AHAM’s opinion,
the average is not representative of the
range of differences in the data. (AHAM,
53 DOE uses the term ‘‘percent’’ in this context to
refer to RMC percentage points.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
No. 53 at p. 10) AHAM also added that
the average difference in RMC is highly
susceptible to change depending on
which and how many units are included
in the dataset, which demonstrates that
the average is not a reliable value for
determining an ‘‘adder’’ to account for
design optimization to the new test
procedure. (Id.) AHAM commented that
without a proven translation between
appendix J2 and appendix J, DOE has no
reliable means to estimate energy
savings from its incremental efficiency
levels until it can conduct testing or
receive test data to assist in reestablishing the baseline. (Id.)
AHAM commented that without a
finalized test procedure to consider
during the majority of the April 2022
NODA comment period and during the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis
comment period, it was impossible to
evaluate the percentage that would be
appropriate for RMC adjustment, when
the test procedure could change from
DOE’s proposal. (AHAM, No. 53 at p.
12) AHAM commented that even if an
RMC adjustment is an appropriate
approach for developing a translation
between appendix J2 and appendix J, it
does not change the overall concerns
AHAM has with appendix J. (Id.)
AHAM recommended that, now that
DOE has finalized the test procedure,
DOE should collect data to determine
whether a translation equation or
adjustment factor are possible and, if
not, collect data to reestablish the
baseline. (Id.)
AHAM further commented that
without a proven translation between
appendix J2 and appendix J, DOE has no
reliable means to estimate energy
savings from its incremental efficiency
levels until it can conduct testing or
receive test data to assist in reestablishing the baseline. (AHAM, No.
53 at p. 10) AHAM also commented that
DOE needs to further investigate the
impact of the change from capacitybased efficiency metrics to load-size
based efficiency metrics. (Id.)
In response to AHAM’s comment
regarding the specific value of the
‘‘adjusted’’ RMC adder determined in
the April 2022 NODA, DOE has closely
reviewed AHAM’s RMC data to
understand the reason for the larger
average difference between the test
procedures than was observed in DOE’s
data. DOE also closely re-examined its
own data, as presented in appendix 5A
of the NOPR TSD. The following
paragraphs summarize DOE’s key
conclusions from this analysis.
DOE notes that in both datasets, any
differences above 10 percent appear to
be outliers, as evidenced by a large gap
in data points between 6 percent and 11
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
percent (whereas the data points less
than 6 percent are fairly evenly
distributed around the mean of 4
percent).
DOE re-evaluated the unit in its test
sample with an RMC difference of 11.1
percent. Upon closer examination, DOE
determined that this unit was
incorrectly characterized in the April
2022 NODA as having a ‘‘consistent
spin’’ spin implementation. Upon closer
examination of the time series power
data for each cycle, this unit exhibits
‘‘Cold/Cold optimized spin’’ behavior
and therefore should be excluded from
consideration for the purpose of
determining an RMC adjustment factor
based on load size differences alone.
Although DOE does not have access to
the time series power data underlying
AHAM’s data submission, DOE’s
determination that the outlier unit in
DOE’s test sample was incorrectly
categorized suggests that the outlier
units in AHAM’s sample may also be
incorrectly categorized as having
‘‘consistent spin’’ spin implementation.
As discussed, given the large gap in data
points between 6 percent and 11
percent, and given DOE’s determination
that it had incorrectly categorized its
unit at 11 percent, DOE tentatively
determines that the outlier data points
above 11 percent very likely do not
represent units with ‘‘consistent spin’’
spin implementation and therefore
should be excluded from the analysis to
determine an RMC adjustment factor
based on load size differences alone.
Excluding such data points, DOE
notes that the revised mean of DOE’s
dataset would be 3.4 percent. Excluding
the values 12.1, 15.8, and 16.3 from
AHAM’s dataset, the revised mean
would be 3.7 percent. Considering both
datasets together, the revised mean of
the joint dataset would be 3.5 percent.
Based on this analysis, DOE
tentatively determines that a 4percentage-point adder (rounded to the
nearest whole number) provides a
representative estimate of the change in
RMC between the two test procedures
due to only the change in load size. In
this NOPR, DOE maintains use of the 4percentage-point adder to calculate
‘‘adjusted RMC’’ for the purposes of
developing translation equations.
ii. NODA Translation Equations
In the April 2022 NODA, DOE
presented several versions of the
translation equations that DOE could
consider using to define potential higher
efficiency levels based on the new EER
and WER metrics. In particular, for the
top-loading standard-size product class,
DOE presented potential translations
based on data points for all
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
configurations as well as separate
translations specific to stationary units
with automatic WFCS and portable
units with manual WFCS.
In response to the April 2022 NODA,
AHAM presented data showing the Rsquared values for the translation
equations developed using DOE’s data
from the April 2022 NODA and using
AHAM’s data. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 11)
AHAM commented that the R-squared
value for ‘‘top-loading, standard, all
configurations’’ is very low, and that
there is not a meaningful improvement
using the adjusted RMC approach using
DOE’s data alone, or the combined
AHAM and DOE dataset. (Id.)
AHAM commented that it
understands that DOE’s 4-percent
adjustment in RMC was developed only
to account for changes in tested spin
speeds between appendix J2 and
appendix J. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 11)
However, AHAM noted that there could
be other design changes manufacturers
would employ to account for the new
test procedure. (Id.) AHAM added that
DOE indicated that it did not consider
other potential design changes. (Id.)
AHAM added that it is inappropriate for
a test procedure to drive design changes
in and of itself. (Id.)
AHAM commented that it does not
believe at this time that the translation
equation can adequately address all
models or changes in the test procedure
to serve as a replacement for
reestablishing the baseline through test
data. (Id.) AHAM recommended that
should DOE pursue a translation
equation despite AHAM’s comments
that doing so is not supported by
available data, DOE should consider
design changes other than spin speed
because spin speeds are not the only
thing manufacturers will need to change
in product design due to the new test
procedure. (Id.)
DOE acknowledged in the April 2022
NODA that for the top-loading standardsize product class, each of the separate
translation equations has a stronger
correlation (i.e., higher R-squared value)
than the single translation equation in
which top-loading portable and toploading stationary products are
combined. 87 FR 21816, 21820. DOE
notes that the combined dataset for the
top-loading standard-size sample
contained 12 stationary units
(representing 71 percent of the sample)
and 5 portable units (representing 29
percent of the sample). Shipment data
submitted by AHAM indicates that toploading portable clothes washers
represent approximately 1 percent of the
top-loading market. This indicates that
13559
the portable configuration was
significantly over-sampled within the
combined dataset.
For this NOPR, DOE proposes to use
datapoints representing only stationary
units to develop the translation
equations for the top-loading standardsize product class, on the basis that
these units’ characteristics are
significantly more representative of the
market than the portable configuration.
Appendix 5A of the NOPR TSD
provides further details and discussion
of the development of the translation
equations for this NOPR.
c. NOPR Approach
For this NOPR, DOE used the
‘‘adjusted EER’’ approach presented in
the April 2022 NODA to define the
translation between the appendix J2 and
appendix J metrics for this NOPR.
Additionally, as discussed further in
appendix 5A of the NOPR TSD, DOE
used AHAM’s dataset to confirm the
accuracy and appropriateness of these
translation equations. Table IV.27
through Table IV.30 show the efficiency
level translations considered in this
NOPR based on the updated efficiency
metric translations presented in chapter
5 of the NOPR TSD.
TABLE IV.27—TOP-LOADING, ULTRA-COMPACT (<1.6 ft3) EFFICIENCY LEVEL TRANSLATIONS
IMEF
(ft3/kWh/cycle)
EL
Efficiency level description
Baseline .........
Current DOE standard .........................................
1.15
IWF
(gal/cycle/ft3)
EER
(lb/kWh/cycle)
12.0
3.79
WER
(lb/gal/cycle)
0.29
TABLE IV.28—TOP-LOADING, STANDARD-SIZE (≥1.6 ft3) EFFICIENCY LEVEL TRANSLATIONS
IMEF
(ft3/kWh/cycle)
EL
Efficiency level description
Baseline .........
1 .....................
2 .....................
3 .....................
4 .....................
Current DOE standard .........................................
Gap fill .................................................................
ENERGY STAR v. 8.1 .........................................
2015–2017 CEE Tier 1 ........................................
Maximum available (2016/2017 ENERGY STAR
Most Efficient).
1.57
1.82
2.06
2.38
2.76
IWF
(gal/cycle/ft3)
EER
(lb/kWh/cycle)
6.5
5.4
4.3
3.7
3.2
3.50
3.89
4.27
4.78
5.37
WER
(lb/gal/cycle)
0.38
0.47
0.57
0.63
0.67
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE IV.29—FRONT-LOADING, COMPACT (<3.0 ft3) EFFICIENCY LEVEL TRANSLATIONS
IMEF
(ft3/kWh/cycle)
EL
Efficiency level description
Baseline .........
Current DOE standard for front-loading, standard-size (≥1.6 ft3).
ENERGY STAR v. 8.1 level for units ≤2.5 ft3 .....
2023 ENERGY STAR Most Efficient for units
≤2.5 ft3.
Gap fill .................................................................
Maximum available (ENERGY STAR v. 8.1 level
for units >2.5 ft3).
1 .....................
2 .....................
3 .....................
4 .....................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
IWF
(gal/cycle/ft3)
EER
(lb/kWh/cycle)
WER
(lb/gal/cycle)
1.84
4.7
4.41
0.53
2.07
2.20
4.2
3.7
4.80
5.02
0.62
0.71
2.50
2.76
3.5
3.2
5.53
5.97
0.75
0.80
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13560
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IV.30—FRONT-LOADING, STANDARD-SIZE (≥3.0 ft3) EFFICIENCY LEVEL TRANSLATIONS
Efficiency Level Description
Baseline .........
1 .....................
2 .....................
3 .....................
4 .....................
ENERGY STAR v. 7.0 .........................................
Gap fill .................................................................
ENERGY STAR v. 8.1 .........................................
2023 ENERGY STAR Most Efficient ...................
Maximum available ..............................................
d. Alternative Approaches
For this NOPR, DOE analyzed the
efficiency levels determined by the
dataset, translation equations, and
baseline definition approach previously
presented in section IV.C.5.c. However,
DOE is also considering alternate
approaches for each of these
components (i.e., the dataset to use, the
method of defining translation
equations, and the method for defining
baseline) as well as any combination
thereof, as described in the following
sections.
i. Joint DOE–AHAM Dataset
As discussed, AHAM has shared RCW
test data with DOE, which DOE used to
confirm the accuracy and
appropriateness of the NOPR translation
equations. As discussed in appendix 5A
of the NOPR TSD, DOE considered
developing alternate translation
equations using the joint dataset
containing both DOE and AHAM test
data. However, neither the DOE dataset
nor the AHAM dataset identifies the
individual model numbers of each unit
in the sample; therefore, DOE cannot
ascertain whether the joint dataset
double-counts any individual models.
For this reason, DOE has tentatively
determined to not use translation
equations based on the joint dataset in
this NOPR. Rather, DOE has overlayed
the AHAM data onto the translation
equations developed using DOE’s
dataset in order to confirm that the
AHAM and DOE datasets exhibit
consistent trends, as discussed further
in appendix 5A of the NOPR TSD.
DOE seeks comment on its tentative
determination to use the DOE dataset as
the basis for the translation equations
rather than use the joint DOE–AHAM
dataset.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
IMEF
(ft3/kWh/cycle)
EL
ii. Merging Compact and Standard-Size
Translation Equations
The CA IOUs suggested that DOE
eliminate the standard-size and compact
product classes when developing both
the ‘‘best-fit line method’’ and the
‘‘average performance and market
cluster method’’. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at
pp. 2–3) The CA IOUs stated that
segmenting product classes into
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
IWF
(gal/cycle/ft3)
2.38
2.60
2.76
2.92
3.10
standard-size and compact arbitrarily
separates products at a discrete product
capacity and assumes that the
relationship of IMEF to EER and IWF to
WER is impacted by assignment to
compact and standard-size categories.
(Id.) The CA IOUs commented that
while product classes can be useful for
categorization, this categorization
should not be confused for statistically
justifiable clusters when conducting a
translation analysis. (Id.) The CA IOUs
commented that, although it may be
appropriate to segment the data by
product classes or a subset of unique
performance attributes (such as toploading versus front-loading), these
performance attributes should be
demonstrated with supporting analysis.
(Id.) The CA IOUs suggested that a
statistical clustering analysis such as kmeans clustering could be used to show
that the relationship between appendix
J2 and appendix J metrics has
fundamental differences that impact
performance. (Id.) The CA IOUs
commented that the separate
categorization between compact and
standard-size clothes washers assumes
performance is impacted by product
class alone, and that a k-means
clustering would confirm if these four
categories were statistically justified.
(Id.) The CA IOUs stated that the
relationship between appendix J2 and
appendix J metrics could instead
operate on a continuum based on
capacity. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented
that they believe that product
performance is impacted by capacity,
which exists along a continuum in
alignment with the product performance
relationship to capacity. (Id.) The CA
IOUs also commented that they believe
the relationship between the appendix
J2 and appendix J metrics should be
controlled along that same continuum of
capacity, and requested that DOE
provide the measured EERs and WERs
of products tested to appendix J so that
this hypothesis can be tested. (Id.) The
CA IOUs commented that combining
data between compact and standard-size
product classes will improve model fits
to be better than the models presented
in the September 2021 Preliminary TSD.
(Id.) The CA IOUS also commented that
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
EER
(lb/kWh/cycle)
3.7
3.5
3.2
3.2
2.9
5.02
5.31
5.52
5.73
5.97
WER
(lb/gal/cycle)
0.64
0.69
0.77
0.77
0.85
combining data will address the lack of
tested appendix J data in the top-loading
compact product class. (Id.)
DOE evaluated the CA IOUs’
suggestion to develop only two sets of
translation equations (i.e., one per axis
of loading) rather than four (i.e., one per
product class). Appendix 5A of the
NOPR TSD presents the detailed results
of this analysis.
DOE notes that automatic top-loading
ultra-compact and automatic toploading standard-size clothes washers
have significantly different operational
characteristics (beyond just a difference
in capacity), such that DOE does not
expect that there should be a consistent
correlation between appendix J2 and
appendix J performance across the two
product classes. For example, DOE has
observed that the top-loading ultracompact units on the market offer only
two wash temperatures (warm and
cold), and as such, hot water heating
energy makes up a significantly lower
fraction of total energy compared to toploading standard-size units.54
Furthermore, although AHAM did not
provide shipment data for the toploading ultra-compact product class,
DOE expects that because these
represent niche products, this product
class likely represents less than 1
percent of total sales. If DOE were to
combine the 2 top-loading ultracompact points with the 12 data points
for top-loading standard-size units, the
ultra-compact class would be
significantly oversampled (e.g., 14
percent of the data versus less than 1
percent of sales). For these reasons, DOE
is not proposing to use translation
equations for top-loading product
classes based on a single dataset that
combines top-loading ultra-compact
units with top-loading standard-size
units.
Similarly, for the front-loading
product classes, if DOE were to combine
its 13 front-loading compact points with
54 As shown in the energy breakdown tables in
chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD, hot water heating
energy represents 5 percent of the total energy for
the top-loading ultra-compact product class.
Whereas, for the baseline efficiency level in the toploading standard-size product class, hot water
heating energy represents 16 percent of total energy
use.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
its 12 front-loading standard-size points,
the compact class would be significantly
oversampled (e.g., 52 percent of the data
versus 6 percent of shipments, based on
AHAM data). For this reason, DOE is
not proposing to use translation
equations for front-loading product
classes based on a single dataset that
combines front-loading compact-size
units with front-loading standard-size
units.
DOE seeks comment on its tentative
determination not to merge the compact
and standard-size translations, but to
instead develop separate translations for
each product class.
iii. ‘‘Unadjusted’’ Baseline Approach
The CA IOUs commented that DOE
should base its translation analysis on
currently available cycle settings and
performance and not employ the
proposed 4-percentage-point
adjustment. (CA IOUs, No. 52 at pp. 1–
2) The CA IOUs added that using the
performance of currently available
products more accurately reflects realworld energy and water efficiencies.
(Id.) The CA IOUs commented that
based on manufacturer input identified
by DOE, the CA IOUs understand DOE’s
consideration that manufacturers may
simply implement strategies similar to
Cold/Cold optimized spin and nondefault maximum spin to decrease RMC.
(Id.) The CA IOUs stated that while
some manufacturers may take this
approach, this presumption should not
be used as part of the baseline
translation for all products. (Id.) The CA
IOUs further commented that improving
the RMC of different cycle settings (e.g.,
operating small loads at higher spin
speeds or software adjustments to
optimize RMC for different wash/rinse
temperatures) should be treated as a
low-cost technology option for
efficiency level development, and that
DOE’s proposal of applying a 4percentage point adjustment to the
tested RMC of appendix J2 (the RMC of
appendix J plus the difference in RMC
for the smaller loads tested under
appendix J2) only accounts for the
natural difference in load size
centrifugal force using the same spin
speed and duration, effectively removes
small load RMC improvements as a
technology option. (Id.) The CA IOUs
noted that this adjustment does improve
the R-squared, the coefficient of
determination for the translation
correlation, but at the expense of
accurately representing the differences
between appendix J and appendix J2,
which is what appendix J is partly
designed to capture. (Id.) The CA IOUs
added that while a higher R-squared
translation correlation is preferable, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
CA IOUs stated it should not be
achieved at the expense of removing
product-to-product variation that
represents the real-world operation of
available products. (Id.)
ComEd and NEEA supported DOE’s
efforts to develop a more robust
translation from appendix J2 to
appendix J and DOE’s general approach
and methodology. (ComEd and NEEA,
No. 50 at p. 2) However, ComEd and
NEEA commented that NEEA estimates
there will be 0.3 quads of newly realized
real-world site energy savings achieved
with this test procedure update that
were counted earlier (by assuming a
lower RMC across all cycles even
though RMC was only tested on one
cycle setting) but uncaptured in
practice, and that this substantial energy
savings is twice the site energy savings
DOE calculated for EL 1 in the
September 2021 Preliminary TSD. (Id.)
ComEd and NEEA stated that this
discrepancy validates DOE’s continued
efforts to move forward with the
translation analysis using appendix J.
(Id.)
ComEd and NEEA recommended that
DOE not justify costs associated with
the translation of spin implementations
from appendix J2 to appendix J for three
key reasons. (ComEd and NEEA, No. 50
at p. 4) First, for the most common RCW
spin implementation (‘‘consistent
spin’’), there is zero incremental cost to
obtain the adjusted appendix J EER
value because no design changes are
needed to retain spin performance. (Id.)
Second, for RCWs with ‘‘cold-cold
optimized’’ spin and ‘‘non-default
maximum’’ spin implementations, the
incremental cost to achieve the adjusted
appendix J EER value is nearly zero.
(Id.) Third, these costs were already
accounted for in the May 2012 Final
Rule in the case of RCWs with increased
spin time over the appliance lifetime
whose manufacturers choose to upgrade
to more durable components. (Id.)
In response to the CA IOUs’
comments, DOE is also considering an
alternate approach to the translation of
IMEF to EER in which DOE would
define the baseline efficiency level
based on a translation between
appendix J2 and appendix J metrics
without consideration of any changes to
spin implementations as a result of
adopting the appendix J test procedure.
EL 1, in contrast, would be represented
by the baseline level presented in this
NOPR (i.e., reflecting the 4 percent
‘‘adjusted RMC’’ approach). As
suggested by the CA IOUs, this
approach would allow for a more
explicit consideration of savings that are
likely to occur solely as a result of the
switching from appendix J2 to appendix
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13561
J, as opposed to those savings already
being reflected at baseline level.
Appendix 5A of the NOPR TSD details
the specific efficiency levels that could
be defined for each front-loading
product class using this approach.
In response to ComEd and NEEA’s
comment that DOE should not include
the costs associated with changes to
spin implementation as a result of the
change in test procedure, DOE notes
that all costs incurred by manufacturers
in response to this NOPR have been
included in this NOPR analysis. While
there may be zero incremental
manufacturing cost to changing spin
implementation, such changes would
incur product conversion costs, as
discussed further in section IV.J.2.c of
this document. With regard to the
assertion that these costs were already
accounted for in the May 2012 Final
Rule, the standards enacted by the May
2012 Final Rule were based on a
different test procedure (i.e., appendix
J2) than the test procedure proposed as
a basis for the amended standards in
this NOPR (i.e., appendix J). To the
extent that appendix J requires
manufacturers to change designs of
products as they currently exist in the
market, such changes are justifiable in
considering in this analysis, irrespective
of the costs that may have been incurred
previously by manufacturers as a result
of product investments required to
comply with the standards enacted by
the May 2012 Final Rule.
DOE seeks comment on whether it
should consider defining an
‘‘unadjusted’’ baseline efficiency level
based on a translation between
appendix J2 and appendix J metrics
without consideration of any changes to
spin implementations as a result of
adopting the appendix J test procedure.
D. Markups Analysis
The markups analysis develops
appropriate markups (e.g., manufacturer
markup, retailer markups, distributor
markups, contractor markups) in the
distribution chain and sales taxes to
convert the MPC estimates derived in
the engineering analysis to consumer
prices, which are then used in the LCC
and PBP analysis. At each step in the
distribution channel, companies mark
up the price of the product to cover
business costs and profit margin.
To account for manufacturers’ nonproduction costs and profit margin, DOE
applies a multiplier (the manufacturer
markup) to the MPC. The resulting
manufacturer selling price (‘‘MSP’’) is
the price at which the manufacturer
distributes a unit into commerce. DOE
developed an average manufacturer
markup by examining the annual
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13562
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Securities and Exchange Commission
(‘‘SEC’’) 10–K reports filed by publicly
traded manufacturers primarily engaged
in appliance manufacturing and whose
combined product range includes
RCWs.55 See chapter 12 of the NOPR
TSD for additional detail on the
manufacturer markup.
For RCWs, the main parties in the
post-manufacturer distribution chain are
retailers/distributors and consumers.
DOE developed baseline and
incremental markups for each of these.
Baseline markups are applied to the
price of products with baseline
efficiency, while incremental markups
are applied to the difference in price
between baseline and higher-efficiency
models (the incremental cost increase).
The incremental markup is typically
less than the baseline markup and is
designed to maintain similar per-unit
operating costs before and after
amended standards.56 DOE relied on
economic data from the U.S. Census
Bureau to estimate average baseline and
incremental markups.57
Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides
details on DOE’s development of
markups for RCWs.
E. Energy and Water Use Analysis
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
The purpose of the energy and water
use analysis is to determine the annual
energy and water consumption of RCWs
at different efficiencies in representative
U.S. single-family homes, multi-family
residences, and mobile homes, and to
assess the energy savings potential of
increased RCW efficiency. The energy
and water use analysis estimates the
range of energy and water use of RCWs
in the field (i.e., as they are actually
used by consumers). The energy and
water use analysis provides the basis for
other analyses DOE performed,
particularly assessments of the energy
and water savings and the savings in
consumer operating costs that could
result from adoption of amended or new
standards.
To establish a reasonable range of
energy and water consumption in the
field for RCWs, DOE primarily used data
55 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval
(EDGAR) system. Available at www.sec.gov/edgar/
search/ (last accessed July 1, 2022).
56 Because the projected price of standardscompliant products is typically higher than the
price of baseline products, using the same markup
for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would
result in higher per-unit operating profit. While
such an outcome is possible, DOE maintains that in
markets that are reasonably competitive it is
unlikely that standards would lead to a sustainable
increase in profitability in the long run.
57 US Census Bureau, Annual Wholesale Trade
Survey. 2017. Available at www.census.gov/awts
(last accessed May 2, 2022).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
from 2015 RECS.58 RECS is a national
sample survey of housing units that
collects statistical information on the
consumption of and expenditures for
energy in housing units along with data
on energy-related characteristics of the
housing units and occupants. The 2015
RECS collected data on 5,686 housing
units and was constructed by EIA to be
a national representation of the
household population in the United
States.59 DOE’s assumptions for
establishing an RCW sample included
the following considerations:
• The household had a clothes
washer.
• Clothes washer use was greater than
zero.
DOE divided the sample of
households into five sub-samples to
characterize the product category being
analyzed: standard-size or compact or
semi-automatic, top-loading or frontloading RCWs. For compact and semiautomatic clothes washers, DOE
developed a sub-sample consisting of
households from multifamily buildings,
manufactured homes, and single-family
homes with less than 1,000 square feet
and no garage or basement, since DOE
reasoned that such products are most
likely to be found in these housing
types.
The energy and water use analysis
requires DOE to establish a range of total
annual usage or annual number of
cycles in order to estimate annual
energy and water consumption by a
clothes washer unit. DOE estimated the
number of clothes washer cycles per
year for each sample household using
data given by RECS 2015 on the number
of laundry loads washed (clothes
washer cycles) per week.
For each sample household, DOE
estimated the field-based annual energy
and water use of the clothes washer by
multiplying the annual number of
clothes washer cycles for each
household by the per-cycle energy and
water use values established by the
engineering analysis (using the DOE test
procedure) for each considered
efficiency level. Per-cycle clothes
washer energy use is calculated in the
test procedure as the sum of per-cycle
machine energy use associated with the
clothes washer (including the energy
used to heat water and remove moisture
58 U.S. Department of Energy—Energy
Information Administration, Residential Energy
Consumption Survey: 2015 Public Use Data Files,
2015. Available at www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/
recspubuse15/pubuse15.html (last accessed May 12,
2022).
59 RECS 2015 is the most recent edition of RECS
available at the time of this NOPR analysis. For the
final rule analysis, DOE plans to use the microdata
of the 2020 RECS.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
from clothing),60 and combined lowpower mode energy use.
1. Number of Annual Cycles
The average annual energy and water
consumption reflects an average annual
weighted usage of 238 cycles per year
(233 for top-loading clothes washers and
254 for front-loading clothes washers).
This average usage is obtained from
2015 RECS.61
Ameren et al. recommended that DOE
not use the number of annual clothes
washer cycles predicted by the RECS
methodology because it relies on
participant recollection and is therefore
subject to recall bias. They stated that a
single RECS respondent may not
accurately count cycles of other
household members, leading to
underestimates. (Ameren et al., No. 42
at pp. 16–17)
RECS asks ‘‘In a typical week, about
how many times is your clothes washer
used?’’ A response does not require
recollection of behavior in the distant
past. DOE acknowledges that recall bias
is in general an issue in surveys where
consumers are asked about their past
behavior, but DOE does not believe that
RECS households would significantly
underestimate the number of washer
cycles.
Ameren et al. encouraged DOE to
increase the annual number of clothes
washer cycles in its analysis and/or
conduct its own field study to
determine more accurately the average
annual number of clothes washer cycles
given that the RECS estimate is
significantly lower than the annual
number of cycles calculated in NEEA’s
RBSA Laundry study published in 2014
(‘‘2014 Laundry Study’’).62 (Ameren et
al., No. 42 at pp. 17–18)
DOE reviewed the 2014 Laundry
Study. Because the Study collected field
metering data from 45 homes across
three States, with more than 70 percent
60 The per-cycle energy consumption associated
with a given clothes washer has three components:
energy used for heating water, operating the
machine, and drying the clothes.
61 DOE acknowledges that the value of 238
average annual cycles used in the Energy and Water
Use Analysis differs from the value of 234 annual
cycles used in appendix J. As discussed above, the
value of 238 was determined while excluding RECS
households that do not use their clothes washer
(i.e., households with clothes washer use equal to
0 cycles per week) because these households’
clothes washers would not contribute to the
nation’s total energy and water use. By comparison,
the value of 234 used in appendix J did not exclude
such households, because the test procedure is
designed to represent the average household energy
and water usage.
62 Hannas, B. and Gilman, L. 2014. RBSA Laundry
Study (Report # E14–287). Portland, OR: Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance. p. 38. 20 November.
Retrieved from neea.org/resources/rbsa-laundrystudy.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
of selected homes located in
Washington State, it is not a
representative sample of all U.S.
households that use a clothes washer.
The 2015 RECS is a nationally
representative sample of U.S.
households with more than 5,600
households with a clothes washer. For
the final rule analysis, DOE plans to use
the microdata of the 2020 RECS, which
was released in July 2022 and contains
a nationally representative sample of
18,500 occupied U.S. households.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2. Rebound Effect
In calculating energy consumption of
RCWs, DOE considered whether it
would be appropriate to include a
rebound effect (also called a take-back
effect), which represents the increased
energy consumption that can result from
increases in energy efficiency and the
associated reduction in operating costs.
The rebound effect assumes that
consumers will increase their overall
annual usage of a more efficient
product, thereby decreasing their overall
annual savings.
Ameren et al. commented in support
of DOE’s determination that there is no
rebound effect associated with more
efficient clothes washers and agreed
with DOE that consumers will not use
their clothes washers more if the
efficiency increases. (Ameren et al., No.
42 at p. 20)
DOE requests comment and
information on the specific efficiency
levels at which any potential rebound
effects may happen, as well as the
magnitude of the effect.
Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD provides
details on DOE’s energy and water use
analysis for RCWs.
3. Water Heating Energy Use
Per-cycle water heating energy
consumption is one of the four energy
components in the EER metric.
Appendix J includes water-heating
energy equations that estimate the
energy required by the household water
heater to heat the hot water used by the
clothes washer. In section 4.1.2 of
appendix J, the water heating energy
consumption is calculated by
multiplying the measured volume of hot
water by a constant fixed temperature
rise of 65 °F and by the specific heat of
water. No efficiency or loss factor is
included in this calculation, which
implies an electric water heater
efficiency of 100 percent.
Ameren et al. presented data from 3
studies that contradict DOE’s assertion
that 78 percent efficiency is typical for
gas water heaters. Based on these 3
studies, Ameren et al. concluded that
both market and field data analysis
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
reveal that typical gas water heater
efficiency ranges from 62 to 70 percent.
(Ameren et al., No. 42 at pp. 14–16)
ASAP et al. commented that they
believe DOE’s assumption of 100
percent efficiency for electric water
heaters and 78 percent efficiency for gas
water heaters is likely significantly
overstating the efficiencies of water
heaters in the field. ASAP et al.
commented that based on shipment data
from the last water heater rulemaking
and current models in DOE’s CCD, the
shipment-weighted efficiencies for new
water heaters are about 92 percent for
electric water heaters and 64 percent for
gas water heaters. (ASAP et al., No. 37
at pp. 2–3)
In the 2019 preliminary analysis for
consumer water heaters, DOE calculated
the energy use of water heaters using a
simplified energy equation, the water
heater analysis model (WHAM). WHAM
accounts for a range of operating
conditions and energy efficiency
characteristics of water heaters. To
describe energy efficiency
characteristics of water heaters, WHAM
uses three parameters that also are used
in the DOE test procedure: recovery
efficiency, standby heat-loss coefficient,
and rated input power. The September
2021 Preliminary TSD states that DOE
used a recovery efficiency of 78 percent
for gas water heaters, not 0.78 Energy
Factor for the calculation of hot water
energy savings. The hot water energy
savings are almost directly proportional
to the recovery efficiency, and the
NOPR analysis uses the most recent data
reported for the 2022 consumer water
heater rulemaking.63
ASAP et al. recommended that DOE
clarify the hot water temperature rise
estimate used in the hot water energy
usage calculations and suggested that
believe a value lower than 75 °F (e.g.,
67.5 °F) would more accurately reflect
hot water energy usage. (ASAP et al.,
No. 37 at p. 5)
For this NOPR analysis, DOE revised
hot water temperature rise from 75 °F to
65 °F based on the updates in the RCW
test procedure. 87 FR 33316, 33326–
33327.
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
DOE conducted LCC and PBP
analyses to evaluate the economic
impacts on individual consumers of
potential energy conservation standards
63 DOE, 2022–03 Preliminary Analysis Technical
Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for
Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial
Equipment: Consumer Water Heaters, March 2022.
EERE–2017–BT–STD–0019–0018. Available at:
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0019-0018 (last accessed June 21, 2022).
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13563
for RCWs. The effect of new or amended
energy conservation standards on
individual consumers usually involves a
reduction in operating cost and an
increase in purchase cost. DOE used the
following two metrics to measure
consumer impacts:
• The LCC is the total consumer
expense of an appliance or product over
the life of that product, consisting of
total installed cost (manufacturer selling
price, distribution chain markups, sales
tax, and installation costs) plus
operating costs (expenses for energy and
water use, maintenance, and repair). To
compute the operating costs, DOE
discounts future operating costs to the
time of purchase and sums them over
the lifetime of the product.
• The PBP is the estimated amount of
time (in years) it takes consumers to
recover the increased purchase cost
(including installation) of a moreefficient product through lower
operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP
by dividing the change in purchase cost
at higher efficiency levels by the change
in annual operating cost for the year that
amended or new standards are assumed
to take effect.
For any given efficiency level, DOE
measures the change in LCC relative to
the LCC in the no-new-standards case,
which reflects the estimated efficiency
distribution of RCWs in the absence of
amended energy conservation
standards. In contrast, the PBP for a
given efficiency level is measured
relative to the baseline product.
For each considered efficiency level
in each product class, DOE calculated
the LCC and PBP for a nationally
representative set of residential housing
units. As stated previously, DOE
developed household samples from the
2015 RECS. For each sample household,
DOE determined the energy and water
consumption for the RCWs and the
appropriate energy and water prices. By
developing a representative sample of
households, the analysis captured the
variability in energy and water
consumption and energy and water
prices associated with the use of RCWs.
Inputs to the calculation of total
installed cost include the cost of the
product—which includes MPCs,
manufacturer markups, retailer and
distributor markups, and sales taxes—
and installation costs. Inputs to the
calculation of operating expenses
include annual energy and water
consumption, energy and water prices
and price projections, repair and
maintenance costs, product lifetimes,
and discount rates. DOE created
distributions of values for product
lifetime, discount rates, and sales taxes,
with probabilities attached to each
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13564
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
value, to account for their uncertainty
and variability.
The computer model DOE uses to
calculate the LCC relies on a Monte
Carlo simulation to incorporate
uncertainty and variability into the
analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations
randomly sample input values from the
probability distributions and RCW user
samples. For this rulemaking, the Monte
Carlo approach is implemented in MS
Excel together with the Crystal BallTM
add-on.64 The model calculated the LCC
for products at each efficiency level for
10,000 housing units per simulation
run. The analytical results include a
distribution of 10,000 data points
showing the range of LCC savings for a
given efficiency level relative to the no-
new-standards case efficiency
distribution. In performing an iteration
of the Monte Carlo simulation for a
given consumer, product efficiency is
chosen based on its probability. If the
chosen product efficiency is greater than
or equal to the efficiency of the standard
level under consideration, the LCC
calculation reveals that a consumer is
not impacted by the standard level. By
accounting for consumers who already
purchase more-efficient products, DOE
avoids overstating the potential benefits
from increasing product efficiency.
DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for
consumers of RCWs as if each were to
purchase a new product in the expected
year of required compliance with
amended standards. Amended
standards would apply to RCWs
manufactured 3 years after the date on
which any amended standard is
published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(A)(i))
At this time, DOE estimates publication
of a final rule in 2023. Therefore, for
purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2027
as the first year of compliance with any
amended standards for RCWs.
Table IV.31 summarizes the approach
and data DOE used to derive inputs to
the LCC and PBP calculations. The
subsections that follow provide further
discussion. Details of the spreadsheet
model, and of all the inputs to the LCC
and PBP analyses, are contained in
chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD and its
appendices.
TABLE IV.31—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS *
Inputs
Source/method
Product Cost ...................................
Derived by multiplying MPCs by manufacturer and retailer markups and sales tax, as appropriate. Used
historical data to derive a price scaling index to project product costs.
Baseline installation cost determined with data from RS Means Residential Cost Data 2021. Assumed no
change with efficiency level.
Per cycle energy and water use multiplied by the cycles per year. Average number of cycles based on
field data.
Variability: Based on the 2015 RECS.
Electricity: Based on EIA’s Form 861 data for 2021.
Variability: Regional energy prices determined for 9 Census Divisions.
Water: Based on 2020 AWWA/Raftelis Survey.
Variability: Regional water prices determined for 4 Census Regions.
Energy: Forecasted using AEO 2022 price forecasts.
Water: Forecasted using BLS historic water price index information.
Repair costs vary by product class and vary between ENERGY STAR and non-ENERGY START washers.
Average: 13.7 years.
Approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase the considered appliances, or might be affected indirectly. Primary data source was the Federal Reserve Board’s
Survey of Consumer Finances.
2027.
Installation Costs .............................
Annual Energy and Water Use .......
Energy and Water Prices ................
Energy and water Price Trends ......
Repair and Maintenance Costs ......
Product Lifetime ..............................
Discount Rates ................................
Compliance Date ............................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
* Not used for PBP calculation. References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in
chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.
Ameren et al. encouraged DOE to
calculate and consider the return on
investment for each efficiency level in
its analysis to add additional insight for
stakeholders and decision-makers.
Ameren et al. commented that
efficiency improvements to an
appliance can be considered capital
investments, with ‘‘returns’’ being the
money saved from utility bill
reductions. (Ameren et al., No. 42 at pp.
18–19)
DOE acknowledges that return on
investment is a metric that can be useful
in evaluating investments in energy
efficiency. However, the measures that
DOE has historically used to evaluate
the economic impacts of standards on
consumers—LCC savings and PBP—are
more closely related to the language in
EPCA that requires DOE to consider the
savings in operating costs throughout
the estimated average life of the covered
product in the type (or class) compared
to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance
expenses of, the covered product that
are likely to result from a standard. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) Therefore,
DOE finds it reasonable to continue to
use those measures.
AHAM commented that DOE’s use of
‘‘Net Cost’’ for impacted households is
incomplete and misleading. AHAM
suggested that the ‘‘Net Cost’’ should be
calculated only among the affected
households. (AHAM, No. 40 at p. 21)
DOE maintains that showing the share
of all consumers who would experience
a net LCC cost is useful information, as
EPCA requires DOE to consider the
impact of standards on ‘‘consumers,’’
not only those who would be affected by
a standard.
64 Crystal BallTM is commercially available
software tool to facilitate the creation of these types
of models by generating probability distributions
and summarizing results within Excel, available at
www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/
crystalball/overview/ (last accessed July
6, 2022).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1. Consumer Product Cost
To calculate consumer product costs,
DOE multiplied the MPCs developed in
the engineering analysis by the markups
described in section IV.C.6 of this
document (along with sales taxes). DOE
used different markups for baseline
products and higher-efficiency
products, because DOE applies an
incremental markup to the increase in
MSP associated with higher-efficiency
products.
Economic literature and historical
data suggest that the real costs of many
products may trend downward over
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
time according to ‘‘learning’’ or
‘‘experience’’ curves. Experience curve
analysis implicitly includes factors such
as efficiencies in labor, capital
investment, automation, materials
prices, distribution, and economies of
scale at an industry-wide level.65 To
derive the learning rate parameter for
RCWs, DOE obtained historical
Producer Price Index (‘‘PPI’’) data for
‘‘household laundry equipment’’
between 1948 and 2016 and ‘‘major
household appliance: primary
products’’ between 2016 and 2019 from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (‘‘BLS’’)
to form a time series price index
representing household laundry
equipment from 1948 to 2021.66 These
two PPI series are the most current and
disaggregated price index that includes
RCWs, and DOE assumes that the price
trend estimated from the household
laundry equipment PPI is representative
of that for RCWs. Inflation-adjusted
price indices were calculated by
dividing the PPI series by the gross
domestic product index from Bureau of
Economic Analysis for the same years.
The estimated learning rate (defined as
the fractional reduction in price
expected from each doubling of
cumulative production) is 14.4 ± 1.7
percent. See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD
for further details on this topic.
Ameren et al. encouraged DOE to
continue to apply a learning rate for
product prices in its lifecycle cost and
payback period analyses and encourages
DOE to model as if RCW sales occurred
before 1947, as this could produce a
better fit to the model used and be more
representative of the learning rate for
the RCW industry. (Ameren et al., No.
42 at p. 19)
The fit started in 1948 because that is
the start year of the household laundry
product PPI. In order to derive the
corresponding cumulative productions,
DOE performed a trend analysis to
extrapolate shipments prior to AHAM
historical data and determined the
shipments were at a very low level and
thus started the cumulative production
accounting in 1948. DOE will explore
alternative approaches for shipment
extrapolation in the final rule analysis
to better account for shipments prior to
1948 and improve the model fit.
65 Taylor, M. and Fujita, K.S. Accounting for
Technological Change in Regulatory Impact
Analyses: The Learning Curve Technique. LBNL–
6195E. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
Berkeley, CA. April 2013. Available at
escholarship.org/uc/item/3c8709p4#page-1.
66 Household laundry equipment PPI
(PCU3352203352204) is available till May 2016,
and major household appliance: primary products
(PCU335220335220P) is available starting from
2016. See more information at: www.bls.gov/ppi/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
AHAM commented that equipment
prices at EL 1 and EL 2 in the September
2021 Preliminary Analysis were
underestimated and suggested that DOE
use actual retail price differences
between a baseline and higher efficiency
level instead of taking the traditional
approach of converting manufacturer
production costs to consumer retail
prices. (AHAM, No. 40 at p. 21)
The actual retail price differences
between a baseline and higher efficiency
level may include the price for other
features in addition to engineering
designs relating to efficiency, and also
reflects economies of scale in
production, as well as marketing
strategies and profit margins of
manufacturers and retailers. DOE
maintains that its traditional approach,
which has been subject to peer review,
is better able to identify the incremental
costs that are only connected to higher
efficiency. Furthermore, for this NOPR
analysis, DOE revised the engineering
costs of top-loading standard-size
clothes washers, and the estimated
equipment price difference between the
baseline level and the ENERGY STAR
level is now $163.50, before sales tax,
which closely aligns with the retail
price difference (i.e., $160 before sales
tax) presented by AHAM.
2. Installation Cost
Installation cost includes labor,
overhead, and any miscellaneous
materials and parts needed to install the
product. DOE used data from 2021
RSMeans Residential Cost Data to
estimate the baseline installation cost
for RCWs.67 DOE found no evidence
that installation costs would be
impacted with increased efficiency
levels.
3. Annual Energy and Water
Consumption
For each sampled household, DOE
determined the energy and water
consumption for an RCW at different
efficiency levels using the approach
described previously in section IV.E of
this document.
4. Energy and Water Prices
a. Energy Prices
Because marginal electricity and gas
prices more accurately captures the
incremental savings associated with a
change in energy use from higher
efficiency, it provides a better
representation of incremental change in
consumer costs than average electricity
and gas prices. Therefore, DOE applied
67 RS Means Company Inc., RS Means Residential
Cost Data (2021). Available at https://rsmeans.com/
.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13565
average electricity and gas prices for the
energy use of the product purchased in
the no-new-standards case, and
marginal electricity and gas prices for
the incremental change in energy use
associated with the other efficiency
levels considered.
DOE derived electricity prices in 2021
using data from EEI Typical Bills and
Average Rates reports for summer and
winter 2021.68 Based upon
comprehensive, industry-wide surveys,
this semi-annual report presents typical
monthly electric bills and average
kilowatt-hour costs to the customer as
charged by investor-owned utilities. For
the residential sector, DOE calculated
electricity prices using the methodology
described in Coughlin and Beraki
(2018).69
DOE obtained data for calculating
regional prices of natural gas from the
EIA publication, Natural Gas
Navigator.70 This publication presents
monthly volumes of natural gas
deliveries and average prices by state for
residential, commercial, and industrial
customers. DOE used the complete
annual data for 2020 to calculate an
average annual price for each census
division. Residential natural gas prices
were adjusted by applying seasonal
marginal price factors to reflect a change
in a consumer’s bill associated with a
change in energy consumed.
EIA provides historical monthly
natural gas consumption and
expenditures by state. This data was
used to determine 10-year average
marginal price factors for the RECS 2015
census divisions, which are then used to
convert average monthly natural gas
prices into marginal monthly natural gas
prices. DOE interpreted the slope of the
regression line (consumption vs.
expenditures) for each State as the
marginal natural gas price factor for that
State.
DOE assigned average prices to each
household in the LCC sample based on
its location and its baseline electricity
and gas consumption. For sampled
households who were assigned a
product efficiency greater than or equal
to the considered level for a standard in
the no-new-standards case, DOE
68 Edison Electric Institute. Typical Bills and
Average Rates Report. Winter 2021, Summer 2021.
Available at: www.eei.org/resourcesandmedia/
products/Pages/Products.aspx.
69 Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki.2018. Residential
Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and
Estimation Methods. Lawrence Berkeley National
Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL–2001169.
Available at ees.lbl.gov/publications/residentialelectricity-prices-review.
70 U.S. Department of Energy—Energy
Information Administration. Natural Gas Navigator
2020. Available at www.eia.gov/naturalgas/
data.php.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13566
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
assigned marginal prices to each
household based on its location and the
decremented electricity and gas
consumption. In the LCC sample,
households could be assigned to one of
nine census divisions. See chapter 8 of
the NOPR TSD for details.
To estimate energy prices in future
years, DOE multiplied the average and
marginal regional energy prices by the
projection of annual average price
changes for each of the nine census
divisions from the Reference case in
AEO2022, which has an end year of
2050.71 To estimate price trends after
2050, the 2046–2050 average was used
for all years.
b. Water and Wastewater Prices
DOE obtained residential water and
wastewater price data from the Water
and Wastewater Rate Survey conducted
by Raftelis Financial Consultants and
the American Water Works
Association.72 The survey covers
approximately 194 water utilities and
140 wastewater utilities analyzing each
industry (water and wastewater)
separately. For each water or wastewater
utility, DOE calculated the average price
per unit volume by dividing the total
volumetric cost by the volume
delivered. DOE also calculated the
marginal price by dividing the
incremental cost by the increased
volume charged at each consumption
level.
The samples that DOE obtained of the
water and wastewater utilities is too
small to calculate regional prices for all
U.S. Census divisions. Therefore, DOE
calculated regional costs for water and
wastewater service at the Census region
level (Northeast, South, Midwest, and
West) by weighting each State in a
region by its population.
For this NOPR analysis, DOE also
developed water prices for consumers
who rely on private well water systems
for their water needs rather than relying
on the public supply system. DOE
considered several factors when
developing consumer prices for water
supplied by private wells. Initial costs
to install a well include well siting; well
drilling; pump purchase and
installation; water testing; and
sometimes a water treatment system.
Ongoing costs include pump
maintenance; pump fuel to lift water to
the surface and to the point of use or
storage; plus, any required maintenance
71 EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2022 with
Projections to 2050. Washington, DC. Available at
www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/ (last accessed June 14,
2022).
72 Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. 2020 RFC/
AWWA Water and Wastewater Rate Survey. 2021.
Charlotte, NC, Kansas City, MO, and Pasadena, CA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
of the treatment system (water-softening
chemicals, filters, etc.). To determine
the current percentage of the U.S.
population served by private wells, DOE
used historical American Housing
Survey (‘‘AHS’’) data from 1970 to 2019
to develop a projection for 2027, the
effective year of potential new standards
for RCWs.73 DOE then weighted public
utility water and wastewater prices and
private well prices for each census
region and derived weighted-average
regional and national water price for
residential consumers.
To estimate the future trend for water
and wastewater prices, DOE used data
on the historic trend in the national
water price index (U.S. city average)
from 1988 through 2021 provided by the
Labor Department’s BLS.74 DOE
extrapolated the future trend based on
the linear growth from 1988 to 2021.
DOE used the extrapolated trend to
forecast prices through 2050. To
estimate price trend after 2050, DOE
used a constant value derived from the
average values from 2046 through 2050.
AHAM commented that DOE’s water
prices should include rural well and
septic tank users. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp.
29–31)
As described above, for this NOPR
analysis, DOE developed water prices
for rural well and septic tank users. DOE
then weighted public utility water and
wastewater prices and private well
prices for each census region and
derived weighted-average regional and
national water price for residential
consumers.
Chapter 8 and Appendix 8E of the
NOPR TSD provides further details on
the methodology and sources DOE used
to develop consumer water prices.
5. Repair and Maintenance Costs
Repair costs are associated with
repairing or replacing product
components that have failed in an
appliance; maintenance costs are
associated with maintaining the
operation of the product.
For RCWs, DOE determined repair
cost associated with loading type and
clothes washer capacity commonly
found on an appliance repair website.75
73 The U.S. Census Bureau. The American
Housing Survey. Years 1970–2019. Available at
www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs.html (last
accessed May 12, 2022).
74 U.S. Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Consumer Price Indexes, Item: Water and
sewerage maintenance, Series Id:
CUSR0000SEHG01, U.S. city average, 2021.
Washington, DC. Available at www.bls.gov/cpi/
home.htm#data.
75 Fixr, How Much Does It Cost to Repair a
Washing Machine? Available at www.fixr.com/
costs/washing-machine-repair#washing-machinerepair-cost-by-type-of-repair.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
DOE estimated the average repair cost
for an RCW is about $225, ranging from
$115 to $275. For maintenance cost,
DOE conducted literature review of
maintenance cost available from a
variety of sources, including online
resources. DOE estimated the annual
maintenance cost for an RCW is
approximately $25, including costs of
clothes washer cleaners and of running
clothes washer cleaning cycles.
Typically, small incremental
increases in product efficiency produce
no, or only minor, changes in repair and
maintenance costs compared to baseline
efficiency products. For this NOPR
analysis, DOE estimated that for repair
costs, there is a cost difference between
an ENERGY STAR and non-ENERGY
STAR clothes washer of approximately
$44 for a front-loading and $32 for a toploading clothes washer, based on
information aggregated from
confidential manufacturer interviews.
For maintenance costs, DOE assumed
that there is no change with efficiency
level for RCWs.
DOE requests comment and
information on frequency of cleaning
cycles run per number of cycles used to
clean clothes and associated data as
compared to the recommendations in
the manufacturer’s use and care
manuals.
6. Product Lifetime
Product lifetime is the age at which an
appliance is retired from service.
Appliance magazine, a trade
publication, provides estimates of the
low, high, and average years of an
appliance’s lifetime.76 The estimates,
which are based on first-owner use of
the product, represent the judgment of
Appliance staff based on input obtained
from various sources. The average
lifetime estimate from Appliance
magazine is 11 years.
To determine estimates for RCW
lifetime, DOE conducted an analysis of
standard-capacity RCW lifetime in the
field based on a combination of
shipments data and data on the ages of
the clothes washer products reported in
the household stock from RECS
conducted in 2001, 2005, 2009, and
2015 data.77 DOE also used the U.S.
Census’s biennial AHS from 1974–2019,
which surveys all housing, noting the
76 Appliance Magazine. A Portrait of the U.S.
Appliance Industry: Market Share, Life Expectancy
& Replacement Market, and Saturation Levels.
2014.
77 U.S. Department of Energy—Energy
Information Administration, Residential Energy
Consumption Survey (‘‘RECS’’), Multiple Years
(1990, 1993, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2009, and 2015).
Available at www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/
.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
presence of a range of appliances.78 As
described in chapter 8 of the NOPR
TSD, the analysis yielded an estimate of
mean age for standard-capacity RCWs of
approximately 13.7 years. It also yielded
a survival function that DOE
incorporated as a probability
distribution in its LCC analysis. Because
the RECS data does not indicate
whether the clothes washer has a toploading or front-loading configuration,
DOE was not able to derive separate
lifetime estimates for these two loading
types. DOE did not receive any data or
analysis to support separate lifetime for
the different product classes.
DOE requests comment and
information on RCW lifetime.
See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for
further details on the method and
sources DOE used to develop product
lifetime.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
7. Discount Rates
In the calculation of LCC, DOE
applies discount rates appropriate to
RCWs to estimate the present value of
future operating cost savings. DOE
estimated a distribution of discount
rates for RCWs based on the opportunity
cost of consumer funds.
DOE applies weighted average
discount rates calculated from consumer
debt and asset data, rather than marginal
or implicit discount rates.79 The LCC
analysis estimates net present value
over the lifetime of the product, so the
appropriate discount rate will reflect the
general opportunity cost of household
funds, taking this time scale into
account. Given the long time horizon
modeled in the LCC analysis, the
application of a marginal interest rate
associated with an initial source of
funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the
method of purchase, consumers are
expected to continue to rebalance their
debt and asset holdings over the LCC
analysis period, based on the
78 U.S. Census Bureau: Housing and Household
Economic Statistics Division, American Housing
Survey, Multiple Years (1974, 1975, 1976, 1977,
1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1989,
1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005,
2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2019).
Available at www.census.gov/programs-surveys/
ahs/.
79 The implicit discount rate is inferred from a
consumer purchase decision between two otherwise
identical goods with different first cost and
operating cost. It is the interest rate that equates the
increment of first cost to the difference in net
present value of lifetime operating cost,
incorporating the influence of several factors:
transaction costs; risk premiums and response to
uncertainty; time preferences; interest rates at
which a consumer is able to borrow or lend. The
implicit discount rate is not appropriate for the LCC
analysis because it reflects a range of factors that
influence consumer purchase decisions, rather than
the opportunity cost of the funds that are used in
purchases.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
restrictions consumers face in their debt
payment requirements and the relative
size of the interest rates available on
debts and assets. DOE estimates the
aggregate impact of this rebalancing
using the historical distribution of debts
and assets.
To establish residential discount rates
for the LCC analysis, DOE identified all
relevant household debt or asset classes
in order to approximate a consumer’s
opportunity cost of funds related to
appliance energy cost savings. It
estimated the average percentage shares
of the various types of debt and equity
by household income group using data
from the Federal Reserve Board’s
triennial Survey of Consumer Finances
(‘‘SCF’’) starting in 1995 and ending in
2019.80 Using the SCF and other
sources, DOE developed a distribution
of rates for each type of debt and asset
by income group to represent the rates
that may apply in the year in which
amended standards would take effect.
DOE assigned each sample household a
specific discount rate drawn from one of
the distributions. The average rate
across all types of household debt and
equity and income groups, weighted by
the shares of each type, is 4.3 percent.
See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for
further details on the development of
consumer discount rates.
AHAM and GEA suggested that DOE
develop a more reasonable interest rate
distribution for the low-income group
that is closer to a credit card rate for this
group. (AHAM, No. 40 at p. 27; GEA,
No. 38 at p. 2)
DOE maintains that the interest rate
associated with the specific source of
funds (e.g., credit card) used to purchase
a clothes washer (i.e., the marginal rate)
is not the appropriate metric to measure
the discount rate as defined for the LCC
analysis. The marginal interest rate
alone would only be the relevant
discount rate if the consumer were
restricted from re-balancing their debt
and asset holdings (by redistributing
debts and assets based on the relative
interest rates available) over the entire
time period modeled in the LCC
analysis. The LCC is not analyzing a
marginal decision; rather, it estimates
net present value over the lifetime of the
product, therefore the discount rate
needs to reflect the opportunity cost of
both the money flowing in (through
operating cost savings) and out (through
upfront cost expenditures) of the net
present value calculation. In the context
of the LCC analysis, the consumer is not
80 The Federal Reserve Board, Survey of
Consumer Finances (1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007,
2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019). Available at:
www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scfindex.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13567
only discounting based on their
opportunity cost of money spent today,
they are also discounting the stream of
future benefits. A consumer might pay
for an appliance with cash, thereby
forgoing investment of those funds into
one of the interest earning assets to
which they might have access.
Alternatively, a consumer might pay for
the initial purchase by going into debt,
subject to the cost of capital at the
interest rate relevant for that purchase.
However, a consumer will also receive
a stream of future benefits in terms of
annual operating cost savings that they
could either put towards paying off that
or other debts, or towards assets,
depending on the restrictions they face
in their debt payment requirements and
the relative size of the interest rates on
their debts and assets. All of these
interest rates are relevant in the context
of the LCC analysis, as they all reflect
direct costs of borrowing, or opportunity
costs of money either now or in the
future. Additionally, while a clothes
washer itself is not a readily tradable
commodity, the money used to purchase
it and the annual operating cost savings
accruing to it over time flow from and
to a household’s pool of debt and assets,
including mortgages, mutual funds,
money market accounts, etc. Therefore,
the weighted-average interest rate on
debts and assets provides a reasonable
estimate for a household’s opportunity
cost (and discount rate) relevant to
future costs and savings. DOE maintains
that the best proxy for this reoptimization of debt and asset holdings
over the lifetime of the LCC analysis is
to assume that the distribution of debts
and assets in the future will be
proportional to the distribution of debts
and assets historically. Given the long
time horizon modeled in the LCC, the
application of a marginal rate alone
would be inaccurate. DOE’s
methodology for deriving residential
discount rates is in line with the
weighted-average cost of capital used to
estimate commercial discount rates. For
these reasons, DOE is maintaining its
existing approach to discount rates.
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the
No-New-Standards Case
To accurately estimate the share of
consumers that would be affected by a
potential energy conservation standard
at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s
LCC analysis considered the projected
distribution (market shares) of product
efficiencies under the no-new-standards
case (i.e., the case without amended or
new energy conservation standards).
To estimate the energy efficiency
distribution of top-loading standardsize, front-loading compact and
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13568
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
such as ENERGY STAR on RCWs. DOE
estimated an annual efficiency
improvement of 0.4 and 0.1 percent for
top-loading standard-size and frontloading (compact and standard-size)
clothes washers, respectively. For semiautomatic clothes washers, DOE used
the CCD database to develop a product
standard-size RCWs for 2027, DOE used
shipments-weighted energy efficiency
ratio (‘‘SWEER’’) for 2020 as a starting
point, based on the information
provided by AHAM. (AHAM, No. 54 at
pp. 2–3) To project the trend in
efficiency, DOE considered recent
trends in DOE’s RCW CCD and the
potential effect of labeling programs
efficiency distribution under the nonew-standards case.
The estimated market shares for the
no-new-standards case for RCWs are
shown in Table IV.32 and Table IV.33.
See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for
further information on the derivation of
the efficiency distributions.
TABLE IV.32—NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE MARKET SHARE IN 2027: SEMI-AUTOMATIC AND TOP-LOADING RESIDENTIAL
CLOTHES WASHERS
Semi-automatic
Top-loading, ultra-compact
Top-loading, standard-size
Efficiency level
EER
(lb/kWh/
cycle)
WER
(lb/gal/
cycle)
Share
(%)
EER
(lb/kWh/
cycle)
WER
(lb/gal/
cycle)
Share
(%)
EER
(lb/kWh/
cycle)
Baseline .............
1 ........................
2 ........................
3 ........................
4 ........................
1.60
2.12
2.51
......................
......................
0.17
0.27
0.36
......................
......................
21.0
71.0
8.0
......................
......................
3.79
......................
......................
......................
......................
0.29
......................
......................
......................
......................
100
......................
......................
......................
......................
WER
(lb/gal/
cycle)
3.50
3.89
4.27
4.78
5.37
Share
(%)
0.38
0.47
0.57
0.63
0.67
61.0
5.9
27.4
4.7
1.0
TABLE IV.33—NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE MARKET SHARE IN 2027: FRONT-LOADING RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
Front-loading, compact
Efficiency level
EER
(lb/kWh/cycle)
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Baseline .............
1 .........................
2 .........................
3 .........................
4 .........................
WER
(lb/gal/cycle)
4.41
4.80
5.02
5.53
5.97
0.53
0.62
0.71
0.75
0.80
The LCC Monte Carlo simulations
draw from the efficiency distributions
and randomly assign an efficiency to the
RCW purchased by each sample
household in the no-new-standards
case. The resulting percent shares
within the sample match the market
shares in the efficiency distributions.
AHAM objected to DOE’s use of
random assignment of RECS households
to baseline and higher efficiency levels,
which assumes that consumers are
agnostic to energy costs. AHAM stated
that it is very unlikely that consumers
with very high potential LCC savings
would not have already decided to
purchase a more efficient washer (i.e., in
the no-new-standards case), and DOE’s
assumption that these consumers are
indifferent to operating costs appears
contrary to common sense and
experience in the retail field. AHAM
stated that the most appropriate solution
is to have a much more robust consumer
choice theory. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp.
18–20)
While DOE acknowledges that
economic factors may play a role when
consumers decide on what type of
clothes washer to install, assignment of
clothes washer efficiency for a given
installation based solely on economic
measures such as life-cycle cost or
simple payback period most likely
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
Front-loading, standard-size
Share
(%)
EER
(lb/kWh/cycle)
0.0
38.7
45.8
14.5
1.0
5.02
5.31
5.52
5.73
5.97
would not fully and accurately reflect
actual real-world installations. There are
a number of market failures discussed in
the economics literature that illustrate
how purchasing decisions with respect
to energy efficiency are unlikely to be
perfectly correlated with energy use, as
described further down. DOE maintains
that the method of assignment is a
reasonable approach and one that
simulates behavior in the clothes
washer market, where market failures
result in purchasing decisions not being
perfectly aligned with economic
interests, more realistically than relying
only on apparent cost-effectiveness
criteria derived from the information in
RECS. DOE further emphasizes that its
approach does not assume that all
purchasers of clothes washers make
economically irrational decisions (i.e.,
the lack of a correlation is not the same
as a negative correlation). By using this
approach, DOE acknowledges the
uncertainty inherent in the data and
minimizes any bias in the analysis by
using random assignment, as opposed to
assuming certain market conditions that
are unsupported given the available
evidence.
First, consumers are motivated by
more than simple financial trade-offs.
There are consumers who are willing to
pay a premium for more energy-efficient
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
WER
(lb/gal/cycle)
Share
(%)
0.64
0.69
0.77
0.77
0.85
2.0
5.6
44.1
40.1
8.2
products because they are
environmentally conscious.81 There are
also several behavioral factors that can
influence the purchasing decisions of
complicated multi-attribute products,
such as clothes washers. For example,
consumers (or decision makers in an
organization) are highly influenced by
choice architecture, defined as the
framing of the decision, the surrounding
circumstances of the purchase, the
alternatives available, and how they are
presented for any given choice
scenario.82 The same consumer or
decision maker may make different
choices depending on the characteristics
of the decision context (e.g., the timing
of the purchase, competing demands for
funds), which have nothing to do with
the characteristics of the alternatives
themselves or their prices. Consumers
or decision makers also face a variety of
other behavioral phenomena including
81 Ward, D.O., Clark, C.D., Jensen, K.L., Yen, S.T.,
& Russell, C.S. (2011): ‘‘Factors influencing
willingness-to pay for the ENERGY STAR® label,’’
Energy Policy, 39(3), 1450–1458. Available at
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/
S0301421510009171 (last accessed Feb. 15, 2022).
82 Ward, D.O., Clark, C.D., Jensen, K.L., Yen, S.T.,
& Russell, C.S. (2011): ‘‘Factors influencing
willingness-to pay for the ENERGY STAR® label,’’
Energy Policy, 39(3), 1450–1458. Available at
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/
S0301421510009171) (last accessed Feb. 15, 2022).
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
loss aversion, sensitivity to information
salience, and other forms of bounded
rationality. Richard Thaler, who won
the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2017
for his contributions to behavioral
economics, and Cass Sunstein point out
that these behavioral factors are
strongest when the decisions are
complex and infrequent, when feedback
on the decision is muted and slow, and
when there is a high degree of
information asymmetry.83 These
characteristics describe almost all
purchasing situations of appliances and
equipment, including RCWs. The
installation of a new or replacement
clothes washer is done very
infrequently, as evidenced by the mean
lifetime of 13.7 years. Additionally, it
would take at least a few months for any
impacts on operating costs to be fully
apparent. Further, if the purchaser of
the clothes washer is not the entity
paying the energy costs (e.g., a tenant),
there may be little to no feedback on the
purchase. Additionally, there are
systematic market failures that are likely
to contribute further complexity to how
products are chosen by consumers, as
explained in the following paragraphs.
The first of these market failures is the
split-incentive or principal-agent
problem. The principal-agent problem is
a market failure that results when the
consumer that purchases the equipment
does not internalize all of the costs
associated with operating the
equipment. Instead, the user of the
product, who has no control over the
purchase decision, pays the operating
costs. There is a high likelihood of splitincentive problems in the case of rental
properties where the landlord makes the
choice of what clothes washer to install,
whereas the renter is responsible for
paying energy bills. In addition to the
split-incentive or principal-agent
problem, there are other market failures
that are likely to affect the choice of
clothes washer efficiency made by
consumers. Lucas Davis and Gilbert
Metcalf 84 conducted an experiment
demonstrating that the nature of the
information available to consumers from
EnergyGuide labels posted on air
conditioning equipment results in an
inefficient allocation of energy
efficiency across households with
different usage levels. Their findings
83 Thaler, R.H., and Sunstein, C.R. (2008). Nudge:
Improving Decisions on Health, Wealth, and
Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
84 Davis, L.W., and G.E. Metcalf (2016): ‘‘Does
better information lead to better choices? Evidence
from energy-efficiency labels,’’ Journal of the
Association of Environmental and Resource
Economists, 3(3), 589–625. (Available at:
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/
686252) (Last accessed Feb. 15, 2022).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
indicate that households are likely to
make decisions regarding the efficiency
of the climate control equipment of their
homes that are not economically
optimal relative to how they utilize the
equipment (i.e., their decision is based
on imperfect information and, therefore,
is not necessarily optimal).
In part because of the way
information is presented, and in part
because of the way consumers process
information, there is also a market
failure consisting of a systematic bias in
the perception of equipment energy
usage, which can affect consumer
choices.
These market failures affect a sizeable
share of the consumer population. A
study by Houde 85 indicates that there is
a significant subset of consumers that
appear to purchase appliances without
taking into account their energy
efficiency and operating costs at all.
The existence of market failures in the
residential sector is well supported by
the economics literature and by a
number of case studies. If DOE
developed an efficiency distribution
that assigned clothes washer efficiency
in the no-new-standards case solely
according to energy and water use or
economic considerations such as lifecycle cost or payback period, the
resulting distribution of efficiencies
within the household sample would not
reflect any of the market failures or
behavioral factors above. DOE thus
concludes such a distribution would not
be representative of the clothes washer
market. Further, even if a specific
household is not subject to the market
failures above, the purchasing decision
of clothes washer efficiency can be
highly complex and influenced by
several factors not captured by the
information available in the RECS
samples. These factors can lead to
household owners choosing a clothes
washer efficiency that deviates from the
efficiency predicted using only energy
and water use or economic
considerations (as calculated using the
information from RECS 2015). However,
DOE intends to investigate this issue
further, and it welcomes suggestions as
to how it might improve its assignment
of clothes washer efficiency in its
analyses.
9. Payback Period Analysis
The payback period is the amount of
time (expressed in years) it takes the
consumer to recover the additional
85 Houde, S. (2018): ‘‘How Consumers Respond to
Environmental Certification and the Value of
Energy Information,’’ The RAND Journal of
Economics, 49 (2), 453–477 Available at
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/17562171.12231 (Last accessed Feb. 15, 2022).
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13569
installed cost of more-efficient products,
compared to baseline products, through
energy cost savings. Payback periods
that exceed the life of the product mean
that the increased total installed cost is
not recovered in reduced operating
expenses.
The inputs to the PBP calculation for
each efficiency level are the change in
total installed cost of the product and
the change in the first-year annual
operating expenditures relative to the
baseline. DOE refers to this as a ‘‘simple
PBP’’ because it does not consider
changes over time in operating cost
savings. The PBP calculation uses the
same inputs as the LCC analysis when
deriving first-year operating costs.
As noted previously, EPCA
establishes a rebuttable presumption
that a standard is economically justified
if the Secretary finds that the additional
cost to the consumer of purchasing a
product complying with an energy
conservation standard level will be less
than three times the value of the first
year’s energy savings resulting from the
standard, as calculated under the
applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered
efficiency level, DOE determined the
value of the first year’s energy savings
by calculating the energy savings in
accordance with the applicable DOE test
procedure, and multiplying those
savings by the average energy price
projection for the year in which
compliance with the amended standards
would be required.
10. Other Issues
Fraas cited a case study of DOE’s 2001
RCW standards.86 Fraas stated that this
case study identified several issues that
would result in lower cost saving
estimates than projected in DOE’s ex
ante analyses. These included: (1)
reduced product reliability and life; (2)
additional operation and maintenance
costs; and (3) overstatement of clothes
washer usage relative to DOE’s ex ante
analysis. Fraas added that the case study
illustrated the sensitivity of DOE’s life
cycle analysis to different usage and
product life assumptions and showed
that DOE could have improved its
analysis by developing distributions for
key components of its analysis. Finally,
Fraas urged DOE to conduct a
retrospective analysis of its existing
standards as part of the rulemaking
process, including collection of
extensive data on usage, reliability, and
life, to provide a basis for assessing
86 The final rule establishing these standards was
published on January 12, 2001. 66 FR 3313.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
13570
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
prospective energy conservation
standards. (Fraas, No. 35 at pp. 1–2)
DOE has reviewed Fraas & Miller
2020 and identified several fundamental
misunderstandings in the paper with
respect to the 2001 RCW rulemaking
and standard (with compliance dates of
2004 and 2007). Specifically, the paper
takes as a premise that the standards
finalized in 2001 forced consumers to
adopt front-loading clothes washers.
This is fundamentally incorrect. DOE
established separate product classes and
standards for front-loading and toploading clothes washers. While the 2001
standard set the same efficiency level
for both of these classes, DOE noted in
the final rule that there were both topand front-loading clothes washers in the
market at all of the efficiency levels
prescribed in the final rule and that all
efficiency levels were technologically
feasible for both top- and front-loading
clothes washers. (January 12, 2021; 66
FR 3314, 3318.) Therefore,
manufacturers were able to choose how
to invest in meeting standards across
top-loading and front-loading models.
Top-loading clothes washers continue to
be available for purchase today and
consumers may choose them if they
wish. While there have been changes to
top-loading clothes washer market share
over time, today they have a market
share greater than 70%.
With regard to reduced product
reliability, the paper attempts to
establish a causal link between
regulation and litigation that they claim
is evidence of reduced product
reliability. However, all litigation
evidence presented in the paper would
apply to both baseline (pre-standards)
and more efficient front-loading clothes
washers, and there is no causal
connection to regulation. The paper
ignores past and parallel trends in
litigation in the market for both the
same products, and other, similar
products. Additionally, there is no
counter-factual argument.
With regard to reduced product life,
the paper questions the estimates used
in DOE’s lifetime analyses, but
compares lifetime estimates spanning 23
years. DOE’s lifetime estimates are
always based on the best available data
at the time, and were reviewed by
stakeholders before publishing the final
rule. In the follow-up rulemaking,
culminating in the May 2012 Final Rule,
DOE performed a statistical analysis of
historical shipments data and RECS
2005, which resulted in a lifetime
estimate consistent with DOE’s prior
lifetime estimate. 10 CFR 430.32. This
lifetime methodology is peer-reviewed.
The argument with respect to
additional operation and maintenance
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
costs also ignores product class
differentiation. Baseline front-loading
units would have the same
considerations, and therefore the
incremental repair rate and operation
and maintenance costs of higher
efficiency units are the relevant
parameters for DOE’s analyses; these are
typically negligible.
With respect to the possible
overstatement of clothes washer usage
relative to DOE’s ex ante analysis, DOE
again notes that its assumptions are
based on the latest available data at the
time of the rulemaking, particularly
RECS. For the 2012 rulemaking, the
average number of loads per year in the
analysis decreased, in line with RECS
2005 results compared to RECS 1993.87
Consumer behavior can indeed evolve
over time.
Regarding the point that DOE could
have improved its analysis by
developing distributions for key
components of its analysis, DOE notes
that in the current rulemaking, lifetime,
usage, energy consumption, and
discount rates, among other things, are
all characterized by distributions.
With respect to the recommendation
to conduct a retrospective analysis as
part of this rulemaking, DOE
acknowledges that parameters such as
lifetime and product usage can change
over time. In this rulemaking, DOE uses
the best available data to develop new
estimates of such parameters. To the
extent that the estimates have changed
over time, this is not evidence that DOE
could have made a better assumption in
the previous rulemakings, as it was
relying on the best available data at that
time, and the difference between
estimates in two years would not be
sufficient to make adjustments to
estimates in future years.
For all of the previous reasons, DOE
is not making any methodology changes
to its analyses, but it updated inputs
based on data availability including
repair and maintenance costs, energy
and water usage, product lifetime, and
product efficiency distribution.
G. Shipments Analysis
DOE uses projections of annual
product shipments to calculate the
national impacts of potential amended
energy conservation standards on
energy use, NPV, and future
manufacturer cash flows.88 The
87 Department of Energy—Energy Information
Administration, Residential Energy Consumption
Survey, 1993 and 2005. Available at www.eia.gov/
consumption/residential/.
88 DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as
a proxy for national sales, as aggregate data on sales
are lacking. In general one would expect a close
correspondence between shipments and sales.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
shipments model takes an accounting
approach, tracking market shares of
each product class and the vintage of
units in the stock. Stock accounting uses
product shipments as inputs to estimate
the age distribution of in-service
product stocks for all years. The age
distribution of in-service product stocks
is a key input to calculations of both the
NES and NPV, because operating costs
for any year depend on the age
distribution of the stock.
To project RCW shipments under the
no-new-standards case, DOE utilized
historical shipments data from AHAM.
DOE estimated RCW shipments by
projecting shipments into two market
segments: (1) replacement of existing
RCWs; (2) new housings.
To project RCW replacement
shipments, DOE developed retirement
functions from RCW lifetime estimates
and applied them to the existing
products in the housing stock, which
are tracked by vintage. To estimate
shipments to new housings, DOE used
projections of new housing starts
coupled with RCWs’ saturation data. In
other words, to project the shipments
for new housings for any given year,
DOE multiplied the housing projections
by the estimated saturation of RCWs for
new housing units. For new housing
completions and mobile home
placements, DOE used recorded data
through 2020,89 and adopted the
projections from AEO2022 for 2021–
2050. DOE used the data contained in
the 2015 RECS to characterize
ownership of RCWs in households
across various housing types, including
multi-family housing.
DOE then aggregated the above two
market segments for any given year
during the analysis period (2027–2056)
and divided total RCW shipments into
its five product classes. For this NOPR,
DOE estimated the market share
between top-loading and front-loading
clothes washers would remain at the
current level based on the historical
shipments data by washer loading type
(2004–2021) provided by AHAM.
(AHAM, No. 40, at p. 11) DOE estimated
market share for top-loading and frontloading clothes washers would remain
at 75 percent and 25 percent,
respectively. DOE then disaggregated
top-loading clothes washer market share
into three product classes (i.e., semiautomatic, ultra-compact, and standardsize) and front-loading into two product
classes (i.e., compact and standard-size).
In addition, DOE assumed annual
growth rate for semi-automatic and toploading ultra-compact clothes washers
89 U.S. Census. Characteristics of New Housing.
Available at www.census.gov/construction/chars/.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13571
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
would be at 0.2 percent. Table IV.34
shows the estimated market share and
shipments for each product class.
TABLE IV.34—MARKET SHARE AND SHIPMENTS BY PRODUCT CLASS IN 2027
Market share
(%)
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Product class
Shipments
(million)
Semi-Automatic ........................................................................................................................................................
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact ...................................................................................................................................
Top-Loading, Standard-Size ....................................................................................................................................
Front-Loading, Compact ..........................................................................................................................................
Front-Loading, Standard-Size ..................................................................................................................................
1.6
0.5
72.9
1.6
23.4
0.16
0.05
7.54
0.16
2.42
Total ..................................................................................................................................................................
100
10.35
DOE seeks comment on the approach
and inputs used to develop no-new
standards case shipments projection and
market share for each product class.
To project RCW shipments under a
standards-case, DOE used a price
elasticity parameter, which relates the
incremental total installed cost to total
RCW shipments, and an efficiency
elasticity parameter, which relates the
change in the operating cost to RCW
shipments. Both types of elasticity relate
changes in demand to changes in the
corresponding characteristic (price or
efficiency). A regression analysis
estimated these terms separately from
each other and found that the price
elasticity of demand for several
appliances is on average ¥0.45.90 Thus,
for example, a price increase of 10
percent would result in a shipments
decrease of 4.5 percent, all other factors
held constant. The same regression
analysis found that the efficiency
elasticity is estimated to be on average
0.2 (i.e., a 10-percent efficiency
improvement, equivalent to a 10-percent
decrease in operating costs, would
result in a shipments increase of 2
percent, all else being equal).
DOE assumed when market impact
occurs, i.e., when shipments drop under
a standards-case, the affected consumers
would repair their product rather than
replace it. Under this method, DOE does
not assume that consumers completely
forgo the use of the product. The model
instead assumes about the length of time
that the life of the product is extended.
This market impact is thus effectively
applied to the repair or replacement
decision. The second-hand market for
used appliances is a potential
alternative to consumers purchasing a
new unit or repairing a broken unit. An
increase in the purchases of older, lessefficient second-hand units due to a
90 Fujita, S., Estimating Price Elasticity using
Market-Level Appliance Data. LBNL–188289
(August 2015). Available at: etapublications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/lbnl188289.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
price increase resulting from a more
stringent standard could potentially
decrease projected energy savings. DOE
assumed that purchases on the secondhand market would not change
significantly due to the proposed
standard level and did not include their
impact on product shipments.
DOE requests data on the market size
and typical selling price of units sold
through the second-hand market for
residential clothes washers.
ASAP et al. encouraged DOE to more
thoroughly model market shifts under
standards implementations. ASAP et al.
commented that in the September 2021
Preliminary TSD, DOE’s logistic
regression model that captured the
relationship between the market share
of front- and top-loading clothes
washers, their prices, and their energy
usage indicates that the front-loading
market share is negatively correlated
with top-loading price and energy
usage. ASAP et al. therefore commented
that the model predicts that the frontloading market share will decrease if
higher standards are implemented for
both top- and front-loading clothes
washers. However, ASAP et al. noted
that the estimated average price
difference between front-loading and
top-loading clothes washers is $323 at
the baseline versus only $186 at EL 4.
ASAP et al. stated that it is plausible
that increasing standards could move
the market towards, rather than away
from, front-loading clothes washers.
ASAP et al. therefore suggested that
DOE should analyze how estimated first
costs for each product class may affect
market share projections. (ASAP et al.,
No. 37 at pp. 4–5)
The consumer choice model
developed under the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis lacked historical
retail pricing, sales data, and clothes
washer energy use data necessary for
DOE to project market share between
front-loading and top-loading RCWs,
directly using their first cost and sales
data as suggested by ASAP et al. DOE
explored a method, but the regression
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
statistic results indicate a low Rsquared, which means the predicted
model would not fit with the historical
market share data. Recent historical
shipments data presented by AHAM
(AHAM, No. 40, at p. 11) indicate that
the proportion of front-loading clothes
washers compared to total clothes
washer shipments appears to have
leveled off. Therefore, for this NOPR
analysis, DOE used a frozen scenario for
market shifting (e.g., no market shifting)
under the standards case.
For details on the shipments analysis,
see chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD.
H. National Impact Analysis
The NIA assesses the national energy
savings (NES), national water savings
(NWS), and the NPV from a national
perspective of total consumer costs and
savings that would be expected to result
from new or amended standards at
specific efficiency levels. (‘‘Consumer’’
in this context refers to consumers of
the product being regulated.) DOE
calculates the NES, NWS, and NPV for
the potential standard levels considered
based on projections of annual product
shipments, along with the annual
energy and water consumption and total
installed cost data from the energy and
water use and LCC analyses. For the
present analysis, DOE projected the
energy and water savings, operating cost
savings, product costs, and NPV of
consumer benefits over the lifetime of
RCWs sold from 2027 through 2056.
DOE evaluates the impacts of
amended standards by comparing a case
without such standards with standardscase projections. The no-new-standards
case characterizes energy use and
consumer costs for each product class in
the absence of new or amended energy
conservation standards. For this
projection, DOE considers historical
trends in efficiency and various forces
that are likely to affect the mix of
efficiencies over time. DOE compares
the no-new-standards case with
projections characterizing the market for
each product class if DOE adopted
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13572
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
amended standards at specific energy
efficiency levels (i.e., the TSLs or
standards cases) for that class. For the
standards cases, DOE considers how a
given standard would likely affect the
market shares of products with
efficiencies greater than the standard.
DOE uses a spreadsheet model to
calculate the energy and water savings
and the national consumer costs and
savings from each TSL. Interested
parties can review DOE’s analyses by
changing various input quantities
within the spreadsheet. The NIA
spreadsheet model uses typical values
(as opposed to probability distributions)
as inputs.
Table IV.35 summarizes the inputs
and methods DOE used for the NIA
analysis for the NOPR. Discussion of
these inputs and methods follows the
table. See chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD
for further details.
TABLE IV.35—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Inputs
Method
Shipments .......................................
Compliance Date of Standard ........
Efficiency Trends ............................
Annual shipments from shipments model.
2027.
No-new-standards case: Annual shipments-weighted efficiency improvement of 0.4 percent for top-loading
standard-size and 0.1 percent for both front-loading compact and standard-size clothes washers.
Standards cases: ‘‘Roll up’’ equipment to meet potential efficiency level.
Annual weighted-average values are a function of energy and water use at each TSL.
Annual Energy and Water Consumption per Unit.
Total Installed Cost per Unit ...........
Annual Energy and Water Cost per
Unit.
Repair and Maintenance Cost per
Unit.
Energy and Water Price Trends .....
Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC
Conversion.
Discount Rate .................................
Present Year ...................................
Annual weighted-average values are a function of cost at each TSL. Incorporates projection of future product prices based on historical data.
Annual weighted-average values as a function of the annual energy and water consumption per unit and
energy and water prices.
Annual values change between non-ENERGY STAR and ENERGY STAR efficiency levels.
AEO2022 projections (to 2050) and constant value based on average between 2046–2050 thereafter. Historical PPI extrapolated projection (to 2050) and constant value based on average between 2046–2050
thereafter.
A time-series conversion factor based on AEO2022.
3 percent and 7 percent.
2022.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Product Efficiency Trends
A key component of the NIA is the
trend in energy efficiency projected for
the no-new-standards case and each of
the standards cases. Section IV.F.8 of
this document describes how DOE
developed an energy efficiency
distribution for the no-new-standards
case (which yields a shipment-weighted
average efficiency) for each of the
considered product classes for the year
of anticipated compliance with an
amended standard. To project the trend
in efficiency absent amended standards
for RCWs over the entire shipments
projection period, DOE considered
recent trends in DOE’s CCD data and the
potential effect of programs such as
ENERGY STAR. As discussed in section
IV.F.8 of this document, DOE estimated
an annual efficiency improvement of 0.4
and 0.1 percent for top-loading
standard-size and front-loading
(compact and standard-size) clothes
washers, respectively.
For the standards cases, DOE used a
‘‘roll-up’’ scenario to establish the
shipment-weighted efficiency for the
year that standards are assumed to
become effective (2027). In this
scenario, the market shares of products
in the no-new-standards case that do not
meet the standard under consideration
would ‘‘roll up’’ to meet the new
standard level, and the market share of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
products above the standard would
remain unchanged.
2. National Energy and Water Savings
The national energy and water savings
analysis involves a comparison of
national energy and water consumption
of the considered products between
each potential standards case (or TSL)
and the case with no amended energy
conservation standards. DOE calculated
the national energy and water
consumption by multiplying the
number of units (stock) of each product
(by vintage or age) by the unit energy
and water consumption (also by
vintage). DOE calculated annual NES
and NWS based on the difference in
national energy and water consumption
for the no-new standards case and for
each higher efficiency standard case.
DOE estimated energy consumption and
savings based on site energy and
converted the electricity consumption
and savings to primary energy (i.e., the
energy consumed by power plants to
generate site electricity) using annual
conversion factors derived from
AEO2022. Cumulative energy and water
savings are the sum of the NES and
NWS for each year over the timeframe
of the analysis.
Use of higher-efficiency products is
sometimes associated with a direct
rebound effect, which refers to an
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
increase in utilization of the product
due to the increase in efficiency. As
described in section IV.E.2, DOE did not
find any data on the rebound effect
specific to RCWs and did not apply a
rebound effect.
In 2011, in response to the
recommendations of a committee on
‘‘Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle
Measurement Approaches to Energy
Efficiency Standards’’ appointed by the
NAS, DOE announced its intention to
use FFC measures of energy use and
greenhouse gas and other emissions in
the national impact analyses and
emissions analyses included in future
energy conservation standards
rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18,
2011). After evaluating the approaches
discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice,
DOE published a statement of amended
policy in which DOE explained its
determination that EIA’s National
Energy Modeling System (‘‘NEMS’’) is
the most appropriate tool for its FFC
analysis and its intention to use NEMS
for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17,
2012). NEMS is a public domain, multisector, partial equilibrium model of the
U.S. energy sector 91 that EIA uses to
91 For more information on NEMS, refer to The
National Energy Modeling System: An Overview
2009, DOE/EIA–0581(2009), October 2009.
Available at www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/nems/
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
prepare its Annual Energy Outlook. The
FFC factors incorporate losses in
production and delivery in the case of
natural gas (including fugitive
emissions) and additional energy used
to produce and deliver the various fuels
used by power plants. The approach
used for deriving FFC measures of
energy use and emissions is described
in appendix 10B and 13A of the NOPR
TSD.
3. Net Present Value Analysis
The inputs for determining the NPV
of the total costs and benefits
experienced by consumers are (1) total
annual installed cost, (2) total annual
operating costs (energy and water costs
and repair and maintenance costs), and
(3) a discount factor to calculate the
present value of costs and savings. DOE
calculates net savings each year as the
difference between the no-newstandards case and each standards case
in terms of total savings in operating
costs versus total increases in installed
costs. DOE calculates operating cost
savings over the lifetime of each product
shipped during the projection period.
As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this
document, DOE developed RCW price
trends based on historical PPI data. DOE
applied the same trends to project prices
for each product class at each
considered efficiency level. By 2056,
which is the end date of the projection
period, the average RCW price is
projected to drop 14.4 percent relative
to 2021. DOE’s projection of product
prices is described in appendix 10C of
the NOPR TSD.
To evaluate the effect of uncertainty
regarding the price trend estimates, DOE
investigated the impact of different
product price projections on the
consumer NPV for the considered TSLs
for RCWs. In addition to the default
price trend, DOE considered two
product price sensitivity cases: (1) a
high price decline case based on PPI
data for the period 1980–2021 and (2) a
low price decline case based on PPI data
for the period 1948–1979. The
derivation of these price trends and the
results of these sensitivity cases are
described in appendix 10C of the NOPR
TSD.
The energy and water cost savings are
calculated using the estimated energy
and water savings in each year and the
projected price of the appropriate form
of energy and water. To estimate energy
prices in future years, DOE multiplied
the average regional energy prices by the
projection of annual national-average
residential energy price changes in the
documentation/archive/pdf/0581(2009).pdf. (last
accessed June 12, 2022).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
Reference case from AEO2022, which
has an end year of 2050. To estimate
price trends after 2050, the 2046–2050
average was used for all years. To
estimate water prices in future years,
DOE multiplied the average national
water prices by the projection of annual
national-average residential water price
changes in the extrapolated future water
price trend, which is based on the
historical water price index from 1988
to 2021. To estimate price trends after
2050, DOE used a constant value
derived from the average values from
2046 through 2050. As part of the NIA,
DOE also analyzed scenarios that used
inputs from variants of the AEO2022
Reference case that have lower and
higher economic growth. Those cases
have lower and higher energy price
trends compared to the Reference case.
NIA results based on these cases are
presented in appendix 10C of the NOPR
TSD.
In calculating the NPV, DOE
multiplies the net savings in future
years by a discount factor to determine
their present value. For this NOPR, DOE
estimated the NPV of consumer benefits
using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent
real discount rate. DOE uses these
discount rates in accordance with
guidance provided by the Office of
Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) to
Federal agencies on the development of
regulatory analysis.92 The discount rates
for the determination of NPV are in
contrast to the discount rates used in the
LCC analysis, which are designed to
reflect a consumer’s perspective. The 7percent real value is an estimate of the
average before-tax rate of return to
private capital in the U.S. economy. The
3-percent real value represents the
‘‘social rate of time preference,’’ which
is the rate at which society discounts
future consumption flows to their
present value.
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
In analyzing the potential impact of
new or amended energy conservation
standards on consumers, DOE evaluates
the impact on identifiable subgroups of
consumers that may be
disproportionately affected by a new or
amended national standard. The
purpose of a subgroup analysis is to
determine the extent of any such
disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates
impacts on particular subgroups of
consumers by analyzing the LCC
impacts and PBP for those particular
consumers from alternative standard
92 United States Office of Management and
Budget. Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis.
September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_
a004_a-4/ (last accessed June 12, 2022).
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13573
levels. For this NOPR, DOE analyzed the
impacts of the considered standard
levels on two subgroups: (1) low-income
households and (2) senior-only
households. The analysis used subsets
of the 2015 RECS sample composed of
households that meet the criteria for the
two subgroups. DOE used the LCC and
PBP spreadsheet model to estimate the
impacts of the considered efficiency
levels on these subgroups. The sections
below discuss the individual subgroups,
and additional details are found in
chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD.
1. Low-Income Households
Low-income households are
significantly more likely to be renters or
to live in subsidized housing units,
compared to households that are not
low-income. In these cases, the landlord
purchases the equipment and may pay
the energy bill as well.
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE
consider adjustments to its consumer
subgroup analysis by creating a lowincome renter subgroup. The CA IOUs
commented that it is more likely that
the incremental clothes washer
purchase costs to the average lowincome household would be paid by a
landlord and passed along to the lowincome household across multiple
months, such that the benefits of lower
energy and water costs would offset the
incremental cost increases of higher
efficiency products. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at
pp. 1–2)
NYSERDA recommended that DOE
conduct additional analysis on the
implications to renters as part of its lowincome consumer subgroup assessment.
NYSERDA noted that within lowincome households, there are important
distinctions between renters and
owners, and renters often bearing the
operational costs of energy and water
with limited input on the choice of
products. (NYSERDA, No. 36 at p. 2)
For this NOPR analysis, DOE divided
low-income households into three subsubgroups: (1) renters who pay energy
bill; (2) renters who do not pay energy
bill; and (3) homeowners. The 2015
RECS includes data on whether a
household pays for the energy bill,
allowing DOE to categorize households
in the analysis narrowly,93 excluding
any costs or benefits that are accrued by
either a landlord or subsidized housing
agency. This allows DOE to determine
whether low-income households are
disproportionately affected by an
amended energy conservation standard
in a more accurate manner. Table IV.36
shows the distribution of low-income
93 The energy bill includes fuel type of electricity,
natural gas, or propane consumed by a household.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13574
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
household clothes washer users with
respect to whether they rent or own and
whether they pay the energy bill.
respect to whether they rent or own and
whether they pay the energy bill.
TABLE IV—36 CHARACTERIZATION OF LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN THE SAMPLE FOR CLOTHES WASHERS
Percentage of low-income sample
Top-loading,
standardsize
(%)
Type of household *
Renters (Pay for Energy Bill) ** ..........
Renters (Do Not Pay for Energy
Bill) **.
Owners ................................................
Impact of higher
efficiency
on energy
bill
Impact of
first cost
increase
Front-loading,
standardsize
(%)
Semi-automatic,
top-loading,
Ultra-compact
(%)
Front-loading,
compact
(%)
37
5
28
4
50
11
41
14
Full/Partial savings
None .....................
None.***
None.***
58
69
39
46
Full/Partial savings
Full.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
* RECS 2015 lists three categories: (1) Owned or being bought by someone in your household (here classified as ‘‘Owners’’ in this table); (2)
Rented (here classified as ‘‘Renters’’ in this table); (3) Occupied without payment of rent (also classified as ‘‘Renters’’ in this table). Renters include occupants in subsidized housing including public housing, subsidized housing in private properties, and other households that do not pay
rent. RECS 2015 does not distinguish homes in subsidized or public housing.
** RECS 2015 lists four categories for each of the fuels used by a household: (1) Household is responsible for paying for all used in this home;
(2) All used in this home is included in the rent or condo fee; (3) Some is paid by the household, some is included in the rent or condo fee; and
4) Paid for some other way. ‘‘Do Not Pay for Energy Bill’’ includes only category (2). Partial energy bill savings would occur in cases of category
(3).
*** Low-income renters typically do not purchase a clothes washer. Therefore, it is unclear if the renters would be asked to pay the full or partial of the total installed cost. As a result, DOE estimated there would be no impact of first cost increase for low-income renters and occupants in
public housing and other households that do not pay rent.
AHAM commented that increased
efficiency standards would eliminate
the lowest priced top-loading RCWs,
which would have a disproportionate,
negative impact on low-income
households. AHAM added that, while
low-income consumers would receive
payback over time due to savings on
utility bills, these consumers are
unlikely to have the extra funds to pay
for a more efficient, but more expensive
RCW. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 12–13)
Whirlpool expressed concern about
the impacts of amended standards on
low-income consumers and believe that
amended standards for clothes washers
could have potentially devastating
impacts on racial and economic equity.
Whirlpool commented that any increase
to purchase cost driven by amended
standards may be difficult or impossible
for many low-income households to
accept and may further widen the equity
gap rather than help close it.
(Whirlpool, No. 39 at pp. 16–17)
As described in section V.B.1 of this
document, the percent of low-income
RCW consumers experiencing a net cost
at the proposed standard level (TSL 4)
is smaller (13 percent for top-loading
standard-size washers) than in the full
LCC sample (25 percent for top-loading
standard-size washers). The main reason
is that a high portion of low-income
household renters would not have to
pay the total cost of a higher-efficiency
washer because renters do not select nor
pay for the clothes washer itself (CA
IOUs, No.43 at pp. 1–2).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
2. Senior-Only Households
Annual clothes washer usage for
senior-only households is significantly
less than the full household sample
because the household size for senioronly families is typically either one or
two people. A household size equal to
or larger than three members accounts
for only 8 percent of senior-only
households. Therefore, as described in
section V.B.1 of this document, the
percentage of senior-only RCW
consumers experiencing a net cost at the
TSL 4 is greater (35 percent for toploading standard-size washers) than in
the full LCC sample (25 percent for toploading standard-size washers). The
simple payback period for senior-only
households at TSL 4 is 2 years longer
than in the full LCC sample.
For households who would be
negatively impacted by amended energy
conservation standards, a potential
rebate program to reduce the total
installed costs would be effective in
lowering the percentage of consumers
with a net cost and reducing simple
payback period. DOE is aware of 80
rebate programs currently available for
residential clothes washers meeting
ENERGY STAR requirements initiated
by 63 organizations in various States as
described in chapter 17 of the NOPR
TSD.94 DOE is seeking comment about
94 As of June, 2022, 80 rebate programs were
available for residential clothes washers meeting
ENERGY STAR requirements: www.energystar.gov/
rebate-finder?scrollTo=363.6363525390625&sort_
by=utility&sort_direction=asc&page_
number=0&lastpage=0&zip_code_filter=&search_
text=&product_clean_filter=
Clothes+Washers&product_clean_
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
how amended energy conservation
standards may impact the low-income
and senior-only consumer economics
being presented and considered in this
proposed rulemaking.
DOE is seeking comment about
definable subpopulations in addition to
low-income and senior-only households
and the associated data required to
differentiate how such subpopulation
use clothes washers.
Chapter 11 in the NOPR TSD
describes the consumer subgroup
analysis.
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
DOE performed an MIA to estimate
the financial impacts of amended energy
conservation standards on
manufacturers of RCWs and to estimate
the potential impacts of such standards
on direct employment and
manufacturing capacity. The MIA has
both quantitative and qualitative aspects
and includes analyses of projected
industry cash flows, the INPV,
investments in research and
development (‘‘R&D’’) and
manufacturing capital, and domestic
manufacturing employment.
Additionally, the MIA seeks to
determine how amended energy
conservation standards might affect
manufacturing employment, capacity,
and competition, as well as how
standards contribute to overall
regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA
serves to identify any disproportionate
isopen=0&product_
types=Select+a+Product+Category.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
impacts on manufacturer subgroups,
including small business manufacturers.
The quantitative part of the MIA
primarily relies on the Government
Regulatory Impact Model (‘‘GRIM’’), an
industry cash flow model with inputs
specific to this rulemaking. The key
GRIM inputs include data on the
industry cost structure, unit production
costs, product shipments, manufacturer
markups, and investments in R&D and
manufacturing capital required to
produce compliant products. The key
GRIM outputs are the INPV, which is
the sum of industry annual cash flows
over the analysis period, discounted
using the industry-weighted average
cost of capital, and the impact to
domestic manufacturing employment.
The model uses standard accounting
principles to estimate the impacts of
more-stringent energy conservation
standards on a given industry by
comparing changes in INPV and
domestic manufacturing employment
between a no-new-standards case and
the various standards cases (i.e., TSLs).
To capture the uncertainty relating to
manufacturer pricing strategies
following amended standards, the GRIM
estimates a range of possible impacts
under different scenarios.
The qualitative part of the MIA
addresses manufacturer characteristics
and market trends. Specifically, the MIA
considers such factors as a potential
standard’s impact on manufacturing
capacity, competition within the
industry, the cumulative impact of other
DOE and non-DOE regulations, and
impacts on manufacturer subgroups.
The complete MIA is outlined in
chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
DOE conducted the MIA for this
rulemaking in three phases. In Phase 1
of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of
the RCW manufacturing industry based
on the market and technology
assessment and publicly-available
information. This included a top-down
analysis of RCW manufacturers that
DOE used to derive preliminary
financial inputs for the GRIM (e.g.,
revenues; materials, labor, overhead,
and depreciation expenses; selling,
general, and administrative expenses
(‘‘SG&A’’); and R&D expenses). DOE
also used public sources of information
to further calibrate its initial
characterization of the RCW
manufacturing industry, including
company filings of Form 10-Ks from the
SEC,95 corporate annual reports, the
U.S. Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of
95 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval
(EDGAR) system. Available at: www.sec.gov/edgar/
search/ (Last accessed July 1, 2022).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
Manufactures (‘‘ASM’’),96 and reports
from Dun & Bradstreet.97
In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared
a framework industry cash-flow analysis
to quantify the potential impacts of
amended energy conservation
standards. The GRIM uses several
factors to determine a series of annual
cash flows starting with the
announcement of the standard and
extending over a 30-year period
following the compliance date of the
standard. These factors include annual
expected revenues, costs of sales, SG&A
and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital
expenditures. In general, energy
conservation standards can affect
manufacturer cash flow in three distinct
ways: (1) creating a need for increased
investment, (2) raising production costs
per unit, and (3) altering revenue due to
higher per-unit prices and changes in
sales volumes.
In addition, during Phase 2, DOE
developed interview guides to distribute
to manufacturers of RCWs in order to
develop other key GRIM inputs,
including product and capital
conversion costs, and to gather
additional information on the
anticipated effects of energy
conservation standards on revenues,
direct employment, capital assets,
industry competitiveness, and subgroup
impacts.
In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE
conducted structured, detailed
interviews with representative
manufacturers. During these interviews,
DOE discussed engineering,
manufacturing, procurement, and
financial topics to validate assumptions
used in the GRIM and to identify key
issues or concerns. See section IV.J.3 of
this document for a description of the
key issues raised by manufacturers
during the interviews. As part of Phase
3, DOE also evaluated subgroups of
manufacturers that may be
disproportionately impacted by
amended standards or that may not be
accurately represented by the average
cost assumptions used to develop the
industry cash flow analysis. Such
manufacturer subgroups may include
small business manufacturers, lowvolume manufacturers (‘‘LVMs’’), niche
players, and/or manufacturers
exhibiting a cost structure that largely
differs from the industry average. DOE
96 U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of
Manufactures. ‘‘Summary Statistics for Industry
Groups and Industries in the U.S (2020).’’ Available
at: www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/econ/
asm/2018-2020-asm.html (Last accessed July 15,
2022).
97 The Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers login is available
at: app.dnbhoovers.com (Last accessed July 15,
2022).
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13575
identified one subgroup for a separate
impact analysis: small business
manufacturers. The small business
subgroup is discussed in section VI.B of
this document, ‘‘Review under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act’’ and in
chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model
and Key Inputs
DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the
changes in cash flow due to amended
standards that result in a higher or
lower industry value. The GRIM uses a
standard, annual discounted cash-flow
analysis that incorporates manufacturer
costs, manufacturer markups,
shipments, and industry financial
information as inputs. The GRIM
models changes in costs, distribution of
shipments, investments, and
manufacturer margins that could result
from an amended energy conservation
standard. The GRIM spreadsheet uses
the inputs to arrive at a series of annual
cash flows, beginning in 2022 (the base
year of the analysis) and continuing to
2056. DOE calculated INPVs by
summing the stream of annual
discounted cash flows during this
period. For manufacturers of RCWs,
DOE used a real discount rate of 9.3
percent, which was derived from
industry financials and then modified
according to feedback received during
manufacturer interviews.
The GRIM calculates cash flows using
standard accounting principles and
compares changes in INPV between the
no-new-standards case and each
standards case. The difference in INPV
between the no-new-standards case and
a standards case represents the financial
impact of the amended energy
conservation standard on
manufacturers. As discussed previously,
DOE developed critical GRIM inputs
using a number of sources, including
publicly available data, results of the
engineering analysis and shipments
analysis, and information gathered from
industry stakeholders during the course
of manufacturer interviews. The GRIM
results are presented in section V.B.2 of
this document. Additional details about
the GRIM, the discount rate, and other
financial parameters can be found in
chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
Manufacturing more efficient
products is typically more expensive
than manufacturing baseline products
due to the use of more complex
components, which are typically more
costly than baseline components. The
changes in the MPCs of covered
products can affect the revenues, gross
margins, and cash flow of the industry.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13576
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
DOE conducted this analysis using the
physical teardown approach. The
resulting bill of materials provides the
basis for the MPC estimates. In this
proposed rulemaking, DOE relies on an
efficiency-level approach,
supplemented with the design-option
approach for certain ‘‘gap fill’’ efficiency
levels. The efficiency-level approach is
appropriate for RCWs, given the
availability of certification data to
determine the market distribution of
existing products and to identify
efficiency level ‘‘clusters’’ that already
exist on the market. For a complete
description of the MPCs, see chapter 5
of the NOPR TSD or section IV.C of this
document.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
b. Shipments Projections
The GRIM estimates manufacturer
revenues based on total unit shipment
projections and the distribution of those
shipments by efficiency level. Changes
in sales volumes and efficiency mix
over time can significantly affect
manufacturer finances. For this analysis,
the GRIM uses the NIA’s annual
shipment projections derived from the
shipments analysis from 2022 (the base
year) to 2056 (the end year of the
analysis period). See chapter 9 of the
NOPR TSD for additional details or
section IV.G of this document.
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
Amended energy conservation
standards could cause manufacturers to
incur conversion costs to bring their
production facilities and equipment
designs into compliance. DOE evaluated
the level of conversion-related
expenditures that would be needed to
comply with each considered efficiency
level in each product class. For the MIA,
DOE classified these conversion costs
into two major groups: (1) capital
conversion costs; and (2) product
conversion costs. Capital conversion
costs are investments in property, plant,
and equipment necessary to adapt or
change existing production facilities
such that new compliant product
designs can be fabricated and
assembled. Product conversion costs are
investments in research, development,
testing, marketing, and other noncapitalized costs necessary to make
product designs comply with amended
energy conservation standards.
DOE relied on information derived
from manufacturer interviews, the
engineering analysis, and product
teardowns to evaluate the level of
capital and product conversion costs
manufacturers would likely incur at the
various TSLs. During interviews, DOE
asked manufacturers to estimate the
capital conversion costs (e.g., changes in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
production processes, equipment, and
tooling) to meet the various efficiency
levels. DOE also asked manufacturers to
estimate the redesign effort, engineering
resources, and marketing expenses
required at various efficiency levels to
quantify the product conversion costs.
Based on manufacturer feedback, DOE
also estimated ‘‘re-flooring’’ costs
associated with replacing obsolete
display models in big-box stores (e.g.,
Lowe’s, Home Depot, Best Buy) due to
higher standards. Some manufacturers
stated that with a new product release,
big-box retailers discount outdated
display models, and manufacturers
share any losses associated with
discounting the retail price. The
estimated re-flooring costs for each
efficiency level were incorporated into
the product conversion cost estimates,
as DOE modeled the re-flooring costs as
a marketing expense. DOE also
estimated industry costs associated with
re-rating basic models in accordance
with Appendix J, as detailed in the June
2022 TP Final Rule. 87 FR 33316.
Manufacturer data was aggregated to
better reflect the industry as a whole
and to protect confidential information.
DOE then scaled up the aggregate
capital and product conversion cost
feedback from interviews to estimate
total industry conversion costs.
DOE acknowledges that
manufacturers may follow different
design paths to reach the various
efficiency levels analyzed. An
individual manufacturer’s investments
depend on a range of factors, including
the company’s current product offerings
and product platforms, existing
production facilities and infrastructure,
and make vs. buy decisions for
components. DOE’s conversion cost
methodology incorporated feedback
from all manufacturers that took part in
interviews and extrapolated industry
values. While industry average values
may not represent any single
manufacturer, DOE’s modeling provides
reasonable estimates of industry-level
investments.
DOE assumes all conversion-related
investments occur between the year of
publication of the final rule and the year
by which manufacturers must comply
with the new standard. The conversion
cost figures used in the GRIM can be
found in section V.B.2 of this document.
For additional information on the
estimated capital and product
conversion costs, see chapter 12 of the
NOPR TSD.
d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios
MSPs include direct manufacturing
production costs (i.e., labor, materials,
and overhead estimated in DOE’s MPCs)
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and all non-production costs (i.e.,
SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with
profit. To calculate the MSPs in the
GRIM, DOE applied manufacturer
markups to the MPCs estimated in the
engineering analysis for each product
class and efficiency level. Modifying the
manufacturer markups in the standards
case yields different sets of impacts on
manufacturers. For the MIA, DOE
modeled two standards-case scenarios
to represent uncertainty regarding the
potential impacts on prices and
profitability for manufacturers following
the implementation of amended energy
conservation standards: (1) a
preservation of gross margin percentage
scenario; and (2) a preservation of
operating profit scenario. These
scenarios lead to different markup
values that, when applied to the MPCs,
result in varying revenue and cash flow
impacts.
Under the preservation of gross
margin percentage scenario, DOE
applied a single uniform ‘‘gross margin
percentage’’ across all efficiency levels,
which assumes that manufacturers
would be able to maintain the same
amount of profit as a percentage of
revenues at all efficiency levels within
a product class. As manufacturer
production costs increase with
efficiency, this scenario implies that the
per-unit dollar profit will increase. DOE
assumed a gross margin percentage of 18
percent for all product classes.98
Manufacturers tend to believe it is
optimistic to assume that they would be
able to maintain the same gross margin
percentage as their production costs
increase, particularly for minimally
efficient products. Therefore, this
scenario represents a high bound of
industry profitability under an amended
energy conservation standard.
In the preservation of operating profit
scenario, as the cost of production goes
up under a standards case,
manufacturers are generally required to
reduce their manufacturer markups to a
level that maintains base-case operating
profit. DOE implemented this scenario
in the GRIM by lowering the
manufacturer markups at each TSL to
yield approximately the same earnings
before interest and taxes in the
standards case as in the no-newstandards case in the year after the
expected compliance date of the
amended standards. The implicit
assumption behind this scenario is that
the industry can only maintain its
operating profit in absolute dollars after
the standard takes effect.
98 The gross margin percentage of 18 percent is
based on a manufacturer markup of 1.22.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
A comparison of industry financial
impacts under the two scenarios is
presented in section V.B.2.a of this
document.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3. Manufacturer Interviews
DOE interviewed manufacturers
representing approximately 82 percent
of domestic RCW industry shipments.
Participants included domestic-based
and foreign-based original equipment
manufacturers (‘‘OEMs’’) with a range of
different product offerings and market
shares.
In interviews, DOE asked
manufacturers to describe their major
concerns regarding potential increases
in energy conservation standards for
RCWs. The following section highlights
manufacturer concerns that helped
inform the projected potential impacts
of an amended standard on the industry.
Manufacturer interviews are conducted
under non-disclosure agreements
(‘‘NDAs’’), so DOE does not document
these discussions in the same way that
it does public comments in the
comment summaries and DOE’s
responses throughout the rest of this
document.
a. Product Classes
In interviews, manufacturers had
differing views on the appropriate RCW
product class structure. Generally,
manufacturers specializing in standardsize front-loading clothes washers
recommended that DOE combine
product classes and remove the product
class delineation based on load
configuration. These manufacturers
emphasized that front-loading clothes
washers are more efficient than toploading counterparts. These
manufacturers noted that even energyconscious consumers often just look for
the ENERGY STAR certification and are
unaware of the energy usage differences
between top-loading and front-loading
models.
Several manufacturers recommended
an array of updates to the product class
structure as it relates to the
classification of standard-size versus
compact-size products. Some
manufacturers suggested differentiating
product classes based on cabinet width
instead of tub capacity. These
manufacturers noted that consumers
often purchase compact front-loading
RCWs due to size constraints at the
installation location. Other
manufacturers encouraged DOE to align
the capacity cutoff for top-loading
compact clothes washers with the
capacity cutoff for front-loading
compact clothes washers analyzed in
the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis (i.e., 3.0 ft3). 86 FR 53886.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
Some manufacturers suggested splitting
up the standard-size product classes by
varying cabinet-size (or capacity)
thresholds. One manufacturer noted that
entry-level products are typically on the
smaller side, with capacities under 4.0
ft3. These smaller standard-size
products are often less expensive than
larger capacity RCW models.
Additionally, the technology options
may vary based on capacity. For
example, this manufacturer asserted that
larger capacity models can better handle
increased spin speeds and have an
inherent advantage for efficiency ratings
due to the larger weighted-average loadsize compared to smaller capacity
models.
b. Ability To Serve Certain Consumer
Segments
In interviews, manufacturers
emphasized that consumer preferences
vary and as a result, there are a range
of RCW models available that appeal to
different consumer segments. Currently,
manufacturers balance achieving energy
and water efficiency metrics with other
considerations, such as cycle time, noise
levels, fabric care, cleaning
performance, and upfront cost. Multiple
manufacturers expressed concerns about
their ability to meet some consumer
requirements under amended standards.
For instance, several manufacturers
stated that they would need to increase
cycle times at certain efficiencies to
recover cleaning performance at
reduced water levels. These
manufacturers noted that consumers
often expect wash cycle times to align
with dryer cycle times. Other
manufacturers expressed concerns about
diminished fabric care and heightened
noise under levels that require notably
faster spin speeds. Some manufacturers
stated that it would require significant
engineering time and capital investment
to develop a range of platforms that
meet more stringent energy standards as
well as a range of consumer
performance requirements. A few
manufacturers recommended DOE
explore instituting a cleaning
performance metric, like the concept
proposed for dishwashers in a NOPR
published on December 22, 2021. 86 FR
72738.
Some manufacturers stated that a
large segment of ‘‘traditionalist’’
consumers prefer ‘‘traditional’’ toploading RCWs with specific
characteristics and the manufacturers
asserted that more stringent standards
would threaten the viability of these
‘‘traditional’’ top-loading clothes
washers that met requirements of this
consumer segment. These
manufacturers described ‘‘traditionalist’’
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13577
consumers as preferring top-loading
clothes washers with agitators, visible
water levels, and flexible (i.e., manual)
fill options. Specifically, manufacturers
stated that an agitator design would not
be feasible at or above the current
ENERGY STAR level (EL 2). Some
manufacturers asserted, based on their
product research and reported shifts in
consumer demand for agitator washers,
that some ‘‘traditionalist’’ consumers
would be dissatisfied with top-loading
designs that lacked the agitator and
instead used a wash plate. One
manufacturer noted that they recently
introduced RCWs with agitators due to
consumer preferences for such features.
Several manufacturers also noted that
amending standards would raise the
cost of baseline RCWs, which would
disproportionately impact low-income
consumers since they typically purchase
entry-level, ‘‘traditional’’ top-loading
clothes washers. These manufacturers
raised concerns about their future
ability to offer low-cost RCWs and serve
the low-income consumer market under
amended standards.
c. Supply Chain Constraints
In interviews, some manufacturers
expressed concerns about potential
supply chain constraints. Those
manufacturers noted concerns about the
ongoing supply constraints for
microprocessors and electronics. Any
shift towards direct drive motors would
require that industry source more
advanced microprocessors, which are
already difficult to secure. Some
manufacturers were also uncertain
about industry’s ability to source
enough direct drive motors—
particularly for standard-size toploading clothes washers—to meet
market demand at and above the current
ENERGY STAR level (EL 2).
Manufacturers asserted that if these
supply constraints continue through the
end of the conversion period, industry
could face production capacity
constraints.
4. Discussion of MIA Comments
In response to the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis, AHAM urged
DOE to consider alternative approaches
to cumulative regulatory burden. AHAM
encouraged DOE to incorporate the
financial results of the cumulative
regulatory burden analysis into the MIA,
stating that this could be done by
adding the combined cost of complying
with multiple regulations into the
product conversion costs in the GRIM.
(AHAM, No. 40 at p. 7) AHAM noted
other regulations impact RCW
manufacturers such as consumer clothes
dryers, commercial clothes washers,
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
13578
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
consumer refrigerator/freezers,
miscellaneous refrigeration products,
cooking products, dishwashers, room air
conditioners, dehumidifiers, and
portable air conditioners rulemakings.
(AHAM, No. 40 at p. 8) Additionally,
AHAM requested that DOE include the
cost of monitoring test procedure and
energy conservation standard
rulemakings in its rulemaking analyses.
(Id.)
If DOE were to combine the
conversion costs from multiple
regulations, as requested, it would be
appropriate to match the combined
conversion costs against combined
revenues of the regulated products. DOE
is concerned that combined results
would make it more difficult to discern
the direct impact of the amended
standard on covered manufacturers,
particularly for rulemakings where there
is only partial overlap of manufacturers.
Conversion costs would be spread over
a larger revenue base and result in less
severe INPV impacts, when evaluated
on a percent change basis.
To consider to costs of monitoring test
procedure and energy conservation
standard rulemakings, DOE requests
AHAM provide the costs of monitoring,
which would be independent from the
conversion costs required to adapt
product designs and manufacturing
facilities to an amended standard, for
DOE to determine whether these costs
would materially affect the analysis. In
particular, a summary of the job titles
and annual hours per job title at a
prototypical company would allow DOE
to construct a detailed analysis of
AHAM’s monitoring costs.
AHAM requested DOE plan its
rulemaking process such that the
compliance dates for residential clothes
washers and clothes dryers are identical
or very nearly identical. AHAM further
explained that this would allow
manufacturers to design these products
simultaneously to meet amended
standards and so that there is less
confusion for manufacturers, retailers,
and consumers as products would need
to be re-floored leading up to and on the
compliance date of any amended energy
conservation standards. (AHAM, No. 40
at pp. 7–8) Whirlpool also stated that if
DOE decides to amend standards for
both clothes washers and clothes dryers,
then compliance dates should be
aligned to allow for manufacturers to
invest in clothes washers and clothes
dryers as a pair, which prevents
unnecessary cost, confusion, and
burden for manufacturers and retailers.
(Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 20) Whirlpool
added that it believes DOE has the
statutory authority to align these
compliance dates. (Id.)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
Pursuant to a consent decree entered
on September 20, 2022, DOE has agreed
to sign and post on DOE’s publicly
accessible website a rulemaking
document for RCWs and consumer
clothes dryers by February 29, 2024,
that, when effective, would be DOE’s
final agency action for standards for
these products.99 As such, DOE expects
that, if these two rulemakings result in
amended energy conservations
standards, the compliance dates would
be similar.
Whirlpool stated that more stringent
standards would disproportionately
harm the company due to its broad
lineup of RCWs that includes broad
offerings at entry-level price points.
Whirlpool noted that the company
would need to devote a high level of
engineering resources to incorporate
design options such as stainless-steel
wash baskets, wash plates, direct drive
motors, and product structural changes.
Whirlpool added that moving from
traditional agitators to high-efficiency
agitators or wash plates would lead to
increased costs associated with
redesigning models and retooling
factories. In contrast, Whirlpool
emphasized that many competitors
would not need to make additional
investments to meet amended standards
since they cater to a more targeted
consumer segment. (Whirlpool, No. 39
at p. 18)
DOE uses the GRIM, as described in
section IV.J.2, to determine the
quantitative impacts on the RCW
industry as a whole. Impacts on
individual manufacturers may vary from
industry averages due to a wide range of
company-specific factors including, but
not limited to, differences in efficiency
of current product offerings, production
volumes, and legacy investments in
manufacturing plants. DOE recognizes
that the industry impacts do not apply
evenly across manufacturers. However,
as many of the GRIM inputs (e.g.,
industry financials) account for U.S.
market share weights, the GRIM is most
reflective of large manufacturers, like
Whirlpool. Additionally, DOE’s
modeling incorporates estimate
conversion costs associated with the
product changes, such as stainless-steel
wash baskets, wash plates, direct drive
motors, and product structural
enhancements, identified by Whirlpool.
Whirlpool expressed concern that
direct drive and BPM motors are more
expensive than PSC motors. (Whirlpool,
No. 39 at p. 6) DOE incorporates the
99 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al.
v Granholm, et al., No. 1:20–cv–09127 (S.D.N.Y.),
and State of New York, et al. v Granholm, et al. No.
1:20–cv–09362 (S.D.NY).
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
higher cost of direct drive and BPM
motors in its engineering analysis, as
discussed in section IV.C.4 of this
document.
Whirlpool noted concerns about being
able to secure an adequate domestic
supply of direct drive motors, if DOE
amends standard, since direct drive
motors typically come from foreign
suppliers. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 6)
Samsung commented that direct drive
motors have matured over the years and
have become highly cost competitive.
(Samsung, No. 41 at pp. 2–3) More
stringent standards would likely
necessitate adoption of more efficient
technologies, such as direct drive
motors. DOE notes that amended
standards, if adopted, could provide
regulatory certainty for manufacturers
and suppliers to establish additional
capacity in the supply chain.
DOE seeks comment on the
availability of direct drive motors in
quantities required by industry if DOE
were to adopt amended standards.
K. Emissions Analysis
The emissions analysis consists of
two components. The first component
estimates the effect of potential energy
conservation standards on power sector
and site (where applicable) combustion
emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg.
The second component estimates the
impacts of potential standards on
emissions of two additional greenhouse
gases, CH4 and N2O, as well as the
reductions to emissions of other gases
due to ‘‘upstream’’ activities in the fuel
production chain. These upstream
activities comprise extraction,
processing, and transporting fuels to the
site of combustion.
The analysis of electric power sector
emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg
uses emissions factors intended to
represent the marginal impacts of the
change in electricity consumption
associated with amended or new
standards. The methodology is based on
results published for the AEO, including
a set of side cases that implement a
variety of efficiency-related policies.
The methodology is described in
appendix 13A in the NOPR TSD. The
analysis presented in this notice uses
projections from AEO2022. Power sector
emissions of CH4 and N2O from fuel
combustion are estimated using
Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas
Inventories published by the EPA.100
The on-site operation of RCWs
requires combustion of fossil fuels and
results in emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2
100 Available at www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/2021-04/documents/emission-factors_
apr2021.pdf (last accessed June 12, 2022).
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
CH4, and N2O where these products are
used. Site emissions of these gases were
estimated using Emission Factors for
Greenhouse Gas Inventories and, for
NOX and SO2 emissions intensity factors
from an EPA publication.101
FFC upstream emissions, which
include emissions from fuel combustion
during extraction, processing, and
transportation of fuels, and ‘‘fugitive’’
emissions (direct leakage to the
atmosphere) of CH4 and CO2, are
estimated based on the methodology
described in chapter 15 of the NOPR
TSD.
The emissions intensity factors are
expressed in terms of physical units per
MWh or MMBtu of site energy savings.
For power sector emissions, specific
emissions intensity factors are
calculated by sector and end use. Total
emissions reductions are estimated
using the energy savings calculated in
the national impact analysis.
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated
in DOE’s Analysis
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
DOE’s no-new-standards case for the
electric power sector reflects the AEO,
which incorporates the projected
impacts of existing air quality
regulations on emissions. AEO2022
generally represents current legislation
and environmental regulations,
including recent government actions,
that were in place at the time of
preparation of AEO2022, including the
emissions control programs discussed in
the following paragraphs.102
SO2 emissions from affected electric
generating units (‘‘EGUs’’) are subject to
nationwide and regional emissions capand-trade programs. Title IV of the
Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions
cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48
contiguous States and the District of
Columbia (D.C.). (42 U.S.C. 7651 et seq.)
SO2 emissions from numerous States in
the eastern half of the United States are
also limited under the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (‘‘CSAPR’’). 76 FR 48208
(Aug. 8, 2011). CSAPR requires these
States to reduce certain emissions,
including annual SO2 emissions, and
went into effect as of January 1, 2015.103
101 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
External Combustion Sources. In Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors. AP–42. Fifth Edition.
Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources.
Chapter 1. Available at www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/
ap42/ (Last accessed June 12, 2022).
102 For further information, see the Assumptions
to AEO2022 report that sets forth the major
assumptions used to generate the projections in the
Annual Energy Outlook. Available at www.eia.gov/
outlooks/aeo/assumptions/ (Last accessed June 12,
2022).
103 CSAPR requires states to address annual
emissions of SO2 and NOX, precursors to the
formation of fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
AEO2022 incorporates implementation
of CSAPR, including the update to the
CSAPR ozone season program emission
budgets and target dates issued in 2016.
81 FR 74504 (Oct. 26, 2016).
Compliance with CSAPR is flexible
among EGUs and is enforced through
the use of tradable emissions
allowances. Under existing EPA
regulations, any excess SO2 emissions
allowances resulting from the lower
electricity demand caused by the
adoption of an efficiency standard could
be used to permit offsetting increases in
SO2 emissions by another regulated
EGU.
However, beginning in 2016, SO2
emissions began to fall as a result of the
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
(‘‘MATS’’) for power plants. 77 FR 9304
(Feb. 16, 2012). In the MATS final rule,
EPA established a standard for hydrogen
chloride as a surrogate for acid gas
hazardous air pollutants (‘‘HAP’’), and
also established a standard for SO2 (a
non-HAP acid gas) as an alternative
equivalent surrogate standard for acid
gas HAP. The same controls are used to
reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas;
thus, SO2 emissions are being reduced
as a result of the control technologies
installed on coal-fired power plants to
comply with the MATS requirements
for acid gas. In order to continue
operating, coal power plants must have
either flue gas desulfurization or dry
sorbent injection systems installed. Both
technologies, which are used to reduce
acid gas emissions, also reduce SO2
emissions. Because of the emissions
reductions under the MATS, it is
unlikely that excess SO2 emissions
allowances resulting from the lower
electricity demand would be needed or
used to permit offsetting increases in
SO2 emissions by another regulated
EGU. Therefore, energy conservation
standards that decrease electricity
generation would generally reduce SO2
emissions. DOE estimated SO2
emissions reduction using emissions
factors based on AEO2022.
CSAPR also established limits on NOX
emissions for numerous States in the
eastern half of the United States. Energy
conservation standards would have
little effect on NOX emissions in those
pollution, in order to address the interstate
transport of pollution with respect to the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(‘‘NAAQS’’). CSAPR also requires certain states to
address the ozone season (May-September)
emissions of NOX, a precursor to the formation of
ozone pollution, in order to address the interstate
transport of ozone pollution with respect to the
1997 ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011).
EPA subsequently issued a supplemental rule that
included an additional five states in the CSAPR
ozone season program; 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011)
(Supplemental Rule).
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13579
States covered by CSAPR emissions
limits if excess NOX emissions
allowances resulting from the lower
electricity demand could be used to
permit offsetting increases in NOX
emissions from other EGUs. In such
case, NOX emissions would remain near
the limit even if electricity generation
goes down. A different case could
possibly result, depending on the
configuration of the power sector in the
different regions and the need for
allowances, such that NOX emissions
might not remain at the limit in the case
of lower electricity demand. In this case,
energy conservation standards might
reduce NOX emissions in covered
States. Despite this possibility, DOE has
chosen to be conservative in its analysis
and has maintained the assumption that
standards will not reduce NOX
emissions in States covered by CSAPR.
Energy conservation standards would be
expected to reduce NOX emissions in
the States not covered by CSAPR. DOE
used AEO2022 data to derive NOX
emissions factors for the group of States
not covered by CSAPR.
The MATS limit mercury emissions
from power plants, but they do not
include emissions caps and, as such,
DOE’s energy conservation standards
would be expected to slightly reduce Hg
emissions. DOE estimated mercury
emissions reduction using emissions
factors based on AEO2022, which
incorporates the MATS.
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
As part of the development of this
proposed rule, for the purpose of
complying with the requirements of
Executive Order 12866, DOE considered
the estimated monetary benefits from
the reduced emissions of CO2, CH4,
N2O, NOX, and SO2 that are expected to
result from each of the TSLs considered.
In order to make this calculation
analogous to the calculation of the NPV
of consumer benefit, DOE considered
the reduced emissions expected to
result over the lifetime of products
shipped in the projection period for
each TSL. This section summarizes the
basis for the values used for monetizing
the emissions benefits and presents the
values considered in this NOPR.
On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087)
granted the Federal government’s
emergency motion for stay pending
appeal of the February 11, 2022,
preliminary injunction issued in
Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–
JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the
Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary
injunction is no longer in effect,
pending resolution of the federal
government’s appeal of that injunction
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13580
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
or a further court order. Among other
things, the preliminary injunction
enjoined the defendants in that case
from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as
binding, or relying upon’’ the interim
estimates of the social cost of
greenhouse gases—which were issued
by the Interagency Working Group on
the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on
February 26, 2021—to monetize the
benefits of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE
has reverted to its approach prior to the
injunction and presents monetized
benefits where appropriate and
permissible under law. DOE requests
comment on how to address the climate
benefits and other non-monetized
effects of the proposal.
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
DOE estimates the monetized benefits
of the reductions in emissions of CO2,
CH4, and N2O by using a measure of the
social cost (‘‘SC’’) of each pollutant (e.g.,
SC–CO2). These estimates represent the
monetary value of the net harm to
society associated with a marginal
increase in emissions of these pollutants
in a given year, or the benefit of
avoiding that increase. These estimates
are intended to include (but are not
limited to) climate-change-related
changes in net agricultural productivity,
human health, property damages from
increased flood risk, disruption of
energy systems, risk of conflict,
environmental migration, and the value
of ecosystem services.
DOE exercises its own judgment in
presenting monetized climate benefits
as recommended by applicable
Executive orders, and DOE would reach
the same conclusion presented in this
proposed rulemaking in the absence of
the social cost of greenhouse gases. That
is, the social costs of greenhouse gases,
whether measured using the February
2021 Interim Estimates presented by the
Interagency Working Group on the
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases or by
another means, did not affect the rule
ultimately proposed by DOE.
DOE estimated the global social
benefits of CO2, CH4, and N2O
reductions (i.e., SC–GHGs) using the
estimates presented in the Technical
Support Document: Social Cost of
Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide
Interim Estimates under Executive
Order 13990, published in February
2021 by the IWG (‘‘February 2021 SC–
GHG TSD’’). The SC–GHGs is the
monetary value of the net harm to
society associated with a marginal
increase in emissions in a given year, or
the benefit of avoiding that increase. In
principle, SC–GHGs includes the value
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
of all climate change impacts, including
(but not limited to) changes in net
agricultural productivity, human health
effects, property damage from increased
flood risk and natural disasters,
disruption of energy systems, risk of
conflict, environmental migration, and
the value of ecosystem services. The
SC–GHGs therefore, reflects the societal
value of reducing emissions of the gas
in question by one metric ton. The SC–
GHGs is the theoretically appropriate
value to use in conducting benefit-cost
analyses of policies that affect CO2, N2O
and CH4 emissions. As a member of the
IWG involved in the development of the
February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, DOE
agrees that the interim SC–GHG
estimates represent the most appropriate
estimate of the SC–GHG until revised
estimates have been developed
reflecting the latest, peer-reviewed
science.
The SC–GHGs estimates presented
here were developed over many years,
using transparent process, peerreviewed methodologies, the best
science available at the time of that
process, and with input from the public.
Specifically, in 2009, the IWG, which
included DOE and other executive
branch agencies and offices, was
established to ensure that agencies were
using the best available science and to
promote consistency in the social cost of
carbon (i.e., SC–CO2) values used across
agencies. The IWG published SC–CO2
estimates in 2010 that were developed
from an ensemble of three widely cited
integrated assessment models (‘‘IAMs’’)
that estimate global climate damages
using highly aggregated representations
of climate processes and the global
economy combined into a single
modeling framework. The three IAMs
were run using a common set of input
assumptions in each model for future
population, economic, and CO2
emissions growth, as well as
equilibrium climate sensitivity—a
measure of the globally averaged
temperature response to increased
atmospheric CO2 concentrations. These
estimates were updated in 2013 based
on new versions of each IAM. In August
2016, the IWG published estimates of
the social cost of methane (i.e., SC–CH4)
and nitrous oxide (i.e., SC–N2O) using
methodologies that are consistent with
the methodology underlying the SC–
CO2 estimates. The modeling approach
that extends the IWG SC–CO2
methodology to non-CO2 GHGs has
undergone multiple stages of peer
review. The SC–CH4 and SC–N2O
estimates were developed by Marten et
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
al.104 and underwent a standard doubleblind peer review process prior to
journal publication. In 2015, as part of
the response to public comments
received to a 2013 solicitation for
comments on the SC–CO2 estimates, the
IWG announced a National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
review of the SC–CO2 estimates to offer
advice on how to approach future
updates to ensure that the estimates
continue to reflect the best available
science and methodologies. In January
2017, the National Academies released
their final report, Valuing Climate
Damages: Updating Estimation of the
Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, and
recommended specific criteria for future
updates to the SC–CO2 estimates, a
modeling framework to satisfy the
specified criteria, and both near-term
updates and longer-term research needs
pertaining to various components of the
estimation process (National
Academies, 2017).105 Shortly thereafter,
in March 2017, President Trump issued
Executive Order 13783, which
disbanded the IWG, withdrew the
previous TSDs, and directed agencies to
ensure SC–CO2 estimates used in
regulatory analyses are consistent with
the guidance contained in OMB’s
Circular A–4, ‘‘including with respect to
the consideration of domestic versus
international impacts and the
consideration of appropriate discount
rates’’ (E.O. 13783, Section 5(c)).
Benefit-cost analyses following E.O.
13783 used SC–GHG estimates that
attempted to focus on the U.S.-specific
share of climate change damages as
estimated by the models and were
calculated using two discount rates
recommended by Circular A–4, 3
percent and 7 percent. All other
methodological decisions and model
versions used in SC–GHG calculations
remained the same as those used by the
IWG in 2010 and 2013, respectively.
On January 20, 2021, President Biden
issued Executive Order 13990, which reestablished the IWG and directed it to
ensure that the U.S. Government’s
estimates of the social cost of carbon
and other greenhouse gases reflect the
best available science and the
recommendations of the National
Academies (2017). The IWG was tasked
with first reviewing the SC–GHG
104 Marten, A.L., E.A. Kopits, C.W. Griffiths, S.C.
Newbold, and A. Wolverton. Incremental CH4 and
N2O mitigation benefits consistent with the U.S.
Government’s SC–CO2 estimates. Climate Policy.
2015. 15(2): pp. 272–298.
105 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine. Valuing Climate Damages: Updating
Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide.
2017. The National Academies Press: Washington,
DC.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
estimates currently used in Federal
analyses and publishing interim
estimates within 30 days of the E.O. that
reflect the full impact of GHG
emissions, including by taking global
damages into account. The interim SC–
GHG estimates published in February
2021 are used here to estimate the
climate benefits for this proposed
rulemaking. The E.O. instructs the IWG
to undertake a fuller update of the SC–
GHG estimates by January 2022 that
takes into consideration the advice of
the National Academies (2017) and
other recent scientific literature. The
February 2021 SC–GHG TSD provides a
complete discussion of the IWG’s initial
review conducted under E.O. 13990. In
particular, the IWG found that the SC–
GHG estimates used under E.O. 13783
fail to reflect the full impact of GHG
emissions in multiple ways.
First, the IWG found that the SC–GHG
estimates used under E.O. 13783 fail to
fully capture many climate impacts that
affect the welfare of U.S. citizens and
residents, and those impacts are better
reflected by global measures of the SC–
GHG. Examples of omitted effects from
the E.O. 13783 estimates include direct
effects on U.S. citizens, assets, and
investments located abroad, supply
chains, U.S. military assets and interests
abroad, and tourism, and spillover
pathways such as economic and
political destabilization and global
migration that can lead to adverse
impacts on U.S. national security,
public health, and humanitarian
concerns. In addition, assessing the
benefits of U.S. GHG mitigation
activities requires consideration of how
those actions may affect mitigation
activities by other countries, as those
international mitigation actions will
provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and
residents by mitigating climate impacts
that affect U.S. citizens and residents. A
wide range of scientific and economic
experts have emphasized the issue of
reciprocity as support for considering
global damages of GHG emissions. If the
United States does not consider impacts
on other countries, it is difficult to
convince other countries to consider the
impacts of their emissions on the United
States. The only way to achieve an
efficient allocation of resources for
emissions reduction on a global basis—
and so benefit the U.S. and its citizens—
is for all countries to base their policies
on global estimates of damages. As a
member of the IWG involved in the
development of the February 2021 SC–
GHG TSD, DOE agrees with this
assessment and, therefore, in this
proposed rule DOE centers attention on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
a global measure of SC–GHG. This
approach is the same as that taken in
DOE regulatory analyses from 2012
through 2016. A robust estimate of
climate damages that accrue only to U.S.
citizens and residents does not currently
exist in the literature. As explained in
the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD,
existing estimates are both incomplete
and an underestimate of total damages
that accrue to the citizens and residents
of the U.S. because they do not fully
capture the regional interactions and
spillovers discussed above, nor do they
include all of the important physical,
ecological, and economic impacts of
climate change recognized in the
climate change literature. As noted in
the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, the
IWG will continue to review
developments in the literature,
including more robust methodologies
for estimating a U.S.-specific SC–GHG
value, and explore ways to better inform
the public of the full range of carbon
impacts. As a member of the IWG, DOE
will continue to follow developments in
the literature pertaining to this issue.
Second, the IWG found that the use of
the social rate of return on capital (7
percent under current OMB Circular A–
4 guidance) to discount the future
benefits of reducing GHG emissions
inappropriately underestimates the
impacts of climate change for the
purposes of estimating the SC–GHG.
Consistent with the findings of the
National Academies (2017) and the
economic literature, the IWG continued
to conclude that the consumption rate of
interest is the theoretically appropriate
discount rate in an intergenerational
context,106 and recommended that
106 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of
Carbon. Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact
Analysis under Executive Order 12866. 2010.
United States Government. (Last accessed April 15,
2022.) www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/
documents/scc_tsd_2010.pdf; Interagency Working
Group on Social Cost of Carbon. Technical Update
of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact
Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. 2013. (Last
accessed April 15, 2022.) www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2013/11/26/2013-28242/technicalsupport-document-technical-update-of-the-socialcost-of-carbon-for-regulatory-impact; Interagency
Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases,
United States Government. Technical Support
Document: Technical Update on the Social Cost of
Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis-Under
Executive Order 12866. August 2016. (Last accessed
January 18, 2022.) www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/
2016-12/documents/sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf;
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases, United States Government.
Addendum to Technical Support Document on
Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact
Analysis under Executive Order 12866: Application
of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of
Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide.
August 2016. (Last accessed January 18, 2022.)
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13581
discount rate uncertainty and relevant
aspects of intergenerational ethical
considerations be accounted for in
selecting future discount rates.
Furthermore, the damage estimates
developed for use in the SC–GHG are
estimated in consumption-equivalent
terms, and so an application of OMB
Circular A–4’s guidance for regulatory
analysis would then use the
consumption discount rate to calculate
the SC–GHG. DOE agrees with this
assessment and will continue to follow
developments in the literature
pertaining to this issue. DOE also notes
that while OMB Circular A–4, as
published in 2003, recommends using
3- and 7-percent discount rates as
‘‘default’’ values, Circular A–4 also
reminds agencies that ‘‘different
regulations may call for different
emphases in the analysis, depending on
the nature and complexity of the
regulatory issues and the sensitivity of
the benefit and cost estimates to the key
assumptions.’’ On discounting, Circular
A–4 recognizes that ‘‘special ethical
considerations arise when comparing
benefits and costs across generations,’’
and Circular A–4 acknowledges that
analyses may appropriately ‘‘discount
future costs and consumption benefits
[. . .] at a lower rate than for
intragenerational analysis.’’ In the 2015
Response to Comments on the Social
Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact
Analysis, OMB, DOE, and the other IWG
members recognized that ‘‘Circular A–4
is a living document’’ and ‘‘the use of
7 percent is not considered appropriate
for intergenerational discounting. There
is wide support for this view in the
academic literature, and it is recognized
in Circular A–4 itself.’’ Thus, DOE
concludes that a 7-percent discount rate
is not appropriate to apply to value the
social cost of greenhouse gases in the
analysis presented in this analysis.
To calculate the present and
annualized values of climate benefits,
DOE uses the same discount rate as the
rate used to discount the value of
damages from future GHG emissions, for
internal consistency. That approach to
discounting follows the same approach
that the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD
recommends ‘‘to ensure internal
consistency—i.e., future damages from
climate change using the SC–GHG at 2.5
percent should be discounted to the
base year of the analysis using the same
2.5 percent rate.’’ DOE has also
consulted the National Academies’ 2017
www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/
documents/addendum_to_sc-ghg_tsd_august_
2016.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13582
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
recommendations on how SC–GHG
estimates can ‘‘be combined in RIAs
with other cost and benefits estimates
that may use different discount rates.’’
The National Academies reviewed
several options, including ‘‘presenting
all discount rate combinations of other
costs and benefits with [SC–GHG]
estimates.’’
As a member of the IWG involved in
the development of the February 2021
SC–GHG TSD, DOE agrees with the
above assessment and will continue to
follow developments in the literature
pertaining to this issue. While the IWG
works to assess how best to incorporate
the latest, peer reviewed science to
develop an updated set of SC–GHG
estimates, it set the interim estimates to
be the most recent estimates developed
by the IWG prior to the group being
disbanded in 2017. The estimates rely
on the same models and harmonized
inputs and are calculated using a range
of discount rates. As explained in the
February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, the IWG
has recommended that agencies use to
the same set of four values drawn from
the SC–GHG distributions based on
three discount rates as were used in
regulatory analyses between 2010 and
2016 and were subject to public
comment. For each discount rate, the
IWG combined the distributions across
models and socioeconomic emissions
scenarios (applying equal weight to
each) and then selected a set of four
values recommended for use in benefitcost analyses: an average value resulting
from the model runs for each of three
discount rates (2.5 percent, 3 percent,
and 5 percent), plus a fourth value,
selected as the 95th percentile of
estimates based on a 3 percent discount
rate. The fourth value was included to
provide information on potentially
higher-than-expected economic impacts
from climate change. As explained in
the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, and
DOE agrees, this update reflects the
immediate need to have an operational
SC–GHG for use in regulatory benefitcost analyses and other applications that
was developed using a transparent
process, peer-reviewed methodologies,
and the science available at the time of
that process. Those estimates were
subject to public comment in the
context of dozens of proposed
rulemakings as well as in a dedicated
public comment period in 2013.
There are a number of limitations and
uncertainties associated with the SC–
GHG estimates. First, the current
scientific and economic understanding
of discounting approaches suggests
discount rates appropriate for
intergenerational analysis in the context
of climate change are likely to be less
than 3 percent, near 2 percent or
lower.107 Second, the IAMs used to
produce these interim estimates do not
include all of the important physical,
ecological, and economic impacts of
climate change recognized in the
climate change literature and the
science underlying their ‘‘damage
functions’’—i.e., the core parts of the
IAMs that map global mean temperature
changes and other physical impacts of
climate change into economic (both
market and nonmarket) damages—lags
behind the most recent research. For
example, limitations include the
incomplete treatment of catastrophic
and non-catastrophic impacts in the
integrated assessment models, their
incomplete treatment of adaptation and
technological change, the incomplete
way in which inter-regional and
intersectoral linkages are modeled,
uncertainty in the extrapolation of
damages to high temperatures, and
inadequate representation of the
relationship between the discount rate
and uncertainty in economic growth
over long time horizons. Likewise, the
socioeconomic and emissions scenarios
used as inputs to the models do not
reflect new information from the last
decade of scenario generation or the full
range of projections. The modeling
limitations do not all work in the same
direction in terms of their influence on
the SC–CO2 estimates. However, as
discussed in the February 2021 SC–GHG
TSD, the IWG has recommended that,
taken together, the limitations suggest
that the interim SC–GHG estimates used
in this proposed rule likely
underestimate the damages from GHG
emissions. DOE concurs with this
assessment.
DOE’s derivations of the SC–CO2, SC–
N2O, and SC–CH4 values used for this
NOPR are discussed in the following
sections, and the results of DOE’s
analyses estimating the benefits of the
reductions in emissions of these
pollutants are presented in section V.B.6
of this document.
a. Social Cost of Carbon
The SC–CO2 values used for this
NOPR were based on the values
presented for IWG’s February 2021 SC–
GHG TSD. Table IV.37 shows the
updated sets of SC–CO2 estimates from
the IWG’s February 2021 SC–GHG TSD
in 5-year increments from 2020 to 2050.
The full set of annual values that DOE
used is presented in appendix 14A of
the NOPR TSD. For purposes of
capturing the uncertainties involved in
regulatory impact analysis, DOE has
determined it is appropriate include all
four sets of SC–CO2 values, as
recommended by the IWG.108
TABLE IV.37—ANNUAL SC–CO2 VALUES FROM 2021 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2020–2050 (2020$ PER METRIC TON CO2)
Discount rate and statistic
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Year
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
5%
3%
2.5%
3%
Average
Average
Average
95th percentile
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
107 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases (IWG). 2021. Technical Support
Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and
Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive
Order 13990. February. United States Government.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
14
17
19
22
25
28
32
Available at www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/
blog/2021/02/26/a-return-to-science-evidencebased-estimates-of-the-benefits-of-reducing-climatepollution/.
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
51
56
62
67
73
79
85
76
83
89
96
103
110
116
152
169
187
206
225
242
260
108 For example, the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD
discusses how the understanding of discounting
approaches suggests that discount rates appropriate
for intergenerational analysis in the context of
climate change may be lower than 3 percent.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13583
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
For 2051 to 2070, DOE used SC–CO2
estimates published by EPA, adjusted to
2020$.109 These estimates are based on
methods, assumptions, and parameters
identical to the 2020–2050 estimates
published by the IWG. DOE expects
additional climate benefits to accrue for
any longer-life RCWs after 2070, but a
lack of available SC–CO2 estimates for
emissions years beyond 2070 prevents
DOE from monetizing these potential
benefits in this analysis.
DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions
reduction estimated for each year by the
SC–CO2 value for that year in each of
the four cases. DOE adjusted the values
to 2021$ using the implicit price
deflator for gross domestic product
(‘‘GDP’’) from the Bureau of Economic
Analysis. To calculate a present value of
the stream of monetary values, DOE
discounted the values in each of the
four cases using the specific discount
rate that had been used to obtain the
SC–CO2 values in each case.
AHAM cautioned against DOE using
the social cost of carbon and other
monetization of emissions reductions
benefits in its analysis of the factors
EPCA requires DOE to balance to
determine the appropriate standard.
AHAM stated that while it may be
acceptable for DOE to continue its
current practice of examining the social
cost of carbon and monetization of other
emissions reductions benefits as
informational so long as the underlying
interagency analysis is transparent and
vigorous, the monetization analysis
should not impact the TSLs DOE selects
as a new or amended standard. (AHAM,
No. 40 at p. 32)
As stated in section III.F.1.f of this
document, DOE maintains that
environmental and public health
benefits associated with the more
efficient use of energy, including those
connected to global climate change, are
important to take into account when
considering the need for national energy
conservation, which is one of the factors
that EPCA requires DOE to evaluate in
determining whether a potential energy
conservation standard is economically
justified. In addition, Executive Order
13563, which was re-affirmed on
January 21, 2021, stated that each
agency must, among other things:
‘‘select, in choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, those approaches
that maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and
equity).’’ For these reasons, DOE
includes monetized emissions
reductions in its evaluation of potential
standard levels. As previously stated,
however, DOE would reach the same
conclusion presented in this proposed
rulemaking in the absence of the social
cost of greenhouse gases.
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous
Oxide
The SC–CH4 and SC–N2O values used
for this NOPR were based on the values
developed for the February 2021 SC–
GHG TSD. Table IV.38 shows the
updated sets of SC–CH4 and SC–N2O
estimates from the latest interagency
update in 5-year increments from 2020
to 2050. The full set of annual values
used is presented in appendix 14A of
the NOPR TSD. To capture the
uncertainties involved in regulatory
impact analysis, DOE has determined it
is appropriate to include all four sets of
SC–CH4 and SC–N2O values, as
recommended by the IWG. DOE derived
values after 2050 using the approach
described above for the SC–CO2.
TABLE IV.38—ANNUAL SC–CH4 AND SC–N2O VALUES FROM 2021 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2020–2050 (2020$ PER
METRIC TON)
SC–CH4
SC–N2O
Discount Rate and Statistic
Discount Rate and Statistic
Year
5%
3%
Average
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
..................................
Average
670
800
940
1100
1300
1500
1700
2.5%
3%
Average
95th
percentile
1500
1700
2000
2200
2500
2800
3100
2000
2200
2500
2800
3100
3500
3800
3%
5%
3%
2.5%
Average
3900
4500
5200
6000
6700
7500
8200
5800
6800
7800
9000
10000
12000
13000
18000
21000
23000
25000
28000
30000
33000
27000
30000
33000
36000
39000
42000
45000
48000
54000
60000
67000
74000
81000
88000
DOE multiplied the CH4 and N2O
emissions reduction estimated for each
year by the SC–CH4 and SC–N2O
estimates for that year in each of the
cases. DOE adjusted the values to 2021$
using the implicit price deflator for GDP
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
To calculate a present value of the
stream of monetary values, DOE
discounted the values in each of the
cases using the specific discount rate
that had been used to obtain the SC–CH4
and SC–N2O estimates in each case.
2. Monetization of Other Emissions
Impacts
For the NOPR, DOE estimated the
monetized value of NOX and SO2
emissions reductions from electricity
generation using the latest benefit per
ton estimates for that sector from the
EPA’s Benefits Mapping and Analysis
Program.110 DOE used EPA’s values for
PM2.5-related benefits associated with
NOX and SO2 and for ozone-related
benefits associated with NOX for 2025
2030, and 2040, calculated with
discount rates of 3 percent and 7
percent. DOE used linear interpolation
to define values for the years not given
in the 2025 to 2040 period; for years
beyond 2040 the values are held
constant. DOE derived values specific to
the sector for RCWs using a method
described in appendix 14B of the NOPR
TSD.
DOE also estimated the monetized
value of NOX and SO2 emissions
reductions from site use of natural gas
in RCWs using benefit-per-ton estimates
from the EPA’s Benefits Mapping and
Analysis Program. Although none of the
sectors covered by EPA refers
specifically to residential and
109 See EPA, Revised 2023 and Later Model Year
Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards:
Regulatory Impact Analysis, Washington, DC,
December 2021. Available at: www.epa.gov/system/
files/documents/2021-12/420r21028.pdf (last
accessed January 13, 2022).
110 Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing
PM2.5 Precursors from 21 Sectors. www.epa.gov/
benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25precursors-21-sectors.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13584
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
commercial buildings, the sector called
‘‘area sources’’ would be a reasonable
proxy for residential and commercial
buildings.111 The EPA document
provides high and low estimates for
2025 and 2030 at 3- and 7-percent
discount rates.112 DOE used the same
linear interpolation and extrapolation as
it did with the values for electricity
generation.
DOE multiplied the site emissions
reduction (in tons) in each year by the
associated $/ton values, and then
discounted each series using discount
rates of 3 percent and 7 percent as
appropriate.
M. Utility Impact Analysis
The utility impact analysis estimates
the changes in installed electrical
capacity and generation projected to
result for each considered TSL. The
analysis is based on published output
from the NEMS associated with
AEO2022. NEMS produces the AEO
Reference case, as well as a number of
side cases that estimate the economywide impacts of changes to energy
supply and demand. For the current
analysis, impacts are quantified by
comparing the levels of electricity sector
generation, installed capacity, fuel
consumption and emissions in the
AEO2022 Reference case and various
side cases. Details of the methodology
are provided in the appendices to
chapters 13 and 15 of the NOPR TSD.
The output of this analysis is a set of
time-dependent coefficients that capture
the change in electricity generation,
primary fuel consumption, installed
capacity and power sector emissions
due to a unit reduction in demand for
a given end use. These coefficients are
multiplied by the stream of electricity
savings calculated in the NIA to provide
estimates of selected utility impacts of
potential new or amended energy
conservation standards.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
N. Employment Impact Analysis
DOE considers employment impacts
in the domestic economy as one factor
in selecting a proposed standard.
Employment impacts from new or
amended energy conservation standards
include both direct and indirect
impacts. Direct employment impacts are
111 ‘‘Area sources’’ represents all emission sources
for which states do not have exact (point) locations
in their emissions inventories. Because exact
locations would tend to be associated with larger
sources, ‘‘area sources’’ would be fairly
representative of small dispersed sources like
homes and businesses.
112 ‘‘Area sources’’ are a category in the 2018
document from EPA, but are not used in the 2021
document cited above. Available at: www.epa.gov/
sites/default/files/2018–02/documents/
sourceapportionmentbpttsd_2018.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
any changes in the number of
employees of manufacturers of the
products subject to standards, their
suppliers, and related service firms. The
MIA addresses those impacts. Indirect
employment impacts are changes in
national employment that occur due to
the shift in expenditures and capital
investment caused by the purchase and
operation of more-efficient appliances.
Indirect employment impacts from
standards consist of the net jobs created
or eliminated in the national economy,
other than in the manufacturing sector
being regulated, caused by (1) reduced
spending by consumers on energy, (2)
reduced spending on new energy supply
by the utility industry, (3) increased
consumer spending on the products to
which the new standards apply and
other goods and services, and (4) the
effects of those three factors throughout
the economy.
One method for assessing the possible
effects on the demand for labor of such
shifts in economic activity is to compare
sector employment statistics developed
by the Labor Department’s Bureau of
Labor Statistics (‘‘BLS’’). BLS regularly
publishes its estimates of the number of
jobs per million dollars of economic
activity in different sectors of the
economy, as well as the jobs created
elsewhere in the economy by this same
economic activity. Data from BLS
indicate that expenditures in the utility
sector generally create fewer jobs (both
directly and indirectly) than
expenditures in other sectors of the
economy.113 There are many reasons for
these differences, including wage
differences and the fact that the utility
sector is more capital-intensive and less
labor-intensive than other sectors.
Energy conservation standards have the
effect of reducing consumer utility bills.
Because reduced consumer
expenditures for energy likely lead to
increased expenditures in other sectors
of the economy, the general effect of
efficiency standards is to shift economic
activity from a less labor-intensive
sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more
labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the retail
and service sectors). Thus, the BLS data
suggest that net national employment
may increase due to shifts in economic
activity resulting from energy
conservation standards.
DOE estimated indirect national
employment impacts for the standard
levels considered in this NOPR using an
113 See U.S. Department of Commerce–Bureau of
Economic Analysis. Regional Multipliers: A User
Handbook for the Regional Input-Output Modeling
System (RIMS II). 1997. U.S. Government Printing
Office: Washington, DC. Available at apps.bea.gov/
scb/pdf/regional/perinc/meth/rims2.pdf (Last
accessed June 22, 2022).
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
input/output model of the U.S. economy
called Impact of Sector Energy
Technologies version 4 (‘‘ImSET’’).114
ImSET is a special-purpose version of
the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark National InputOutput’’ (‘‘I–O’’) model, which was
designed to estimate the national
employment and income effects of
energy-saving technologies. The ImSET
software includes a computer- based I–
O model having structural coefficients
that characterize economic flows among
187 sectors most relevant to industrial,
commercial, and residential building
energy use.
DOE notes that ImSET is not a general
equilibrium forecasting model, and that
the uncertainties involved in projecting
employment impacts, especially
changes in the later years of the
analysis. Because ImSET does not
incorporate price changes, the
employment effects predicted by ImSET
may over-estimate actual job impacts
over the long run for this rule.
Therefore, DOE used ImSET only to
generate results for near-term
timeframes (2027–2031), where these
uncertainties are reduced. For more
details on the employment impact
analysis, see chapter 16 of the NOPR
TSD.
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
The following section addresses the
results from DOE’s analyses with
respect to the considered energy
conservation standards for RCWs. It
addresses the TSLs examined by DOE,
the projected impacts of each of these
levels if adopted as energy conservation
standards for RCWs, and the standards
levels that DOE is proposing to adopt in
this NOPR. Additional details regarding
DOE’s analyses are contained in the
NOPR TSD supporting this document.
A. Trial Standard Levels
In general, DOE typically evaluates
potential amended standards for
products and equipment by grouping
individual efficiency levels for each
class into TSLs. Use of TSLs allows DOE
to identify and consider manufacturer
cost interactions between the product
classes, to the extent that there are such
interactions, and market cross elasticity
from consumer purchasing decisions
that may change when different
standard levels are set.
In the analysis conducted for this
NOPR, DOE analyzed the benefits and
burdens of five TSLs for RCWs. DOE
developed TSLs that combine efficiency
114 Livingston, O.V., S.R. Bender, M.J. Scott, and
R.W. Schultz. ImSET 4.0: Impact of Sector Energy
Technologies Model Description and User Guide.
2015. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory:
Richland, WA. PNNL–24563.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13585
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
levels for each analyzed product class.
DOE presents the results for the TSLs in
this document, while the results for all
efficiency levels that DOE analyzed are
in the NOPR TSD.
Table V.1 through Table V.3 present
the TSLs and the corresponding
efficiency levels that DOE has identified
for potential amended energy
conservation standards for RCWs. TSL 5
represents the max-tech energy and
water efficiency for all product classes.
TSL 4 represents the ENERGY STAR
Most Efficient level for the front-loading
product classes, the CEE Tier 1 level for
the top-loading standard-size product
class, and a gap fill level for the semiautomatic product class. TSL 3
represents the current ENERGY STAR
efficiency level for all product classes
that are eligible for the program, and a
gap fill level for the semi-automatic
product class. TSL 2 represents the nonmax-tech efficiency levels providing the
highest LCC savings. TSL 1 represents
EL 1 across all product classes.
TABLE V.1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR SEMI-AUTOMATIC, RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
Semi-automatic
TSL
Efficiency level
EER
(lb/kWh/cycle)
1
2
2.12
2.51
1–4 ...............................................................................................................................................
5 ...................................................................................................................................................
WER
(lb/gal/cycle)
0.27
0.36
TABLE V.2—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR TOP-LOADING RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
Top-loading, ultra-compact
TSL
EER
(lb/kWh/cycle)
Efficiency level
1
2
3
4
5
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Top-loading, standard-size
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
WER
(lb/gal/cycle)
3.79
3.79
3.79
3.79
3.79
Efficiency level
EER
(lb/kWh/cycle)
1
1
2
3
4
3.89
3.89
4.27
4.78
5.37
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
WER
(lb/gal/cycle)
0.47
0.47
0.57
0.63
0.67
TABLE V.3—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR FRONT-LOADING RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
Front-loading, compact
TSL
1
2
3
4
5
Efficiency level
EER
(lb/kWh/cycle)
1
1
1
2
4
4.80
4.80
4.80
5.02
5.97
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
While not all efficiency levels were
included in the TSLs, DOE considered
all efficiency levels as part of its
analysis.115
B. Economic Justification and Energy
Savings
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Economic Impacts on Individual
Consumers
DOE analyzed the economic impacts
on RCW consumers by looking at the
effects that potential amended standards
at each TSL would have on the LCC and
PBP. DOE also examined the impacts of
potential standards on selected
consumer subgroups. These analyses are
discussed in the following sections.
115 Efficiency levels that were analyzed for this
NOPR are discussed in section IV.C.1 of this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
Front-loading, standard-size
WER
(lb/gal/cycle)
Efficiency level
EER
(lb/kWh/cycle)
1
2
2
3
4
5.31
5.52
5.52
5.73
5.97
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.71
0.80
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
In general, higher-efficiency products
affect consumers in two ways: (1)
purchase price increases and (2) annual
operating costs decrease. Inputs used for
calculating the LCC and PBP include
total installed costs (i.e., product price
plus installation costs), and operating
costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy
prices, energy price trends, repair costs,
and maintenance costs). The LCC
calculation also uses product lifetime
and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the
NOPR TSD provides detailed
information on the LCC and PBP
analyses.
Table V.4 through Table V.13 show
the LCC and PBP results for the TSLs
considered for each product class. In the
first of each pair of tables, the simple
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
0.69
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.85
payback is measured relative to the
baseline product. In the second table,
impacts are measured relative to the
efficiency distribution in the no-newstandards case in the compliance year
(see section IV.F.8 of this document).
Because some consumers purchase
products with higher efficiency in the
no-new-standards case, the average
savings are less than the difference
between the average LCC of the baseline
product and the average LCC at each
TSL. The savings refer only to
consumers who are affected by a
standard at a given TSL. Those who
already purchase a product with
efficiency at or above a given TSL are
not affected. Consumers for whom the
LCC increases at a given TSL experience
a net cost.
document. Results by efficiency level are presented
in chapters 8, 10, and 12 of the NOPR TSD.
PO 00000
WER
(lb/gal/cycle)
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13586
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.4—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR SEMI-AUTOMATIC RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
Average costs
(2021$)
TSL
Efficiency level
Installed cost
1–4 ..............
5 ..................
Baseline ..........................
1 .....................................
2 .....................................
First year’s
operating cost
$553
561
568
Lifetime
operating
cost
$136
107
93
Simple
payback
(years)
LCC
$1,532
1,195
1,044
$2,085
1,756
1,612
Average
lifetime
(years)
........................
0.3
0.4
13.7
13.7
13.7
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative
to the baseline product.
TABLE V.5—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR SEMI-AUTOMATIC RESIDENTIAL
CLOTHES WASHERS
Life-cycle cost savings
TSL
Efficiency level
1–4 .............................................................................................................................
5 .................................................................................................................................
Average LCC
savings *
(2021$)
1
2
Percent of
consumers
that experience
net cost
329
219
0
0
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
TABLE V.6—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR TOP-LOADING, ULTRA-COMPACT RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
Average costs
(2021$)
TSL
1–5 ..............
Efficiency level
Baseline ..........................
Installed cost
First year’s
operating
cost
Lifetime
operating
cost
$904
$85
$958
LCC
Simple
payback
(years)
Average
lifetime
(years)
$1,862
........................
13.7
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level.
TABLE V.7—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR TOP-LOADING, ULTRA-COMPACT
RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
Life-cycle cost savings
TSL
Efficiency level
Average
LCC savings *
(2021$)
Percent of
consumers
that experience
net cost
1–5 .................
Baseline ...........................................................................................................................
$0.00
0%
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
TABLE V.8—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR TOP-LOADING, STANDARD-SIZE RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
Average costs
(2021$)
TSL
Efficiency level
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Installed cost
1, 2 ..............
3 ..................
4 ..................
5 ..................
Baseline ..........................
1 .....................................
2 .....................................
3 .....................................
4 .....................................
$706
795
881
891
896
First year’s
operating
cost
Lifetime
operating
cost
$183
164
157
152
149
$2,080
1,853
1,779
1,717
1,682
Simple
payback
(years)
LCC
$2,786
2,649
2,660
2,608
2,578
........................
4.6
6.8
5.9
5.5
Average
lifetime
(years)
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.7
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative
to the baseline product.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:56 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13587
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.9—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR TOP-LOADING, STANDARD-SIZE RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
Life-cycle cost savings
TSL
Efficiency level
1, 2 .............................................................................................................................
3 .................................................................................................................................
4 .................................................................................................................................
5 .................................................................................................................................
Percent of
consumers
that experience
net cost
Average
LCC savings *
(2021$)
1
2
3
4
$138
115
134
157
14
28
25
23
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
TABLE V.10—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR FRONT-LOADING, COMPACT RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
Average costs
(2021$)
TSL
Efficiency level
Installed cost
1–3 ..............
4 ..................
5 ..................
Baseline ..........................
1 .....................................
2 .....................................
4 .....................................
First year’s
operating
cost
$809
861
909
944
Lifetime
operating
cost
$100
93
89
81
Simple
payback
(years)
LCC
$1,119
1,046
992
901
$1,929
1,907
1,901
1,845
Average
lifetime
(years)
........................
0.0
9.1
7.1
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.7
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative
to the baseline product.
TABLE V.11—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR FRONT-LOADING, COMPACT RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
Life-cycle cost savings
TSL
Efficiency level
1–3 .............................................................................................................................
4 .................................................................................................................................
5 .................................................................................................................................
Percent of
consumers
that experience
net cost
Average
LCC savings *
(2021$)
1
2
4
$0.0
7
56
0
24
29
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
TABLE V.12—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR FRONT-LOADING, STANDARD-SIZE RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
Average costs
(2021$)
TSL
Efficiency level
Installed cost
1 ..................
2, 3 ..............
4 ..................
5 ..................
Baseline ..........................
1 .....................................
2 .....................................
3 .....................................
4 .....................................
$1,195
1,213
1,226
1,244
1,265
First year’s
operating
cost
Lifetime
operating
cost
$146
140
133
131
126
Simple
payback
(years)
LCC
$1,664
1,589
1,513
1,488
1,424
$2,859
2,802
2,740
2,732
2,689
Average
lifetime
(years)
........................
2.8
2.4
3.2
3.4
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.7
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative
to the baseline product.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE V.13—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR FRONT-LOADING, STANDARD-SIZE RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
Life-cycle cost savings
TSL
Efficiency level
1 .................................................................................................................................
2, 3 .............................................................................................................................
4 .................................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:56 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Average
LCC savings *
(2021$)
1
2
3
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
$57
78
19
03MRP2
Percent of consumers that experience
net cost
0
0
24
13588
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.13—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR FRONT-LOADING, STANDARD-SIZE RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES
WASHERS—Continued
Life-cycle cost savings
TSL
Efficiency level
5 .................................................................................................................................
Percent of consumers that experience
net cost
Average
LCC savings *
(2021$)
4
55
18
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
In the consumer subgroup analysis,
DOE estimated the impact of the
considered TSLs on low-income
households and senior-only households.
Table V.14 through Table V.18
compares the average LCC savings and
PBP at each efficiency level for the
consumer subgroups with similar
metrics for the entire consumer sample
for each RCW product class. The
percent of low-income RCW consumers
experiencing a net cost is smaller than
the full LCC sample in all cases, largely
due to the proportion of renter
households. The percent of senior-only
households experiencing a net cost is
higher than the full LCC sample, largely
due to the lower washer usage
frequency. Chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD
presents the complete LCC and PBP
results for the subgroups.
TABLE V.14—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; SEMIAUTOMATIC RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
Low-income
households
Senior-only
households
All households
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
TSL 1–4 .......................................................................................................................................
TSL 5 ...........................................................................................................................................
389
258
265
174
329
219
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.4
18
80
21
92
21
92
0
0
0
0
0
0
Payback Period (years)
TSL 1–4 .......................................................................................................................................
TSL 5 ...........................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
TSL 1–4 .......................................................................................................................................
TSL 5 ...........................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
TSL 1–4 .......................................................................................................................................
TSL 5 ...........................................................................................................................................
TABLE V.15—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; TOPLOADING, ULTRA-COMPACT RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
Low-income
households
Senior-only
households
All households
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
TSL 1–5 .......................................................................................................................................
$0
$0
$0
........................
........................
........................
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Payback Period (years)
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TSL 1–5 .......................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
TSL 1–5 .......................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
TSL 1–5 .......................................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13589
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.16—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; TOPLOADING, STANDARD-SIZE RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
Low-income
households
Senior-only
households
All households
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
TSL
TSL
TSL
TSL
1, 2 .......................................................................................................................................
3 ...........................................................................................................................................
4 ...........................................................................................................................................
5 ...........................................................................................................................................
$175
186
189
214
$77
37
62
81
$138
115
134
157
2.7
4.0
3.5
3.2
6.3
9.4
8.1
7.6
4.6
6.8
5.9
5.5
47
45
72
78
39
29
59
66
46
39
69
76
8
15
13
13
22
38
35
33
14
28
25
23
Payback Period (years)
TSL
TSL
TSL
TSL
1, 2 .......................................................................................................................................
3 ...........................................................................................................................................
4 ...........................................................................................................................................
5 ...........................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
TSL
TSL
TSL
TSL
1, 2 .......................................................................................................................................
3 ...........................................................................................................................................
4 ...........................................................................................................................................
5 ...........................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
TSL
TSL
TSL
TSL
1, 2 .......................................................................................................................................
3 ...........................................................................................................................................
4 ...........................................................................................................................................
5 ...........................................................................................................................................
TABLE V.17—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; FRONTLOADING, COMPACT RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
Low-income
households
Senior-only
households
All households
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
TSL 1–3 .......................................................................................................................................
TSL 4 ...........................................................................................................................................
TSL 5 ...........................................................................................................................................
$0
27
73
$0
3
44
$0
7
56
0.0
6.7
5.2
0.0
9.9
7.8
0.0
9.1
7.1
0
21
65
0
14
67
0
15
70
0
10
14
0
25
32
0
24
29
Payback Period (years)
TSL 1–3 .......................................................................................................................................
TSL 4 ...........................................................................................................................................
TSL 5 ...........................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
TSL 1–3 .......................................................................................................................................
TSL 4 ...........................................................................................................................................
TSL 5 ...........................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TSL 1–3 .......................................................................................................................................
TSL 4 ...........................................................................................................................................
TSL 5 ...........................................................................................................................................
TABLE V.18—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; FRONTLOADING, STANDARD-SIZE RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
Low-income
households
Senior-only
households
All households
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
TSL 1 ...........................................................................................................................................
TSL 2, 3 .......................................................................................................................................
TSL 4 ...........................................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
$56
80
25
03MRP2
$39
52
8
$57
78
19
13590
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.18—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS; FRONTLOADING, STANDARD-SIZE RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS—Continued
Low-income
households
TSL 5 ...........................................................................................................................................
Senior-only
households
All households
63
32
55
2.0
1.7
2.3
2.4
3.8
3.3
4.3
4.5
2.8
2.4
3.2
3.4
1
6
29
65
2
7
22
63
2
7
28
74
0
1
19
20
0
1
31
29
0
0
24
18
Payback Period (years)
TSL
TSL
TSL
TSL
1 ...........................................................................................................................................
2, 3 .......................................................................................................................................
4 ...........................................................................................................................................
5 ...........................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
TSL
TSL
TSL
TSL
1 ...........................................................................................................................................
2, 3 .......................................................................................................................................
4 ...........................................................................................................................................
5 ...........................................................................................................................................
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
TSL
TSL
TSL
TSL
1 ...........................................................................................................................................
2, 3 .......................................................................................................................................
4 ...........................................................................................................................................
5 ...........................................................................................................................................
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
As discussed in section III.F.2 of this
document, EPCA establishes a
rebuttable presumption that an energy
conservation standard is economically
justified if the increased purchase cost
for a product that meets the standard is
less than three times the value of the
first-year energy savings resulting from
the standard. In calculating a rebuttable
presumption payback period for each of
the considered TSLs, DOE used discrete
values, and, as required by EPCA, based
the energy use calculation on the DOE
test procedure for RCWs. In contrast, the
PBPs presented in section V.B.1.a of this
document were calculated using
distributions that reflect the range of
energy use in the field.
Table V.19 presents the rebuttablepresumption payback periods for the
considered TSLs for RCWs. While DOE
examined the rebuttable-presumption
criterion, it considered whether the
standard levels considered for the NOPR
are economically justified through a
more detailed analysis of the economic
impacts of those levels, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), that considers
the full range of impacts to the
consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and
environment. The results of that
analysis serve as the basis for DOE to
definitively evaluate the economic
justification for a potential standard
level, thereby supporting or rebutting
the results of any preliminary
determination of economic justification.
TABLE V.19—REBUTTABLE-PRESUMPTION PAYBACK PERIODS
Trial standard level
Product class
1
2
3
4
5
(years)
Semi-Automatic ....................................................................
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact * ..............................................
Top-Loading, Standard-Size ................................................
Front-Loading, Compact ......................................................
Front-Loading, Standard-Size ..............................................
0.2
n.a.
4.2
6.5
2.8
0.2
n.a.
4.2
6.5
2.5
0.2
n.a.
6.2
6.5
2.5
0.2
n.a.
5.3
7.5
3.3
0.3
n.a.
4.8
6.0
3.4
* The entry ‘‘n.a.’’ means not applicable because the evaluated standard is the baseline.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
DOE performed an MIA to estimate
the impact of amended energy
conservation standards on
manufacturers of RCWs. The following
section describes the expected impacts
on manufacturers at each considered
TSL. Chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD
explains the analysis in further detail.
See section V.B.1 of this document for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
a discussion of the potential impacts on
consumers.
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
In this section, DOE provides GRIM
results from the analysis, which
examines changes in the industry that
would result from a standard. The
following tables summarize the
estimated financial impacts (represented
by changes in INPV) of potential
amended energy conservation standards
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
on manufacturers of RCWs, as well as
the conversion costs that DOE estimates
manufacturers of RCWs would incur at
each TSL.
The impact of potential amended
energy conservation standards were
analyzed under two scenarios: (1) the
preservation of gross margin percentage;
and (2) the preservation of operating
profit, as discussed in section IV.J.2.d of
this document. The preservation of
gross margin percentage applies a ‘‘gross
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13591
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
margin percentage’’ of 18 percent for all
product classes and all efficiency
levels.116 This scenario assumes that a
manufacturer’s per-unit dollar profit
would increase as MPCs increase in the
standards cases and represents the
upper-bound to industry profitability
under potential amended energy
conservation standards.
The preservation of operating profit
scenario reflects manufacturers’
concerns about their inability to
maintain margins as MPCs increase to
reach more-stringent efficiency levels.
In this scenario, while manufacturers
make the necessary investments
required to convert their facilities to
produce compliant products, operating
profit does not change in absolute
dollars and decreases as a percentage of
revenue. The preservation of operating
profit scenario results in the lower (or
more severe) bound to impacts of
potential amended standards on
industry.
Each of the modeled scenarios results
in a unique set of cash flows and
corresponding INPV for each TSL. INPV
is the sum of the discounted cash flows
to the industry from the base year
through the end of the analysis period
(2022–2056). The ‘‘change in INPV’’
results refer to the difference in industry
value between the no-new-standards
case and standards case at each TSL. To
provide perspective on the short-run
cash flow impact, DOE includes a
comparison of free cash flow between
the no-new-standards case and the
standards case at each TSL in the year
before amended standards would take
effect. This figure provides an
understanding of the magnitude of the
required conversion costs relative to the
cash flow generated by the industry in
the no-new-standards case.
Conversion costs are one-time
investments for manufacturers to bring
their manufacturing facilities and
product designs into compliance with
potential amended standards. As
described in section IV.J.2.c of this
document, conversion cost investments
occur between the year of publication of
the final rule and the year by which
manufacturers must comply with the
new standard. The conversion costs can
have a significant impact on the shortterm cash flow on the industry and
generally result in lower free cash flow
in the period between the publication of
the final rule and the compliance date
of potential amended standards.
Conversion costs are independent of the
manufacturer markup scenarios and are
not presented as a range in this analysis.
TABLE V.20—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
INPV .................
Change in
INPV *.
Free Cash Flow
(2026) *.
Change in Free
Cash Flow
(2026) *.
Conversion
Costs.
Unit
No-newstandards
case
TSL 1
TSL 2
TSL 3
TSL 4
2021$ millions
% .....................
1,738.3
..................
1,680.4 to 1,746.4 ...
(3.3) to 0.5 ...............
1,636.5 to 1,702.9 ...
(5.9) to (2.0) ............
1,490.3 to 1,631.0 ...
(14.3) to (6.2) ..........
1,208.1 to 1,376.7 ...
(30.5) to (20.8) ........
798.7 to 985.9
(54.1) to (43.3)
139.9
117.5 .......................
90.8 .........................
13.7 .........................
(150.0) .....................
(396.7)
% .....................
..................
(16.0) .......................
(35.1) .......................
(90.2) .......................
(207.3) .....................
(383.7)
2021$ millions
..................
56.5 .........................
118.7 .......................
302.2 .......................
690.8 .......................
1,253.8
2021$ millions
TSL 5
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
* Parentheses denote negative (¥) values.
The majority of the INPV impacts are
associated with standard-size product
classes because standard-size toploading and front-loading RCWs
comprise approximately 96 percent of
the total RCW domestic shipments.
More specifically, the majority of the
INPV impacts are associated with toploading clothes washers due to the highvolume of shipments, the high
percentage of shipments at minimum
efficiency, and the likely design paths
required to meet more stringent
standards. Top-loading clothes washers
account for approximately 76 percent of
current standard-size RCW shipments.
DOE’s shipments analysis estimates
approximately 69 percent of top-loading
shipments are at the baseline efficiency
level. Additionally, the engineering
analysis, informed by conversations
with manufacturers indicates that the
likely design path to meet the
efficiencies required at TSL 4 and TSL
5 would require notable capital
investments. In particular, standard-size
top-loading units with capacities of less
than 4.7 ft3 would require significant
redesign associated with increasing tub
capacity to meet these higher
efficiencies. In contrast, only 3 percent
of current front-loading shipments are at
the baseline efficiency level and DOE’s
engineering analysis suggests that
increases in tub capacity would not be
required for front-loading clothes
washer models to reach max-tech. Thus,
as DOE considers increasingly stringent
TSLs, the standard-size top-loading
product class tends to drive industry
investments and negative INPV impacts.
See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for a
detailed discussion of design paths to
reach higher efficiencies.
At TSL 1, the standard represents the
least stringent efficiencies (EL 1) for all
product classes. The change in INPV is
expected to range from –3.3 to 0.5
percent. At this level, free cash flow is
estimated to decrease by 16.0 percent
compared to the no-new-standards case
value of $139.9 million in the year 2026,
the year before the standards year.
DOE’s shipments analysis estimates
approximately 48 percent of current
shipments meet this level.
At TSL 1, DOE expects most
manufacturers would incur limited
conversion costs to reach the
efficiencies required. The conversion
costs primarily stem from changes
required for top-loading standard-size
clothes washers. DOE’s shipments
analysis estimates approximately 31
percent of current standard-size toploading clothes washers meet this level
(EL 1). In contrast, nearly all the frontloading standard-size clothes washers
currently meet the efficiencies required
at this level. Industry capital conversion
costs include tooling updates and costs
associated with transitioning models
with porcelain wash baskets to
stainless-steel wash baskets. Product
conversion costs may be necessary for
product development and testing. DOE
expects industry to incur some reflooring costs. DOE estimates capital
conversion costs of $30.1 million and
product conversion costs of $26.3
116 The gross margin percentage of 18 percent is
based on a manufacturer markup of 1.22.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
13592
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
million. Conversion costs total $56.5
million.
At TSL 1, the shipment-weighted
average MPC for all RCWs is expected
to increase by 6.9 percent relative to the
no-new-standards case shipmentweighted average MPC for all RCWs in
2027. In the preservation of gross
margin percentage scenario, the slight
increase in cashflow slightly outweighs
the $56.5 million in conversion costs,
causing a minor positive change in
INPV at TSL 1 under this scenario.
Under the preservation of operating
profit scenario, the manufacturer
markup decreases in 2028, the year after
the analyzed compliance year. This
reduction in the manufacturer markup
and the $56.5 million in conversion
costs incurred by manufacturers cause a
slightly negative change in INPV at TSL
1 under the preservation of operating
profit scenario.
At TSL 2, the standard represents the
non-max-tech efficiency levels
providing the highest LCC savings for
all product classes. The change in INPV
is expected to range from ¥5.9 to ¥2.0
percent. At this level, free cash flow is
estimated to decrease by 35.1 percent
compared to the no-new-standards case
value of $139.9 million in the year 2026,
the year before the standards year.
DOE’s shipments analysis estimates
approximately 47 percent of current
shipments meet this level.
For standard-size front-loading
clothes washers, TSL 2 corresponds to
EL 2. For the remaining product classes,
TSL 2 corresponds to the same
efficiencies required at TSL 1 (EL 1).
The increase in conversion costs from
the prior TSL are entirely due to the
efficiency level requirements for
standard-size front-loading clothes
washers. DOE’s shipments analysis
estimates approximately 91 percent of
current standard-size front-loading
clothes washer shipments meet or
exceed TSL 2 efficiencies. Of the seven
OEMs with standard-size front-loading
clothes washer models, there is one
OEM that does not currently offer a
product that meets TSL 2 efficiencies.
DOE assumed that this manufacturer
would redesign and re-tool to meet TSL
2 in its estimate of conversion costs.
That manufacturer accounts for the
majority of the increase in conversion
costs. DOE estimates capital conversion
costs of $81.1 million and product
conversion costs of $37.6 million.
Conversion costs total $118.7 million.
At TSL 2, the shipment-weighted
average MPC for all RCWs is expected
to increase by 6.9 percent relative to the
no-new-standards case shipmentweighted average MPC for all RCWs in
2027. In the preservation of gross
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
margin percentage scenario, the slight
increase in cashflow is outweighed by
the $118.7 million in conversion costs,
causing a slightly negative change in
INPV at TSL 2 under this scenario.
Under the preservation of operating
profit scenario, the manufacturer
markup decreases in 2028, the year after
the analyzed compliance year. This
reduction in the manufacturer markup
and the $118.7 million in conversion
costs incurred by manufacturers cause a
slightly negative change in INPV at TSL
2 under the preservation of operating
profit scenario.
At TSL 3, the standard represents the
current ENERGY STAR efficiency level
for all product classes that are eligible
for the program, and a gap fill level for
the semi-automatic product class. The
change in INPV is expected to range
from ¥14.3 to ¥6.2 percent. At this
level, free cash flow is estimated to
decrease by 90.2 percent compared to
the no-new-standards case value of
$139.9 million in the year 2026, the year
before the standards year. DOE’s
shipments analysis estimates
approximately 45 percent of current
shipments meet this level.
For standard-size top-loading clothes
washers, TSL 3 corresponds to EL 2. For
the remaining product classes, the
efficiencies required at TSL 3 are the
same as TSL 2. Approximately 29
percent of current standard-size toploading clothes washer shipments meet
the efficiencies required by TSL 3.
However, most manufacturers with
standard-size top-loading models offer
products at or above the efficiencies
required at this level. Of the nine OEMs
with standard-size top-loading products,
six OEMs offer models that meet the
efficiencies required.
To meet TSL 3, DOE expects
manufacturers would incorporate wash
plate designs, direct drive motors, and
hardware features enabling spin speed
increases into standard-size top-loading
RCWs. Beyond these design options,
some manufacturers may need to
increase the tub capacities of certain
standard-size top-loading clothes
washers (i.e., models with capacities of
less than 4.4 ft3). Increasing clothes
washer capacity could require a new
cabinet, tub, and drum designs, which
would necessitate costly investments in
manufacturing equipment and tooling.
Product conversion costs may be
necessary for designing, prototyping,
and testing new or updated platforms.
Additionally, DOE expects industry to
incur more re-flooring costs compared
to prior TSLs as more display units
would need to be replaced. The increase
in conversion costs at TSL 3 are entirely
due to the increased stringency for
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
standard-size top-loading clothes
washers. DOE estimates capital
conversion costs of $216.4 million and
product conversion of costs of $85.7
million. Conversion costs total $302.2
million.
At TSL 3, the shipment-weighted
average MPC for all RCWs is expected
to increase by 14.1 percent relative to
the no-new-standards case shipmentweighted average MPC for all RCWs in
2027. In the preservation of gross
margin percentage scenario, the increase
in cashflow is outweighed by the $302.2
million in conversion costs, causing a
slightly negative change in INPV at TSL
3 under this scenario. Under the
preservation of operating profit
scenario, the manufacturer markup
decreases in 2028, the year after the
analyzed compliance year. This
reduction in the manufacturer markup
and the $302.2 million in conversion
costs incurred by manufacturers cause a
negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under
the preservation of operating profit
scenario.
At TSL 4, the standard represents the
ENERGY STAR Most Efficient level for
the front-loading product classes, the
CEE Tier 1 level for the top-loading
standard-size product class, and a gap
fill level for the semi-automatic product
class. The change in INPV is expected
to range from ¥30.5 to ¥20.8 percent.
At this level, free cash flow is estimated
to decrease by 207.3 percent compared
to the no-new-standards case value of
$139.9 million in the year 2026, the year
before the standards year. DOE’s
shipments analysis estimates
approximately 14 percent of current
shipments meet this level.
For standard-size top-loading and
standard-size front-loading clothes
washers, TSL 4 corresponds to EL 3. For
compact-size front-loading clothes
washers, TSL 4 corresponds to EL 2. For
semi-automatic clothes washers, TSL 4
corresponds to the same efficiency level
as TSL 3 (EL 1). At this level, the
increase in conversion costs is driven by
the standard-size top-loading clothes
washers product class. Currently,
approximately 2 percent of standardsize top-loading shipments meet TSL 4
efficiencies. Of the nine OEMs with toploading standard-size products, only
two offer models that meet the
efficiencies required at TSL 4. The
remaining seven OEMs would need to
redesign all their existing standard-size
top-loading platforms to meet this level.
To meet TSL 4, top-loading clothes
washer designs would likely need to
incorporate hardware features to enable
faster spin speeds. These hardware
updates may include reinforced wash
baskets, more robust suspension and
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
balancing system, and more advanced
sensors. An increasing portion of toploading standard-size clothes washers
(i.e., those models with capacities less
than 4.7 ft3) may need an increase in tub
capacity. Increasing clothes washer
capacity could require new cabinet, tub,
and drum designs. The changes would
necessitate investments in new
equipment and tooling. DOE expects
industry to incur more re-flooring costs
compared to prior TSLs as more display
units would need to be replaced. DOE
estimates capital conversion costs of
$507.9 million and product conversion
of costs of $200.8 million. Conversion
costs total $708.6 million.
At TSL 4, the large conversion costs
result in a free cash flow dropping
below zero in the years before the
standards year. The negative free cash
flow calculation indicates
manufacturers may need to access cash
reserves or outside capital to finance
conversion efforts.
At TSL 4, the shipment-weighted
average MPC for all RCWs is expected
to increase by 15.6 percent relative to
the no-new-standards case shipmentweighted average MPC for all RCWs in
2027. In the preservation of gross
margin percentage scenario, the increase
in cashflow is outweighed by the $690.8
million in conversion costs, causing a
notable change in INPV at TSL 4 under
this scenario. Under the preservation of
operating profit scenario, the
manufacturer markup decreases in 2028,
the year after the analyzed compliance
year. This reduction in the manufacturer
markup and the $690.8 million in
conversion costs incurred by
manufacturers cause a significant
negative change in INPV at TSL 4 under
the preservation of operating profit
scenario.
At TSL 5, the standard represents the
max-tech energy and water efficiencies
for all product classes. The change in
INPV is expected to range from ¥54.1
to ¥43.3 percent. At this level, free cash
flow is estimated to decrease by 383.7
percent compared to the no-newstandards case value of $139.9 million
in the year 2026, the year before the
standards year. DOE’s shipments
analysis estimates approximately 3
percent of current shipments meet this
level.
As previously discussed, the max-tech
efficiencies required for standard-size
clothes washers drive the increase in
conversion costs from the prior TSLs.
Currently, less than 1 percent of
standard-size top-loading clothes
washer shipments and approximately 9
percent of standard-size front-loading
clothes washer shipments meet maxtech levels. Out of the nine standard-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
size top-loading OEMs, only one offers
models that meet the efficiencies
required by TSL 5. Out of the seven
standard-size front-loading OEMs, only
two offer models that meet the
efficiencies required by TSL 5. Max-tech
would require most manufacturers to
significantly redesign their clothes
washer platforms. DOE expects most
standard-size clothes washer
manufacturers would need to further
increase spin speeds as compared to
prior TSLs. An increasing portion of
top-loading standard-size clothes
washers (i.e., models with capacities of
less than 5.0 ft3) may need to increase
tub capacity to achieve the RMCs
required at this level. In interviews, two
manufacturers stated that max-tech
levels would require a total renovation
of existing production facilities. Some
manufacturers further stated that their
product portfolio would be limited due
to the lack of differentiation possible
under a max-tech standard, which
would potentially limit their ability to
serve certain consumer segments and
hurt profitability. DOE expects industry
would incur approximately the same reflooring costs as TSL 4 since few models
exist at the higher levels. At TSL 5,
reaching max-tech efficiency levels is a
billion-dollar investment for industry.
DOE estimates capital conversion costs
of $1,013.3 million and product
conversion of costs of $240.5 million.
Conversion costs total $1,253.8 million.
At TSL 5, the large conversion costs
result in a free cash flow dropping
below zero in the years before the
standards year. The negative free cash
flow calculation indicates
manufacturers may need to access cash
reserves or outside capital to finance
conversion efforts.
At TSL 5, the shipment-weighted
average MPC for all RCWs is expected
to increase by 17.1 percent relative to
the no-new-standards case shipmentweighted average MPC for all RCWs in
2027. In the preservation of gross
margin percentage scenario, the increase
in cashflow is outweighed by the
$1,253.8 million in conversion costs,
causing a significant negative change in
INPV at TSL 5 under this scenario.
Under the preservation of operating
profit scenario, the manufacturer
markup decreases in 2028, the year after
the analyzed compliance year. This
reduction in the manufacturer markup
and the $1,253.8 million in conversion
costs incurred by manufacturers cause a
significant negative change in INPV at
TSL 5 under the preservation of
operating profit scenario.
DOE seeks comments, information,
and data on the capital conversion costs
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13593
and product conversion costs estimated
for each TSL.
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
To quantitatively assess the potential
impacts of amended energy
conservation standards on direct
employment in the RCW industry, DOE
used the GRIM to estimate the domestic
labor expenditures and number of direct
employees in the no-new-standards case
and in each of the standards cases
during the analysis period. DOE
calculated these values using statistical
data from the 2020 ASM,117 BLS
employee compensation data,118 results
of the engineering analysis, and
manufacturer interviews.
Labor expenditures related to product
manufacturing depend on the labor
intensity of the product, the sales
volume, and an assumption that wages
remain fixed in real terms over time.
The total labor expenditures in each
year are calculated by multiplying the
total MPCs by the labor percentage of
MPCs. The total labor expenditures in
the GRIM were then converted to total
production employment levels by
dividing production labor expenditures
by the average fully burdened wage
multiplied by the average number of
hours worked per year per production
worker. To do this, DOE relied on the
ASM inputs: Production Workers
Annual Wages, Production Workers
Annual Hours, Production Workers for
Pay Period, and Number of Employees.
DOE also relied on the BLS employee
compensation data to determine the
fully burdened wage ratio. The fully
burdened wage ratio factors in paid
leave, supplemental pay, insurance,
retirement and savings, and legally
required benefits.
The number of production employees
is then multiplied by the U.S. labor
percentage to convert total production
employment to total domestic
production employment. The U.S. labor
percentage represents the industry
fraction of domestic manufacturing
production capacity for the covered
product. This value is derived from
manufacturer interviews, product
database analysis, and publicly
available information. DOE estimates
that 92 percent of RCWs are produced
domestically.
117 U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of
Manufactures. ‘‘Summary Statistics for Industry
Groups and Industries in the U.S. (2020).’’
Available at: www.census.gov/data/tables/timeseries/econ/asm/2018-2020-asm.html (Last accessed
July 15, 2022).
118 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. ‘‘Employer
Costs for Employee Compensation.’’ June 16, 2022.
Available at: www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/
ecec.pdf (Last accessed July 27, 2022).
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13594
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
The domestic production employees
estimate covers production line
workers, including line supervisors,
who are directly involved in fabricating
and assembling products within the
OEM facility. Workers performing
services that are closely associated with
production operations, such as materials
handling tasks using forklifts, are also
included as production labor. DOE’s
estimates only account for production
workers who manufacture the specific
products covered by this proposed
rulemaking.
Non-production workers account for
the remainder of the direct employment
figure. The non-production employees
estimate covers domestic workers who
are not directly involved in the
production process, such as sales,
engineering, human resources, and
management. Using the amount of
domestic production workers calculated
previously, non-production domestic
employees are extrapolated by
multiplying the ratio of non-production
workers in the industry compared to
production employees. DOE assumes
that this employee distribution ratio
remains constant between the no-newstandards case and standards cases.
Using the GRIM, DOE estimates in the
absence of new energy conservation
standards there would be 9,222
domestic workers for RCWs in 2027.
Table V.21 shows the range of the
impacts of energy conservation
standards on U.S. manufacturing
employment in the RCW industry. The
following discussion provides a
qualitative evaluation of the range of
potential impacts presented in Table
V.21.
TABLE V.21—DOMESTIC DIRECT EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHER MANUFACTURERS IN 2027
No-newstandards
case
Direct Employment (Production Workers + NonProduction Workers).
Potential Changes in Direct Employment Workers *.
TSL 1
TSL 2
TSL 3
TSL 4
TSL 5
9,222
10,511 ................
10,504 ................
11,710 ................
11,973 ................
11,939
........................
(8,121) to 1,289 ..
(8,121) to 1,282 ..
(8,121) to 2,488 ..
(8,121) to 2,751 ..
(8,121) to 2,717
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
* DOE presents a range of potential direct employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative numbers.
The direct employment impacts
shown in Table V.21 represent the
potential domestic employment changes
that could result following the
compliance date for the RCWs covered
in this proposal. The upper bound
estimate corresponds to an increase in
the number of domestic workers that
results from amended energy
conservation standards if manufacturers
continue to produce the same scope of
covered products within the United
States after compliance takes effect. To
establish a conservative lower bound,
DOE assumes all manufacturers would
shift production to foreign countries. At
lower TSLs, DOE believes the likelihood
of changes in production location due to
amended standards are low due to the
relatively minor production line
updates required. However, as amended
standards increase in stringency and
both the complexity and cost of
production facility updates increases,
manufacturers are more likely to revisit
their production location decisions. At
max-tech, manufacturers representing a
large portion of the market noted
concerns about the level of investment,
about the potential need to relocate
production lines in order to remain
competitive, and about the conversion
period of 3 years being insufficient to
make the necessary manufacturing line
updates.
Additional detail on the analysis of
direct employment can be found in
chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
Additionally, the employment impacts
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
discussed in this section are
independent of the employment impacts
from the broader U.S. economy, which
are documented in chapter 16 of the
NOPR TSD.
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
As discussed in section V.B.2.a of this
document, meeting the efficiencies
required for each TSL would require
varying levels of resources and
investment. A standard level requiring
notably faster spin speeds, namely TSL
4 and TSL 5, would necessitate product
redesign to account for the increased
spin speeds as well as the noise,
vibration, and fabric care concerns
related to the spin speeds required to
meet these higher TSLs. These updates
may include designing and
manufacturing reinforced wash baskets,
instituting a more robust suspension
and balancing system, increasing the
number of sensors, and incorporating
more advanced sensors. For standardsize top-loading clothes washers,
manufacturers would also need to
increase tub capacity of smaller models
to meet the efficiencies required at
higher TSLs. Many manufacturers
would need to invest in new tooling and
equipment to either produce entirely
new wash basket lines or ramp up
production of their existing larger
capacity wash baskets. Based on a
review of CCD model listings, DOE’s
engineering analysis indicates that tub
capacity would need to increase to 4.4
ft3 at TSL 3, 4.7 ft3 at TSL 4, and 5.0
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
ft3 at TSL 5 for the top-loading standardsize product class.119 In interviews,
some manufacturers expressed
concerns—particularly at max-tech—
that the 3-year period between the
announcement of the final rule and the
compliance date of the amended energy
conservation standard might be
insufficient to update production
facilities and design, test, and
manufacture the necessary number of
products to meet demand.
For the remaining TSLs (i.e., TSL 1,
TSL 2, and TSL 3) most manufacturers
could likely maintain manufacturing
capacity levels and continue to meet
market demand under amended energy
conservation standards.
DOE seeks comment on whether
manufacturers expect manufacturing
capacity constraints due to production
facility updates would limit product
availability to consumers in the
timeframe of the amended standard
compliance date (2027).
d. Impacts on Subgroups of
Manufacturers
Using average cost assumptions to
develop industry cash-flow estimates
may not capture the differential impacts
among subgroups of manufacturers.
Small manufacturers, niche players, or
manufacturers exhibiting a cost
119 Based on the increase in cost associated with
implementing a larger capacity tub, DOE expects
that if a higher efficiency level were possible to
achieve without an increase in capacity, such
products would be available on the market.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
structure that differs substantially from
the industry average could be affected
disproportionately. DOE investigated
small businesses as a manufacturer
subgroup that could be
disproportionally impacted by energy
conservation standards and could merit
additional analysis. DOE did not
identify any other adversely impacted
manufacturer subgroups for this
proposed rulemaking based on the
results of the industry characterization.
DOE analyzes the impacts on small
businesses in a separate analysis in
section VI.B of this document as part of
the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. In
summary, the Small Business
Administration (‘‘SBA’’) defines a
‘‘small business’’ as having 1,500
employees or less for NAICS 335220,
‘‘Major Household Appliance
Manufacturing.’’ 120 Based on this
classification, DOE identified one
domestic OEM that qualifies as a small
business. For a discussion of the
impacts on the small business
manufacturer subgroup, see the
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in
section VI.B of this document and
chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
One aspect of assessing manufacturer
burden involves looking at the
cumulative impact of multiple DOE
standards and the product-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal
agencies that affect the manufacturers of
a covered product or equipment. While
any one regulation may not impose a
significant burden on manufacturers,
the combined effects of several existing
or impending regulations may have
serious consequences for some
manufacturers, groups of manufacturers,
or an entire industry. Assessing the
impact of a single regulation may
overlook this cumulative regulatory
burden. In addition to energy
13595
conservation standards, other
regulations can significantly affect
manufacturers’ financial operations.
Multiple regulations affecting the same
manufacturer can strain profits and lead
companies to abandon product lines or
markets with lower expected future
returns than competing products. For
these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis
of cumulative regulatory burden as part
of its rulemakings pertaining to
appliance efficiency.
For the cumulative regulatory burden
analysis, DOE examines Federal,
product-specific regulations that could
affect RCW manufacturers that take
effect approximately three years before
or after the 2027 compliance date.
In response to the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis, stakeholders
commented on the cumulative
regulatory burden analysis. See section
IV.J.3.c for a summary of stakeholder
comments and DOE’s initial responses.
TABLE V.22—COMPLIANCE DATES AND EXPECTED CONVERSION EXPENSES OF FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION
STANDARDS AFFECTING RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHER ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS
Number of
OEMs *
Federal energy conservation standard
Portable Air Conditioners, 85 FR 1378 (January
10, 2020) ..........................................................
Room Air Conditioners †, 87 FR 20608 (April 7,
2022) ................................................................
Consumer Furnaces †, 87 FR 40590 (July 7,
2022) ................................................................
Commercial Water Heating Equipment †, 87 FR
30610 (May 19, 2022) ......................................
Consumer Clothes Dryers †, 87 FR 51734 (August 23, 2022) ..................................................
Microwave Ovens †, 87 FR 52282 (August 24,
2022) ................................................................
Consumer Conventional Cooking Products †, 88
FR 6818 (February 1, 2023) ............................
Consumer Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezes,
and Freezers †‡ ................................................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Number of
OEMs affected
from today’s
rule **
Approx. standards
year
Industry conversion
costs
(millions $)
Industry
conversion
costs/
product
revenue ***
(%)
11
2
2025
$320.9 (2015$)
6.7
8
4
2026
$22.8 (2020$)
0.5
15
1
2029
$150.6 (2020$)
1.4
14
1
2026
$34.6 (2020$)
4.7
15
12
2027
$149.7 (2020$)
1.8
18
9
2026
$46.1 (2021$)
0.7
34
9
2027
$183.4 (2021$)
1.2
49
12
2027
$1,323.6 (2021$)
3.8
* This column presents the total number of OEMs identified in the energy conservation standard rule contributing to cumulative regulatory burden.
** This column presents the number of OEMs producing RCWs that are also listed as OEMs in the identified energy conservation standard
contributing to cumulative regulatory burden.
*** This column presents industry conversion costs as a percentage of product revenue during the conversion period. Industry conversion costs
are the upfront investments manufacturers must make to sell compliant products/equipment. The revenue used for this calculation is the revenue
from just the covered product/equipment associated with each row. The conversion period is the time frame over which conversion costs are
made and lasts from the publication year of the final rule to the compliance year of the final rule. The conversion period typically ranges from 3
to 5 years, depending on the energy conservation standard.
† These rulemakings are in the proposed rule stage and all values are subject to change until finalized.
‡ At the time of issuance of this RCW proposed rule, this rulemaking has been issued and is pending publication in the Federal Register.
Once published, the consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers proposed rule will be available at: www.regulations.gov/docket/
EERE-2017-BT-STD-0003.
DOE requests information regarding
the impact of cumulative regulatory
burden on manufacturers of RCWs
associated with multiple DOE standards
or product-specific regulatory actions of
other Federal agencies.
3. National Impact Analysis
120 U.S. Small Business Administration. ‘‘Table of
Small Business Size Standards.’’ (Effective July 14,
2022). Available at: www.sba.gov/document/
support-table-size-standards (Last accessed August
16, 2022).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
This section presents DOE’s estimates
of the national energy and water savings
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13596
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
and the NPV of consumer benefits that
would result from each of the TSLs
considered as potential amended
standards.
a. Significance of Energy and Water
Savings
To estimate the energy and water
savings attributable to potential
compliance with amended standards
(2027–2056). Table V.23 and Table V.24
present DOE’s projections of the
national energy and water savings for
each TSL considered for RCWs,
respectively. The savings were
calculated using the approach described
in section IV.H of this document.
amended standards for RCWs, DOE
compared their energy and water
consumption under the no-newstandards case to their anticipated
energy and water consumption under
each TSL. The savings are measured
over the entire lifetime of products
purchased in the 30-year period that
begins in the year of anticipated
TABLE V.23—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS
[2027–2056]
Trial standard level
1
2
3
4
5
(quads)
Primary energy .....................................................................
FFC energy ..........................................................................
0.59
0.61
0.59
0.62
0.70
0.74
1.39
1.45
2.15
2.27
TABLE V.24—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL WATER SAVINGS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS
[2027–2056]
Trial standard level
1
2
3
4
5
(trillion gallons)
Water Savings ......................................................................
OMB Circular A–4 121 requires
agencies to present analytical results,
including separate schedules of the
monetized benefits and costs that show
the type and timing of benefits and
costs. Circular A–4 also directs agencies
to consider the variability of key
elements underlying the estimates of
benefits and costs. For this proposed
rulemaking, DOE undertook a
sensitivity analysis using 9 years, rather
1.26
1.27
than 30 years, of product shipments.
The choice of a 9-year period is a proxy
for the timeline in EPCA for the review
of certain energy conservation standards
and potential revision of and
compliance with such revised
standards.122 The review timeframe
established in EPCA is generally not
synchronized with the product lifetime,
product manufacturing cycles, or other
factors specific to RCWs. Thus, such
2.07
2.53
2.94
results are presented for informational
purposes only and are not indicative of
any change in DOE’s analytical
methodology. The NES and NWS
sensitivity analysis results based on a 9year analytical period are presented in
Table V.25 and Table V.26. The impacts
are counted over the lifetime of RCWs
purchased in 2027–2035.
TABLE V.25—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS
[2027–2035]
Trial standard level
1
2
3
4
5
(quads)
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Primary energy .....................................................................
FFC energy ..........................................................................
121 U.S. Office of Management and Budget.
Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17,
2003. obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/
circulars_a004_a-4/ (Last accessed June 12, 2022).
122 Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to
review its standards at least once every 6 years, and
requires, for certain products, a 3-year period after
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
0.24
0.26
0.25
0.26
any new standard is promulgated before
compliance is required, except that in no case may
any new standards be required within 6 years of the
compliance date of the previous standards. While
adding a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance
period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may
undertake reviews at any time within the 6-year
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
0.29
0.31
0.50
0.53
0.72
0.75
period and that the 3-year compliance date may
yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year analysis
period may not be appropriate given the variability
that occurs in the timing of standards reviews and
the fact that for some products, the compliance
period is 5 years rather than 3 years.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13597
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.26—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL WATER SAVINGS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS
[2027–2035]
Trial standard level
1
2
3
4
5
(trillion gallons)
Water Savings ......................................................................
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs
and Benefits
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of
the total costs and savings for
0.51
0.52
consumers that would result from the
TSLs considered for RCWs. In
accordance with OMB’s guidelines on
regulatory analysis,123 DOE calculated
NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-
0.79
0.93
1.04
percent real discount rate. Table V.27
shows the consumer NPV results with
impacts counted over the lifetime of
products purchased in 2027–2056.
TABLE V.27—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS; 30
YEARS OF SHIPMENTS
[2027–2056]
Trial standard level
Discount rate
1
2
3
4
5
(billion 2021$)
3 percent ..............................................................................
7 percent ..............................................................................
The NPV results based on the
aforementioned 9-year analytical period
are presented in Table V.28. The
impacts are counted over the lifetime of
8.39
3.36
8.50
3.41
products purchased in 2027–2035. As
mentioned previously, such results are
presented for informational purposes
only and are not indicative of any
8.13
2.48
14.52
5.14
20.77
7.68
change in DOE’s analytical methodology
or decision criteria.
TABLE V.28—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS; 9
YEARS OF SHIPMENTS
[2027–2035]
Trial standard level
Discount rate
1
2
3
4
5
(billion 2021$)
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3 percent ..............................................................................
7 percent ..............................................................................
3.90
1.93
3.97
1.96
The previous results reflect the use of
a default trend to estimate the change in
price for RCWs over the analysis period
(see section IV.F.1 of this document).
DOE also conducted a sensitivity
analysis that considered one scenario
with a lower rate of price decline than
the reference case and one scenario with
a higher rate of price decline than the
reference case. The results of these
alternative cases are presented in
appendix 10C of the NOPR TSD. In the
high-price-decline case, the NPV of
consumer benefits is higher than in the
default case. In the low-price-decline
case, the NPV of consumer benefits is
lower than in the default case.
123 U.S. Office of Management and Budget.
Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17,
2003. Available at obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
It is estimated that that amended
energy conservation standards for RCWs
would reduce energy and water
expenditures for consumers of those
products, with the resulting net savings
being redirected to other forms of
economic activity. These expected shifts
in spending and economic activity
could affect the demand for labor. As
described in section IV.N of this
document, DOE used an input/output
model of the U.S. economy to estimate
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
3.68
1.39
6.13
2.74
8.35
3.95
indirect employment impacts of the
TSLs that DOE considered. There are
uncertainties involved in projecting
employment impacts, especially
changes in the later years of the
analysis. Therefore, DOE generated
results for near-term timeframes (2027–
2031), where these uncertainties are
reduced.
The results suggest that the proposed
standards would be likely to have a
negligible impact on the net demand for
labor in the economy. The net change in
jobs is so small that it would be
imperceptible in national labor statistics
and might be offset by other,
omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (Last accessed June 12,
2022).
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13598
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
unanticipated effects on employment.
Chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD presents
detailed results regarding anticipated
indirect employment impacts.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of
Products
As discussed, in establishing product
classes and in evaluating design options
and the impact of potential standard
levels, DOE evaluates potential
standards that would not lessen the
utility or performance of the considered
products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV))
a. Performance Characteristics
EPCA authorizes DOE to design test
procedures that measure energy
efficiency, energy use, water use (in the
case of showerheads, faucets, water
closets and urinals), or estimated annual
operating cost of a covered product
during a representative average use
cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3)) Currently, DOE’s test
procedure addresses the energy and
water efficiency of clothes washers, and
DOE’s clothes washer test procedures do
not prescribe a method for testing
clothes washer cleaning performance or
other consumer-relevant attributes of
performance.
Representative average use of a
clothes washer reflects, in part, a
consumer using the clothes washer to
achieve an acceptable level of cleaning
performance. DOE recognizes that in
general, a consumer-acceptable level of
cleaning performance can be easier to
achieve through the use of higher
amounts of energy and water use during
the clothes washer cycle. Conversely,
maintaining acceptable cleaning
performance can be more difficult as
energy and water levels are reduced.
Improving one aspect of clothes washer
performance, such as reducing energy
and/or water use as a result of energy
conservation standards, may require
manufacturers to make a trade-off with
one or more other aspects of
performance, such as cleaning
performance, depending on which
performance characteristics are
prioritized by the manufacturer. DOE
expects, however, that consumers
maintain the same expectations of
cleaning performance regardless of the
efficiency of the clothes washer. As the
clothes washer market continuously
evolves to higher levels of efficiency—
either as a result of mandatory
minimum standards or in response to
voluntary programs such as ENERGY
STAR—it becomes increasingly more
important that DOE ensures that its test
procedure continues to reflect
representative use. As such, the normal
cycle that is used to test the clothes
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
washer for energy and water
performance must be one that provides
a consumer-acceptable level of cleaning
performance, even as efficiency
increases.
Whirlpool commented that amended
standards would result in an increase in
purchase price and perceptible
differences in product performance
including cycle time, vibration and
noise, fabric care, cleaning and rinse
performance, and detergent
effectiveness. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at pp.
8–9) Whirlpool commented that it does
not recommend that DOE develop a
performance requirement, like that
under consideration for dishwashers
currently, but rather referenced the
EPCA requirement that DOE consider
performance and the impacts to
consumer utility as one of the seven
statutory factors for considering whether
a standard is justified. (Id.) Whirlpool
recommended that DOE conclude that
amended standards are not justified due
to the potential to lessen utility and
performance of clothes washers,
particularly for top-loading standardsize clothes washers. (Id.)
Regarding cycle time specifically,
Whirlpool commented that amended
standards could require an increase in
cycle time. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 9)
Specifically, Whirlpool explained that
the wash phase of the cycle may need
to be longer in order to compensate for
decreased water temperatures and
reduced load motion due to increased
pauses to allow for motor cooling; the
spin phase would need to be longer to
reduce RMC; and that as spin speeds
increase, cycle time could be increased
due to a greater risk of out-of-balance
conditions, which require more sensing
and re-balancing to address. Whirlpool
also commented that appendix J would
require spinning at maximum speed for
both small and large load sizes and
noted that smaller loads do not extract
moisture as well as larger loads, and
therefore would require even more spin
time. (Id.) Whirlpool also asserted that
because increased spin time may lead to
greater electrical energy use by the
clothes washers, the annual energy
consumption reported on the
EnergyGuide label may show an
increase in energy use for new higherefficiency models, which would be
counterintuitive for consumers. (Id.)
Regarding vibration and noise
specifically, Whirlpool commented that
it would expect higher overall noise and
vibration levels as a result of increased
spin speeds and spin times. (Whirlpool,
No. 39 at p. 10) In addition, the
drivetrain may produce louder sounds
due to the additional motor torque
required to move a load with lower
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
water levels. (Id.) Whirlpool also
commented that the higher risk of outof-balance conditions from faster spin
speeds may also contribute to higher
noise and vibration levels. (Id.)
Whirlpool recommended that DOE
account for any additional product cost
required to keep sound and vibration
levels where they are currently to
prevent consumer dissatisfaction at
higher efficiency levels. (Id.)
Regarding fabric care specifically,
Whirlpool commented if wash time is
lengthened in order to compensate for
reduced water temperatures, the
additional agitation on the clothes may
lead to increased fabric wear and
damage. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at pp. 10–
11) Whirlpool also commented that
faster spinning would increase the
degree of wrinkling in a load and that
clothes may become more tangled. (Id.)
Regarding cleaning and rinsing
performance specifically, Whirlpool
commented that amended standards
could result in biofilm accumulations
on internal wash unit surfaces, white
residues, difficulty removing detergent
and particulates, redeposition,
yellowing of clothes, and reduced stain
removal, especially for oily or fatty
soils. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 11)
Whirlpool added that some of these
issues (e.g., reduced stain removal) may
be immediately apparent to consumers,
whereas others (e.g., biofilm
accumulation) may become noticeable
over time. (Id.) Whirlpool commented
that a correlation exists between lower
water temperatures and degraded
cleaning performance. (Id.) Whirlpool
added that oily or fatty solids are
soluble around 85 °F, that detergents
can do only some of the work removing
oily or fatty soils at temperatures below
85 °F, and that natural skin oils will be
harder to remove under lower
temperatures. (Id.) Whirlpool also
commented that rinse performance
could suffer as a result of the need to
make trade-offs in allocating the
available water between the wash and
rinse phases. Whirlpool commented that
reduced water during the rinse phase
makes it harder to effectively remove
detergent and particulates from the
wash load and increases re-deposition.
(Id.)
Whirlpool commented that overall
load motion, the degree to which the
load moves in the wash bath and the
amount of free water visible to the
consumer, may be sacrificed as clothes
washers move to faster spin and lower
torque powertrains. (Whirlpool, No. 39
at p. 12) Whirlpool further commented
that, according to its initial testing, a
reduction in load motion of over 50
percent could result from the new
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
powertrains needed for amended
standards due to the lower available
torque from the motor and reduced
water levels needed to meet more
stringent water efficiency requirements.
(Id.)
Whirlpool commented in summary
that cleaning in a clothes washer is a
holistic experience that encompasses a
consumer’s expectation of product
appearance, cleanliness of the clothes
washer itself, water level, water
temperatures, load motion, cycle time,
and cleaning performance, including
stain and soil removal, particulate
removal, odor removal, and detergent
rinsing. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 12)
Whirlpool added that if consumer
expectations are not met at any point,
they will likely have a negative
perception of product performance and
often voice complaints about it in the
form of a negative review or call to the
manufacturer. (Id.)
AHAM commented that DOE’s
proposed changes to the test procedure
alone, and when coupled with amended
energy conservation standards, are
likely to drive product performance
impacts. (AHAM, No. 40 at p. 9) AHAM
further commented that increasing spin
speed and spin time could cause
increased vibration and noise,
negatively impact fabric care due to
tangling and wrinkling, and increase
cycle time. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 9–10)
AHAM recommended that instead of
adding a performance minimum to the
test procedure, DOE should avoid
changes that could impact clothes
washer performance, and account for
the potential impact of these changes in
DOE’s amended standards analysis, as
required by EPCA. (AHAM, No. 40 at p.
10) AHAM also noted that conducting a
performance test may not capture all the
potential impacts that standards may
have on clothes washer performance.
(Id.) AHAM recommended that DOE
further investigate these potential
impacts during manufacturer
interviews. (Id.)
AHAM commented that efficiency
standards that require increased cycle
times beyond an acceptable length
would negatively impact consumers and
could result in cycle times that are not
synchronized with clothes dryer cycle
times. (AHAM, No. 40 at p. 10) AHAM
recommended against introducing a
maximum cycle length requirement;
instead, AHAM recommended that any
potential impact of cycle time should be
avoided and accounted for in DOE’s
amended standards, as required by
EPCA. (Id.)
In addition to considering the
comments summarized in this section,
DOE also discussed performance
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
characteristics in detail as part of its
confidential interviews with
manufacturers. DOE has considered
potential impacts to the various
attributes of product performance as
part of its consideration of amended
standards, as discussed further in
section V.C.1 of this document.
DOE is aware of high-efficiency
clothes washers that achieve equal or
better cleaning performance than lowerefficiency clothes washers in third-party
performance reviews. For example, DOE
has consulted performance ratings
published by Consumer Reports,124
which DOE recognizes is one popular
resource for consumers seeking
independent reviews of consumer
products. According to information
provided on their website, the test
method used by Consumer Reports
appears to be similar in nature to
AHAM’s cleaning performance test
procedure, but inconsistent with the test
conditions prescribed by DOE’s
appendix J test procedure; 125
nevertheless, its test results provide an
objective measure of the performance
capabilities for products currently on
the market.
For top-loading standard-size RCWs,
Consumer Reports ratings indicate that
models rated at or above TSL 4 achieve
equal or better cleaning performance
than models with lower efficiency
ratings. Specifically, among 4 tested toploading standard-size models with an
IMEF/IWF rating 126 at or above TSL 4,
all of them receive a relative ‘‘washing
performance’’ rating of 5 out of 5.
Among 70 tested top-loading standardsize models with an IMEF/IWF rating
below TSL 4, 11 models (16 percent)
receive a relative rating of 5 out of 5,
and 26 models (37 percent) receive a
relative rating of 4 out of 5—for a total
of only 53 percent of units receiving a
score of 4 or 5 out of 5. These ratings
suggest that top-loading standard-size
RCWs with efficiency ratings at or above
TSL 4 can achieve equal or better
overall cleaning performance scores
than models with lower efficiency
ratings.
For front-loading standard-size RCWs,
Consumer Reports ratings indicate no
significant differences between models
rated at or above TSL 4 and models with
124 Consumer Reports ratings of clothes washers
available at www.consumerreports.org/appliances/
washing-machines/. Last accessed September 23,
2022.
125 The Consumer Reports describes its washing
performance test as reflecting the degree of color
change to swatches of fabric that were included in
an 8-pound test load of mixed cotton items using
the unit’s ‘‘most aggressive’’ normal cycle.
126 Although the efficiency levels are defined
based on EER and WER, manufacturer ratings use
IMEF and IWF.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13599
lower efficiency ratings. Specifically,
among 27 tested front-loading standardsize models with an IMEF/IWF rating at
or above TSL 4, 20 models (74 percent)
receive a relative rating of 5 out of 5,
and 6 models (22 percent) receive a
relative rating of 4 out of 5—for a total
of only 96 percent of units receiving a
score of 4 or 5 out of 5. Among 20 tested
front-loading standard-size models with
an IMEF/IWF rating below TSL 4, 18
models (90 percent) receive a relative
rating of 5 out of 5, and 2 models (10
percent) receive a relative rating of 4 out
of 5—for a total of 100 percent of units
receiving a score of 4 or 5 out of 5.
These ratings suggest that front-loading
standard-size RCWs with efficiency
ratings at or above TSL 4 can achieve
roughly equivalent overall cleaning
performance scores compared to models
with lower efficiency ratings.
DOE seeks comment on whether the
Consumer Reports test produces
cleaning performance results that are
representative of an average use cycle as
measured by the DOE test procedure.
DOE also seeks comment on how
relative cleaning performance results
would vary if tested under test
conditions consistent with the DOE
appendix J test procedure.
In addition to considering the
Consumer Reports ratings, DOE
conducted performance testing on a
representative sample of top-loading
standard-size and front-loading
standard-size units, which collectively
represent around 98 percent of RCW
shipments. The detailed results of
DOE’s testing are provided in the
performance characteristics test report,
which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking. In particular, DOE
evaluated wash temperatures, stain
removal, mechanical action (i.e., ‘‘wear
and tear’’), and cycle duration across the
range of efficiency levels considered in
the analysis. Specifically, DOE
evaluated wash temperatures and cycle
time based on test data performed
according to DOE’s new appendix J test
procedure; additionally, DOE evaluated
cleaning performance and fabric care
based on additional testing performed
according to the soil/stain removal and
mechanical action tests specified in
AHAM’s HLW–2–2020 test method:
Performance Evaluation Procedures for
Household Clothes Washers (‘‘AHAM
HLW–2–2020’’). The AHAM HLW–2–
2020 test method does not prescribe
specific test conditions for performing
the test (e.g., inlet water temperatures
conditions, load size, test cycle, or
wash/rinse temperature selection). For
each clothes washer in its test sample,
DOE tested the Hot Wash/Cold Rinse
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13600
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
(‘‘Hot’’) temperature selection 127 in the
Normal cycle 128 using the large load
size 129 specified in appendix J, as well
as using the inlet water temperatures
and ambient conditions specified in
appendix J. DOE specifically analyzed
the Hot cycle with the large load size
because (1) the Hot temperature
selection would be the temperature
selection most likely targeted for
reduced wash temperature as a design
option for achieving a higher energy
efficiency rating; (2) the large load size
is more challenging to clean than the
small load size; and (3) all units in the
test sample offer a Hot temperature
selection (allowing for consistent
comparison across units). DOE expects
that the Hot temperature selection with
the large load size is the cycle
combination most likely to experience
the types of performance compromises
described by AHAM and manufacturers.
In sum, DOE selected the most
conservative assumptions for its
performance testing investigation to
allow DOE to better understand the
potential impacts on performance at
various efficiency levels for clothes
washers.
DOE requests comment on its use of
the Hot temperature selection with the
large load size to evaluate potential
impacts on clothes washer performance
as a result of amended standards.
More specifically, DOE performed the
Soil/Stain Removal test specified in
section 6 of AHAM HLW–2–2020 to
measure relative cleaning performance
among the test sample units. AHAM
HLW–2–2020 states that the purpose of
the Soil/Stain Removal test is to
evaluate the performance of household
clothes washers in removing
representative soils and stains from
fabric. DOE also performed the
Mechanical Action test specified in
section 7 of AHAM HLW–2–2020 to
measure relative fabric wear and tear
among the test sample units. AHAM
HLW–2–2020 states that the purpose of
the Mechanical Action test is to measure
the mechanical action applied by the
clothes washer to the textiles. AHAM
127 Figure 2.12.1.2 of appendix J provides a flow
chart defining the Hot Wash/Cold Rinse
temperature selection. Generally, the Hot Wash/
Cold Rinse temperature selection corresponds to the
hottest available wash temperature less than 140 °F,
with certain exceptions as provided in Figure
2.12.1.2.
128 Section 1 of appendix J defines the Normal
cycle as the cycle recommended by the
manufacturer (considering manufacturer
instructions, control panel labeling, and other
markings on the clothes washer) for normal, regular,
or typical use for washing up to a full load of
normally soiled cotton clothing.
129 Table 5.1 of appendix J defines the small and
large load sizes to be tested according to the clothes
washer’s measured capacity.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
HLW–2–2020 states that this test may be
performed in conjunction with the Soil/
Stain Removal test; therefore, DOE
conducted both tests simultaneously on
each test run. AHAM HLW–2–2020
specifies running three replications of
the test method on each tested unit,
with the results of the three replications
averaged.
DOE requests comment on its use of
the Soil/Stain Removal test and
Mechanical Action test specified in
AHAM HLW–2–2020 as the basis for
evaluating performance-related
concerns expressed by AHAM and
manufacturers.
The performance characteristics test
report provides detailed test results in
table and graphical format. The
discussion throughout the remainder of
this section summarizes the key
conclusions from the test results.
With regard to hot wash temperatures,
manufacturer comments (as summarized
previously in this section) suggested
that decreasing water temperature to
achieve higher efficiency could decrease
cleaning performance by making it
harder to remove fatty soils, which are
soluble around 85 °F. (See Whirlpool,
No. 39 at p. 11) To evaluate whether
more stringent standards may reduce
water temperatures below the 85 °F
threshold and thus potentially decrease
cleaning performance for fatty soils,
DOE analyzed the wash temperature of
the hottest temperature selection
available in the Normal cycle for each
clothes washer in the test sample. For
front-loading standard-size RCWs,
DOE’s test data show no identifiable
correlation between efficiency and the
hottest available wash temperature in
the Normal cycle. At the proposed
standard level (i.e., TSL 4,
corresponding to EL 3), considering
units both slightly higher and slightly
lower than EL 3, the hottest available
wash temperature in the Normal cycle
ranges from around 70 °F to around 140
°F. This closely matches the range of the
hottest wash temperatures available on
units at lower efficiency levels, which
range from around 80 °F to around 155
°F. Notably, at EL 3, multiple models
from multiple manufacturers provide
wash temperatures higher than the 85 °F
threshold and would be able to dissolve
and clean fatty soils.
For top-loading standard-size RCWs,
DOE’s test data show that for units at EL
2 and below, the hottest available wash
temperature in the Normal cycle ranges
from around 70 °F to around 110 °F. At
EL 3 (considering units both slightly
higher and slightly lower than EL 3), the
hottest available wash temperature in
the Normal cycle ranges from around 80
°F to around 100 °F. Several models
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
from multiple manufacturers are
available with temperatures higher than
the 85 °F threshold and would be able
to dissolve and clean fatty soils.
Based on this data, DOE tentatively
concludes that the proposed standard
level (i.e., TSL 4), would not require a
substantive reduction in hot water
temperature on the hottest temperature
selection in the Normal cycle, and
would not preclude the ability to
provide wash temperatures above the
85 °F threshold.
DOE requests comment on its wash
temperature data presented in the
performance characteristics test report
and on its tentative conclusions derived
from this data. DOE requests any
additional data DOE should consider
about wash temperatures at the
proposed standard level, as DOE’s data
leads to the tentative conclusion that
fatty soils would be able to be dissolved
at this efficiency level.
With regard to stain removal,
manufacturer comments (as summarized
previously in this section) suggested
that more stringent standards could
result in reduced stain removal,
especially for oily or fatty stains. (See
Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 11) To evaluate
whether more stringent standards would
result in a decrease in stain removal
performance, DOE conducted the Soil/
Stain Removal test specified in AHAM
HLW–2–2020 using the Hot temperature
selection with the largest load size, as
described. In particular, one of the
stains evaluated in the AHAM HLW–2–
2020 Soil/Stain Removal test is sebum—
an oily, waxy substance produced by
skin glands.130 For front-loading
standard-size RCWs, DOE’s test data
show no observable correlation between
efficiency and the total cleaning score as
measured by the AHAM test method. At
EL 3 (considering units both slightly
higher and slightly lower than EL 3),
total cleaning scores ranged from
around 86 to around 99 (higher is
better). At lower efficiency levels, total
cleaning scores ranged from around 90
to around 96.
For top-loading standard-size RCWs,
DOE’s test data show that for units at EL
2 and below, total cleaning scores range
from around 90 to around 98. The
clustering of data at or above a score of
90 (as measured on the Hot temperature
selection with the large load size) likely
represents a market-representative
threshold of stain removal performance
as measured with this cycle
configuration. DOE’s total cleaning
130 The standardized soil/stain strips used in the
AHAM HLW–2–2020 test consist of square test
fabric swatches carrying five different types of
stains: red wine, chocolate and milk, blood, carbon
black/mineral oil, and pigment/sebum.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
scores at EL 3 for stain removal also
include 90, which indicates that
manufacturers can produce clothes
washers at EL 3 while maintaining a
level of stain removal that is marketrepresentative. DOE also looked at the
implementation of prioritizing hardware
design options over reduced wash
temperatures. When hardware design
options are implemented, DOE’s
analysis suggests that the proposed
standard level would not preclude the
ability to provide total cleaning scores
for top-loading units equally as high as
the highest scores currently achieved by
units at lower efficiency levels.
DOE requests comment on its stain
removal data presented in the
performance characteristics test report
and on its conclusions derived from this
data. In particular, DOE requests
comment on whether the clustering of
data at or above a score of 90 (as
measured on the Hot temperature
selection with the large load size)
corresponds to a market-representative
threshold of stain removal performance
as measured with this cycle
configuration. DOE additionally
requests comment on its analysis
indicating that implementing additional
hardware design options, rather than
reducing wash temperatures, on EL 2
units could enable total cleaning scores
at EL 3 that are equally as high as the
highest scores currently achieved by
units at lower efficiency levels.
With regard to wear and tear,
manufacturer comments (as summarized
previously in this section) suggested
that if wash time is lengthened to
compensate for reduced water
temperatures, the additional agitation
on the clothes may lead to increased
fabric wear and damage. (See Whirlpool,
No. 39 at pp. 10–11; AHAM, No. 40 at
pp. 9–10) To evaluate whether more
stringent standards would result in an
increase in wear and tear on clothing,
DOE conducted the Mechanical Action
test specified in AHAM HLW–2–2020
concurrently with the stain removal test
as described. For top-loading standardsize RCWs, DOE’s test data show that
units at EL 3 have lower (i.e., better)
mechanical action scores than baselinerated units, indicating that the higherefficiency units provide less wear and
tear than the baseline units in the test
sample. Specifically, at EL 3,
mechanical action scores ranged from
around 150 to around 175, closely
matching the range at EL 2, which
ranged from around 150 to around 170.
At lower efficiency levels, mechanical
action scores ranged from around 190 to
around 230. The data suggests that the
better mechanical action scores at the
higher efficiency levels may correlate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
with the use of wash plates (i.e.,
impellers) at those levels, compared to
the use of traditional agitators at the
lower efficiency levels.
For front-loading standard-size RCWs,
DOE’s test data show that for units at or
below EL 2, mechanical action scores
range from around 135 to around 180.
At EL 3 (considering units both slightly
higher and slightly lower than EL 3),
mechanical action scores range from
around 160 to around 210. Although
some units at EL 3 have higher (i.e.,
worse) mechanical action scores than
the lower-efficiency units, the low end
of the range is less than (i.e., better than)
some of the baseline-rated units. DOE is
not aware of any industry-accepted
threshold for acceptable mechanical
action performance, and there is no
significant clustering of DOE’s data to
suggest any particular marketrepresentative threshold.
Based on this data, DOE tentatively
concludes that the proposed standard
level (i.e., TSL 4) would not preclude
the ability to provide mechanical action
scores comparable to the scores for units
at lower efficiency levels.
DOE requests comment on its
mechanical action data presented in the
performance characteristics test report
and on its conclusions derived from this
data. In particular, DOE requests
comment on whether there is a marketrepresentative threshold of mechanical
action performance as measured on the
Hot temperature selection using the
large load size. DOE also requests
comment on whether better mechanical
action scores at higher top-loading
efficiency levels are attributable to the
use of wash plates rather than
traditional agitators in those higherefficiency units.
With regard to cycle time,
manufacturer comments (as summarized
previously in this section) suggested
that more stringent standards could
require an increase in cycle time. (See
Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 9; AHAM, No.
40 at p. 10). To evaluate whether more
stringent standards would result in an
increase in cycle time, DOE measured
the average cycle time as defined in
appendix J for each unit in the test
sample. For both top-loading standardsize and front-loading standard-size
RCWs, DOE’s test data show no
observable correlation between
efficiency and average cycle time. For
top-loading standard-size RCWs, the
average cycle time for the entire product
class is around 50 minutes, as measured
according to the appendix J test
procedure. At EL 3 (considering units
both slightly higher and slightly lower
than EL 3), cycle time ranged from
around 35 minutes to around 65
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13601
minutes. This closely matches the range
of units at lower efficiency levels, which
ranged from around 35 minutes to
around 70 minutes. For front-loading
standard-size RCWs, the average cycle
time for the entire product class is
around 45 minutes, as measured
according to the appendix J test
procedure. At EL 3 (considering units
both slightly higher and slightly lower
than EL 3), cycle time ranged from
around 40 minutes to around 55
minutes. This closely matches the range
of units at lower efficiency levels, which
ranged from around 35 minutes to
around 65 minutes.
Based on this data, DOE tentatively
concludes that the proposed standard
level (i.e., TSL 4), would not result in
an increase in average cycle time as
measured by appendix J.
DOE requests comment on its cycle
time data presented in the performance
characteristics test report and on its
conclusions derived from this data.
In summary, DOE’s test data suggest
that the proposed standard level (i.e.,
TSL 4) can be achieved with key
performance attributes (e.g., wash
temperatures, stain removal, mechanical
action, and cycle duration) that are
largely comparable to the performance
of lower-efficiency units available on
the market today. Based on DOE’s
testing of models that currently meet the
proposed standards, DOE does not
expect performance to be compromised
at the proposed standard level.
DOE seeks comment on its testing and
assessment of performance attributes
(i.e., wash temperatures, stain removal,
mechanical action, and cycle duration),
particularly at the proposed standard
level (i.e., TSL 4). In addition, DOE
seeks additional data that stakeholders
would like DOE to consider on
performance attributes at TSL 4
efficiencies as well as the current
minimum energy conservation
standards.
b. Availability of ‘‘Traditional’’
Agitators
The inner drum of a baseline
standard-size top-loading RCW typically
contains a vertically oriented agitator in
the center of the drum, which undergoes
a twisting motion. The motion of the
agitator, which is powered by an electric
motor, circulates the clothes around the
center of the wash basket. Some
agitators have a corkscrew-like design
that also circulates the clothing
vertically from the bottom to the top of
the basket. Higher-efficiency top-loading
RCWs typically use a disk-shaped
‘‘wash plate,’’ rather than a vertical
agitator, to move the clothes within the
basket. The rotation of the wash plate
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
13602
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
underneath the clothing circulates the
clothes throughout the wash drum.
A conventional agitator requires
clothing to be fully suspended in water;
as the agitator rotates, the agitator vanes
catch the clothing and move the
garments through the water. A rotating
wash plate, however, requires a much
lower water level inside the wash tub to
clean the clothing properly. The wet
clothing load sits on top of the wash
plate, and as the wash plate rotates,
raised fins catch the clothing along the
bottom of the wash tub to rotate the
garments.
AHAM presented shipment data that
showed the number of shipments of
clothes washers with and without
agitators during 2011–2020. (AHAM,
No. 40 at pp. 11–12) Based on this data,
AHAM concluded that consumer
preference has shifted over the years in
favor of clothes washers with agitators.
(Id.) AHAM commented that
manufacturers have introduced or reintroduced top-loading clothes washers
with agitator technology due to
increasing demand from consumers and
from consumer complaints that there
does not appear to be enough water in
the wash load, and that clothes do not
appear to be getting clean, in toploading clothes washers without
agitators. (Id.) AHAM asserted that the
efficiency levels DOE analyzed in the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis
are likely to remove products from the
market that are highly rated for
consumer satisfaction and reliability,
and recommended that DOE’s efficiency
standards not lead to these products
being removed from the market. (Id.)
Whirlpool commented that consumers
are increasingly demanding top-loading
clothes washers with agitators, perhaps
due in part to any negative experiences
that consumers may have had with
previous front-loading or top-loading
clothes washers with a wash plate.
(Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 15) Whirlpool
presented data showing that 72 percent
of top-loading clothes washer shoppers
are looking for a clothes washer with an
agitator. (Id.) Whirlpool also presented
data showing that top-loading clothes
washers with wash plates once made up
about 54 percent of all top-loading
shipments, and that number has since
declined to 34 percent. (Id.) Whirlpool
commented that manufacturers have
responded to this demand shift in large
part by offering a broad assortment of
agitator clothes washers. (Id.) Whirlpool
noted that two major competitors to
Whirlpool have recently introduced
their first ever top-loading agitator
models over the past few years. (Id.)
Whirlpool asserted that any amended
standards from DOE that would
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
preclude manufacturers from being able
to offer top-loading clothes washers
with agitators would be problematic for
their consumers. (Id.)
Whirlpool expressed concern that if
the top-loading standard level were
amended to EL 2 or above, agitators
would be phased out from the U.S.
market and would be replaced by wash
plates. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at pp. 3–4)
Whirlpool recommended that DOE
consider not amending the top-loading
clothes washer standards, which would
allow traditional agitator clothes
washers to stay on the market.
(Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 20)
Whirlpool described the two different
types of agitators used in clothes
washers today: traditional agitators that
have an internal mechanism driving the
barrel of the agitator in a single
direction, and high-efficiency agitators
that have the barrel of the agitator fixed
to or molded as part of the wash plate.
(Id.) Whirlpool further explained that
traditional agitators operate in deeper
water, and the motion of the agitator
generates the flow of clothing within the
wash bath; whereas high-efficiency
agitators use less water and rely on
fabric-to-fabric shear to move the
clothing within the drum. (Id.)
Whirlpool commented that consumers
may notice that high-efficiency agitator
clothes washers use less water or
require a longer cycle time than
traditional agitator clothes washers. (Id.)
Whirlpool asserted that many
consumers have used traditional agitator
clothes washers for their entire lives and
may not readily accept the performance,
water level, and wash motion
differences between agitator and nonagitator models. (Id.)
As discussed further in section V.C.1
of this document, DOE is proposing to
adopt an amended standard for toploading, standard-size clothes washers
that corresponds to the CEE Tier 1 level.
DOE’s market analysis indicates that top
loading models currently on the market
at TSL 4 use wash plates (i.e., do not
have agitators). DOE is aware of toploading clothes washers without an
agitator that achieve equal or better
cleaning performance than top-loading
clothes washers with a traditional-style
agitator in third-party performance
reviews. According to Consumer
Reports, among 40 tested RCW models
with a traditional-style agitator, 4
models (10 percent) receive a relative
‘‘washing performance’’ rating of 5 out
of 5, and 13 models (33 percent) receive
a relative rating of 4 out of 5—for a total
of 43 percent of units receiving a score
of 4 or 5 out of 5. Among 36 tested
models with a high-efficiency wash
plate design, 11 models (30 percent)
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
receive a relative rating of 5 out of 5,
and 14 models (39 percent) receive a
relative rating of 4 out of 5—for a total
of 69 percent of units receiving a score
of 4 or 5 out of 5. These ratings indicate
that clothes washers with highefficiency wash plate designs can
achieve equal or better overall cleaning
performance scores than clothes
washers with traditional-style agitators.
As discussed, DOE recognizes that the
Consumer Reports cleaning performance
test method is inconsistent with the test
conditions prescribed by DOE’s
appendix J test procedure and that
products with superior cleaning
performance ratings may sacrifice or
trade off with one or more other aspects
of consumer-relevant performance.
DOE seeks comment on any aspects of
cleaning performance that provide
differentiation between the use of an
agitator or a wash plate that are not
reflected in the Consumer Reports
washing performance ratings evaluated
in this NOPR.
DOE seeks comment on whether any
lessening of the utility or performance
of top-loading standard-size RCWs, in
accordance with 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV), would result from a
potential standard that would preclude
the use of a traditional agitator. In
particular, DOE seeks information and
data on how such utility or performance
would be measured or evaluated.
c. Water Levels
Each higher efficiency level
considered by DOE corresponds to a
higher WER value compared to the
baseline level. Higher WER values are
achieved through the use of less water
during the cycle, which generally
achieved through lower water levels
during the wash and/or rinse portions of
the cycle.
Whirlpool expressed concern that
decreasing water levels and wash
temperatures would negatively impact
consumer perceptions that their clothes
washers are working correctly.
(Whirlpool, No. 39 at pp. 12–14)
Whirlpool stated that across all
manufacturers and brands, it saw
customer sentiment scores for water
level and wash temperatures were net
positive for clothes washers that were
rated at 6.5 IWF (the current DOE
baseline level for top-loading clothes
washers), and that customer sentiment
scores were net negative for clothes
washers rated at 4.3 IWF (the ENERGY
STAR Most Efficient level for standardsize clothes washers). (Id.) Whirlpool
added that decreasing water usage, and
therefore increasing detergent
concentration, does not correlate to
improved consumer satisfaction. (Id.)
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Whirlpool commented that it received
consumer complaints about water levels
being too low and not completely
covering their clothes, and predicted
that consumer complaints would
increase with any amended standards
that would drive a further decrease in
water levels. (Id.) Whirlpool added that
lowering water levels in order to meet
amended standards may leave its
clothes washers without enough free
water to support the degree of load
motion needed to maintain consumer
satisfaction. (Id.)
Whirlpool further stated that
consumers strongly demand flexibility
in water level. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p.
15) Whirlpool commented that
manufacturers have responded to this
demand for flexibility by offering deep
fill and deep-water wash options on toploading clothes washers. (Id.) Whirlpool
commented that in the entire toploading clothes washer segment,
Whirlpool is only aware of three models
that do not have deep fill options. (Id.)
Whirlpool expressed concern that
amended standards could erode
Whirlpool’s ability to offer consumers
this flexibility. (Id.)
Whirlpool commented that
manufacturers have taken several
actions during and since the last
updates to DOE and ENERGY STAR
standards to communicate, educate, and
set appropriate consumer expectations
for performance. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at
pp. 14–16) For example, Whirlpool
explained that on its websites, it has
created a page that describes the various
differences between clothes washers
with agitators versus clothes washers
with wash plates that details how both
types of clothes washers work to clean
clothes, the differences in water levels
between these types of clothes washers,
the benefits of each type of clothes
washer, and how to find the right type
of clothes washer. (Id.) Whirlpool added
that it also works to educate retail
associates about these fundamental
differences between clothes washers to
communicate this information to
consumers and answer any questions
they may have while shopping. (Id.)
Whirlpool commented that despite
manufacturers’ collective efforts to
educate consumers about efficient
clothes washers and how they perform,
consumers may still not accept new
clothes washers that use less energy and
water. (Id.)
Whirlpool stated that higher levels of
torque are needed to move clothes in
top-loading clothes washers with lower
water levels, which creates more
resistance when trying to move clothes
around during the wash phase.
(Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 8) Whirlpool
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
commented that increased resistance
and torque create higher levels of stress
on many components, cause
components to wear out more quickly,
and lead to hotter motor temperatures,
which requires increased dwell period
for cooling. (Id.) Whirlpool suggested
that DOE capture the cost and product
changes necessitated by the additional
torque needed to move clothes in a
wash basket with lower wash levels.
(Id.)
Whirlpool commented that it would
expect a rebound effect to occur for
clothes washers as a result of amended
standards. Whirlpool commented that
consumers who are dissatisfied with the
water level in the DOE-tested cycle will
likely take some sort of action to
compensate, including adding their own
water to the cycle or choosing to largely
or exclusively use deep fill and deep
water wash options on their clothes
washer. Whirlpool added that if
consumers are dissatisfied with cleaning
and rinse performance, they may decide
to wash smaller loads (thereby
increasing the number of annual cycles),
use warmer wash temperatures, pretreat
clothes or use options such as second
rinse and pre-soak, or wash a load
multiple times. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at
pp. 17–18) GEA commented that based
on its consumer preference data,
consumers expressed a strong
preference for control over the amount
of water used in their clothes washers.
(GEA, No. 38 at p. 2) GEA found that
typically, consumers prefer to add more
water to their wash load. (Id.)
AHAM commented that
manufacturers have experienced
consumer pushback as a result of
reducing water use. (AHAM, No. 40 at
p. 11) AHAM noted that, while
consumers typically use the normal
cycle, most top-loading clothes washers
include a deep fill option in order to
address consumer interest in the ability
to increase water levels. (Id.) AHAM
added that as a result of reduced water
use, consumers tend to rely on deep-fill
settings, or add water to their clothes
washers themselves. (Id.) AHAM
commented that a significant portion of
consumers dislike clothes washers with
low water levels. (Id.)
AHAM commented that the effects of
strict water requirements may lead to
consumer perceptions of inadequate
cleaning performance, and will likely
cause consumers to take actions that
cause efficiency performance to diverge
from DOE’s projections. AHAM added
that this could amount to a negative
‘‘rebound effect,’’ where higher
efficiency requirements lead to
increased energy and water use due to
consumers responding to inadequate
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13603
performance at stringent efficiency
levels. (AHAM, No. 40 at p. 10)
AHAM noted that, while consumers
typically use the normal cycle, most
top-loading clothes washers include a
deep fill option in order to address
consumer interest in the ability to
increase water levels.
As discussed, DOE has considered
potential impacts to the various
attributes of product performance as
part of its consideration of amended
standards, as discussed further in
section V.C.1 of this document. To the
extent that water levels correlate with
cleaning and rinsing performance or
other relevant attributes of clothes
washer performance, DOE has
considered such impacts as part of its
analysis.
DOE requests comment and
information on sales of RCWs with deep
fill and/or deep rinse options or settings
and the frequency of use of cycles with
these options or settings selected.
d. Availability of Portable Products
As discussed, top-loading portable
RCWs are generally mounted on caster
wheels, which allows the clothes
washer to be moved more easily.
AHAM commented that the proposed
energy conservation standards could
impact portable clothes washers and
cause features of portability and lower
price points to be lost. (AHAM, No. 40
at p. 16) AHAM added that the loss of
low priced and portable top-loading
clothes washers would raise equity
concerns. (Id.)
DOE’s testing and analysis of toploading standard-size portable units
indicates that such products would be
able to achieve the proposed standard
level for the top-loading standard-size
product class with only small changes
to the final spin portion of the cycle
(e.g., to implement ‘‘consistent spin’’)
and a minor reduction in water use.
Accordingly, DOE tentatively
determines that the proposed standard
level would not preclude the
availability of portable clothes washers
from the market.
e. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed in the
previous sections, DOE has tentatively
concluded that the standards proposed
in this NOPR would not lessen the
utility or performance of the RCWs
under consideration in this proposed
rulemaking.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of
Competition
DOE considered any lessening of
competition that would be likely to
result from new or amended standards.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13604
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
As discussed in section III.F.1.e of this
document, the Attorney General
determines the impact, if any, of any
lessening of competition likely to result
from a proposed standard, and transmits
such determination in writing to the
Secretary, together with an analysis of
the nature and extent of such impact. To
assist the Attorney General in making
this determination, DOE has provided
DOJ with copies of this NOPR and the
accompanying TSD for review. DOE will
consider DOJ’s comments on the
proposed rule in determining whether
to proceed to a final rule. DOE will
publish and respond to DOJ’s comments
in that document. DOE invites comment
from the public regarding the
competitive impacts that are likely to
result from this proposed rule. In
addition, stakeholders may also provide
comments separately to DOJ regarding
these potential impacts. See the
ADDRESSES section for information to
send comments to DOJ.
6. Need of the Nation to Conserve
Energy
Enhanced energy efficiency, where
economically justified, improves the
Nation’s energy security, strengthens the
economy, and reduces the
environmental impacts (costs) of energy
production. Reduced electricity demand
due to energy conservation standards is
also likely to reduce the cost of
maintaining the reliability of the
electricity system, particularly during
peak-load periods. Chapter 15 in the
NOPR TSD presents the estimated
impacts on electricity generating
capacity, relative to the no-newstandards case, for the TSLs that DOE
considered in this proposed rulemaking.
Energy conservation resulting from
potential energy conservation standards
for RCWs is expected to yield
environmental benefits in the form of
reduced emissions of certain air
pollutants and greenhouse gases. Table
V.29 provides DOE’s estimate of
cumulative emissions reductions
expected to result from the TSLs
considered in this proposed rulemaking.
The emissions were calculated using the
multipliers discussed in section IV.K of
this document. DOE reports annual
emissions reductions for each TSL in
chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD.
TABLE V.29—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS SHIPPED IN 2027–2056
Trial standard level
1
2
3
4
5
Power Sector Emissions
CO2 (million metric tons) .....................................................
CH4 (thousand tons) ............................................................
N2O (thousand tons) ............................................................
NOX (thousand tons) ...........................................................
SO2 (thousand tons) ............................................................
Hg (tons) ..............................................................................
20.4
1.5
0.2
11.4
8.8
0.1
20.6
1.5
0.2
11.5
8.9
0.1
24.2
1.8
0.2
13.2
10.8
0.1
49.0
3.4
0.5
28.3
19.7
0.1
79.3
4.9
0.7
48.8
28.1
0.2
1.7
163.4
0.0
25.7
0.1
0.0
1.9
186.6
0.0
29.5
0.1
0.0
4.2
408.1
0.0
64.1
0.2
0.0
7.3
713.3
0.0
111.4
0.3
0.0
22.3
164.9
0.2
37.2
9.0
0.1
26.1
188.4
0.3
42.7
10.9
0.1
53.2
411.4
0.5
92.4
199.9
0.1
86.6
718.3
0.7
160.2
28.5
0.2
Upstream Emissions
CO2 (million metric tons) .....................................................
CH4 (thousand tons) ............................................................
N2O (thousand tons) ............................................................
NOX (thousand tons) ...........................................................
SO2 (thousand tons) ............................................................
Hg (tons) ..............................................................................
1.7
161.9
0.0
25.5
0.1
0.0
Total FFC Emissions
CO2 (million metric tons) .....................................................
CH4 (thousand tons) ............................................................
N2O (thousand tons) ............................................................
NOX (thousand tons) ...........................................................
SO2 (thousand tons) ............................................................
Hg (tons) ..............................................................................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
As part of the analysis for this
proposed rulemaking, DOE estimated
monetary benefits likely to result from
the reduced emissions of CO2 that DOE
estimated for each of the considered
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
22.1
163.4
0.2
36.9
8.9
0.1
TSLs for RCWs. Section IV.L of this
document discusses the SC–CO2 values
that DOE used. Table V.30 presents the
value of CO2 emissions reduction at
each TSL for each of the SC–CO2 cases.
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The time-series of annual values is
presented for the proposed TSL in
chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13605
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.30—PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS SHIPPED IN 2027–
2056
SC–CO2 case
Discount rate and statistics
TSL
5%
3%
2.5%
3%
Average
Average
Average
95th percentile
(billion 2021$)
1
2
3
4
5
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
As discussed in section IV.L.2 of this
document, DOE estimated the climate
benefits likely to result from the
reduced emissions of methane and N2O
that DOE estimated for each of the
219
221
258
509
812
considered TSLs for RCWs. Table V.31
presents the value of the CH4 emissions
reduction at each TSL, and Table V.32
presents the value of the N2O emissions
reduction at each TSL. The time-series
924
933
1,088
2,174
3,496
1,437
1,451
1,694
3,394
5,470
2,814
2,841
3,313
6,613
10,628
of annual values is presented for the
proposed TSL in chapter 14 of the
NOPR TSD.
TABLE V.31—PRESENT VALUE OF METHANE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS SHIPPED IN
2027–2056
SC–CH4 case
Discount rate and statistics
TSL
5%
3%
2.5%
3%
Average
Average
Average
95th percentile
(billion 2021$)
1
2
3
4
5
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
74
74
84
179
307
214
216
246
530
917
297
299
341
738
1,280
567
572
652
1,403
2,428
TABLE V.32—PRESENT VALUE OF NITROUS OXIDE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
SHIPPED IN 2027–2056
SC–N2O Case
Discount rate and statistics
TSL
5%
3%
2.5%
3%
Average
Average
Average
95th percentile
(billion 2021$)
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
1
2
3
4
5
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
DOE is well aware that scientific and
economic knowledge about the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
0.80
0.80
0.96
1.76
2.56
contribution of CO2 and other GHG
emissions to changes in the future
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
3.11
3.14
3.77
6.97
10.22
4.79
4.84
5.81
10.78
15.84
8.28
8.36
10.02
18.56
27.21
global climate and the potential
resulting damages to the global and U.S.
economy continues to evolve rapidly.
DOE, together with other Federal
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13606
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
agencies, will continue to review
methodologies for estimating the
monetary value of reductions in CO2
and other GHG emissions. This ongoing
review will consider the comments on
this subject that are part of the public
record for this and other rulemakings, as
well as other methodological
assumptions and issues. DOE notes that
the proposed standards would be
economically justified even without
inclusion of monetized benefits of
reduced GHG emissions.
DOE also estimated the monetary
value of the health benefits associated
with NOX and SO2 emissions reductions
anticipated to result from the
considered TSLs for RCWs. The dollarper-ton values that DOE used are
discussed in section IV.L of this
document. Table V.33 presents the
present value for NOX emissions
reduction for each TSL calculated using
7-percent and 3-percent discount rates,
and Table V.34 presents similar results
for SO2 emissions reductions. The
results in these tables reflect application
of EPA’s low dollar-per-ton values,
which DOE used to be conservative. The
time-series of annual values is presented
for the proposed TSL in chapter 14 of
the NOPR TSD.
TABLE V.33—PRESENT VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS SHIPPED IN 2027–
2056
3% Discount
rate
TSL
7% Discount
rate
(million 2021$)
1
2
3
4
5
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
1,467
1,481
1,712
3,468
5,684
634
641
739
1,441
2,304
TABLE V.34—PRESENT VALUE OF SO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS SHIPPED IN 2027–
2056
3% Discount
rate
TSL
7% Discount
rate
(million 2021$)
1
2
3
4
5
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
DOE has not considered the monetary
benefits of the reduction of Hg for this
proposed rule. Not all the public health
and environmental benefits from the
reduction of greenhouse gases, NOx,
and SO2 are captured in the previous
values, and additional unquantified
benefits from the reductions of those
pollutants as well as from the reduction
of Hg, direct PM, and other copollutants may be significant.
7. Other Factors
The Secretary of Energy, in
determining whether a standard is
economically justified, may consider
any other factors that the Secretary
deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) No other factors
were considered in this analysis.
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
Table V.35 presents the NPV values
that result from adding the estimates of
the potential economic benefits
resulting from reduced GHG, NOX, and
505
510
615
1,098
1,540
225
227
272
472
650
SO2 emissions to the NPV of consumer
benefits calculated for each TSL
considered in this proposed rulemaking.
The consumer benefits are domestic
U.S. monetary savings that occur as a
result of purchasing the covered
products, and are measured for the
lifetime of products shipped in 2027–
2056. The climate benefits associated
with reduced GHG emissions resulting
from the adopted standards are global
benefits and are also calculated based
on the lifetime of RCWs shipped in
2027–2056.
TABLE V.35—CONSUMER NPV COMBINED WITH PRESENT VALUE OF CLIMATE BENEFITS AND HEALTH BENEFITS
Category
TSL 1
TSL 2
TSL 3
TSL 4
TSL 5
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Using 3% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2021$)
5% Average SC–GHG case ................................................
3% Average SC–GHG case ................................................
2.5% Average SC–GHG case .............................................
3% 95th percentile SC–GHG case ......................................
10.7
11.5
12.1
13.7
10.8
11.6
12.2
13.9
10.8
11.8
12.5
14.4
19.8
21.8
23.2
27.1
29.1
32.4
34.8
41.1
7.7
9.8
11.8
15.1
Using 7% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2021$)
5% Average SC–GHG case ................................................
3% Average SC–GHG case ................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00088
4.5
5.4
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4.6
5.4
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
3.8
4.8
03MRP2
13607
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.35—CONSUMER NPV COMBINED WITH PRESENT VALUE OF CLIMATE BENEFITS AND HEALTH BENEFITS—
Continued
Category
TSL 1
2.5% Average SC–GHG case .............................................
3% 95th percentile SC–GHG case ......................................
6.0
7.6
TSL 3
6.0
7.7
TSL 4
5.5
7.5
TSL 5
11.2
15.1
17.4
23.7
When considering new or amended
energy conservation standards, the
standards that DOE adopts for any type
(or class) of covered product must be
designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that
the Secretary determines is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a
standard is economically justified, the
Secretary must determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its
burdens by, to the greatest extent
practicable, considering the seven
statutory factors discussed previously.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or
amended standard must also result in
significant conservation of energy. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
For this NOPR, DOE considered the
impacts of amended standards for RCWs
at each TSL, beginning with the
maximum technologically feasible level,
to determine whether that level was
economically justified. Where the maxtech level was not justified, DOE then
considered the next most efficient level
and undertook the same evaluation until
it reached the highest efficiency level
that is both technologically feasible and
economically justified and saves a
significant amount of energy. DOE refers
to this process as the ‘‘walk-down’’
analysis.
To aid the reader as DOE discusses
the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL,
tables in this section present a summary
of the results of DOE’s quantitative
analysis for each TSL. In addition to the
quantitative results presented in the
tables, DOE also considers other
burdens and benefits that affect
economic justification. These include
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of
consumers who may be
disproportionately affected by a national
standard and impacts on employment.
DOE also notes that the economics
literature provides a wide-ranging
discussion of how consumers trade off
upfront costs and energy savings in the
absence of government intervention.
Much of this literature attempts to
explain why consumers appear to
undervalue energy efficiency
improvements. There is evidence that
consumers undervalue future energy
savings as a result of (1) a lack of
information, (2) a lack of sufficient
salience of the long-term or aggregate
benefits, (3) a lack of sufficient savings
to warrant delaying or altering
purchases, (4) excessive focus on the
short term, in the form of inconsistent
weighting of future energy cost savings
relative to available returns on other
investments, (5) computational or other
difficulties associated with the
evaluation of relevant tradeoffs, and (6)
a divergence in incentives (for example,
between renters and owners, or builders
and purchasers). Having less than
perfect foresight and a high degree of
uncertainty about the future, consumers
may trade off these types of investments
at a higher-than-expected rate between
current consumption and uncertain
future energy cost savings.
In DOE’s current regulatory analysis,
potential changes in the benefits and
costs of a regulation due to changes in
consumer purchase decisions are
included in two ways. First, if
consumers forego the purchase of a
product in the standards case, this
decreases sales for product
manufacturers, and the impact on
manufacturers attributed to lost revenue
is included in the MIA. Second, DOE
accounts for energy savings attributable
only to products actually used by
consumers in the standards case; if a
standard decreases the number of
products purchased by consumers, this
decreases the potential energy savings
from an energy conservation standard.
DOE provides estimates of shipments
and changes in the volume of product
purchases in chapter 9 of the NOPR
TSD. However, DOE’s current analysis
does not explicitly control for
heterogeneity in consumer preferences,
preferences across subcategories of
products or specific features, or
consumer price sensitivity variation
according to household income.131
While DOE is not prepared at present
to provide a fuller quantifiable
framework for estimating the benefits
and costs of changes in consumer
purchase decisions due to an energy
conservation standard, DOE is
committed to developing a framework
that can support empirical quantitative
tools for improved assessment of the
consumer welfare impacts of appliance
standards. DOE has posted a paper that
discusses the issue of consumer welfare
impacts of appliance energy
conservation standards, and potential
enhancements to the methodology by
which these impacts are defined and
estimated in the regulatory process.132
DOE welcomes comments on how to
more fully assess the potential impact of
energy conservation standards on
consumer choice and how to quantify
this impact in its regulatory analysis in
future rulemakings.
131 P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household
Electricity Demand, Revisited. Review of Economic
Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853–883. doi: 10.1111/
0034-6527.00354.
132 Sanstad, A.H. Notes on the Economics of
Household Energy Consumption and Technology
Choice. 2010. Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory. Available at www1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_
theory.pdf (Last accessed June 12, 2022).
C. Conclusion
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TSL 2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs
Considered for Residential Clothes
Washer Standards
Table V.36 and Table V.37 summarize
the quantitative impacts estimated for
each TSL for RCWs. The national
impacts are measured over the lifetime
of RCWs purchased in the 30-year
period that begins in the anticipated
year of compliance with amended
standards (2027–2056). The energy
savings, emissions reductions, and
value of emissions reductions refer to
full-fuel-cycle results. The efficiency
levels contained in each TSL are
described in section V.A of this
document.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13608
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.36—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHER TSLS: NATIONAL IMPACTS
Category
TSL 1
TSL 2
TSL 3
TSL 4
TSL 5
Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings
Quads ...................................................................................
0.61
0.62
0.74
1.45
2.27
26.13
188.43
0.26
42.73
10.88
0.07
53.21
411.43
0.48
92.39
19.93
0.13
86.62
718.26
0.71
160.21
28.45
0.18
27.83
2.71
4.57
35.11
13.31
14.52
21.80
35.68
4.42
7.22
47.32
14.91
20.77
32.41
12.73
2.71
1.91
17.35
7.58
5.14
9.77
16.12
4.42
2.95
23.50
8.45
7.68
15.05
Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction
CO2 (million metric tons) .....................................................
CH4 (thousand tons) ............................................................
N2O (thousand tons) ............................................................
NOX (thousand tons) ...........................................................
SO2 (thousand tons) ............................................................
Hg (tons) ..............................................................................
22.11
163.41
0.21
36.90
8.88
0.06
22.32
164.89
0.21
37.24
8.96
0.06
Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2021$)
Consumer Operating Cost Savings .....................................
Climate Benefits * .................................................................
Health Benefits ** .................................................................
Total Benefits † ....................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ..............................
Consumer Net Benefits ........................................................
Total Net Benefits ................................................................
13.46
1.14
1.97
16.57
5.07
8.39
11.50
13.60
1.15
1.99
16.74
5.10
8.50
11.64
19.88
1.34
2.33
23.54
11.75
8.13
11.79
Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2021$)
Consumer Operating Cost Savings .....................................
Climate Benefits * .................................................................
Health Benefits ** .................................................................
Total Benefits † ....................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ..............................
Consumer Net Benefits ........................................................
Total Net Benefits ................................................................
6.36
1.14
0.86
8.36
3.00
3.36
5.36
6.43
1.15
0.87
8.45
3.02
3.41
5.43
9.20
1.34
1.01
11.55
6.72
2.48
4.83
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with RCWs shipped in 2027–2056. These results include benefits to consumers
which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027–2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC–CO2, SC–CH4, and SC–N2O. Together these represent the global
SC–GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are
shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No.
22–30087) granted the Federal government’s emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued
in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government’s appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost
of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to
monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction
and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as
health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
† Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent
and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central
SC–GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC–GHG estimates.
‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
TABLE V.37—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHER TSLS: MANUFACTURER AND
CONSUMER IMPACTS
Category
TSL 1 *
TSL 2 *
TSL 3 *
TSL 4 *
TSL 5 *
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Manufacturer Impacts
Industry NPV (million 2021$)
(No-new-standards case INPV
= 1,738).
Industry NPV (% change) ** .......
1,680.4 to 1,746.4 ..
1,636.5 to 1,702.9 ..
1,490.3 to 1,631.0 ..
1,208.1 to 1,376.7 ..
798.7 to 985.9.
(3.3) to 0.5 ..............
(5.9) to (2.0) ............
(14.3) to (6.2) ..........
(30.5) to (20.8) ........
(54.1) to (43.3).
$329 ........................
n.a. ..........................
$134 ........................
$7 ............................
$19 ..........................
$219.
n.a.
$157.
$56.
$55.
Consumer Average LCC Savings (2021$)
Semi-Automatic ..........................
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact ......
Top-Loading, Standard-Size ......
Front-Loading, Compact ............
Front-Loading, Standard-Size ....
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
$329 ........................
n.a. ..........................
$138 ........................
$0 ............................
$57 ..........................
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
$329 ........................
n.a. ..........................
$138 ........................
$0 ............................
$78 ..........................
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
$329 ........................
n.a. ..........................
$115 ........................
$0 ............................
$78 ..........................
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13609
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V.37—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHER TSLS: MANUFACTURER AND
CONSUMER IMPACTS—Continued
Category
TSL 1 *
TSL 2 *
TSL 3 *
TSL 4 *
TSL 5 *
Shipment-Weighted Average * ...
$119 ........................
$124 ........................
$107 ........................
$107 ........................
$132.
0.3 ...........................
n.a. ..........................
5.9 ...........................
9.1 ...........................
3.2 ...........................
5.2 ...........................
0.4.
n.a.
5.5.
7.1.
3.4.
4.9.
0% ...........................
n.a. ..........................
25% .........................
24% .........................
24% .........................
24% .........................
0%.
n.a.
23%.
29%.
18%.
21%.
Consumer Simple PBP (years)
Semi-Automatic ..........................
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact ......
Top-Loading, Standard-Size ......
Front-Loading, Compact ............
Front-Loading, Standard-Size ....
Shipment-Weighted Average * ...
0.3 ...........................
n.a. ..........................
4.6 ...........................
0.0 ...........................
2.8 ...........................
4.0 ...........................
0.3 ...........................
n.a. ..........................
4.6 ...........................
0.0 ...........................
2.4 ...........................
3.9 ...........................
0.3 ...........................
n.a. ..........................
6.8 ...........................
0.0 ...........................
2.4 ...........................
5.5 ...........................
Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost
Semi-Automatic ..........................
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact ......
Top-Loading, Standard-Size ......
Front-Loading, Compact ............
Front-Loading, Standard-Size ....
Shipment-Weighted Average * ...
0% ...........................
n.a. ..........................
14% .........................
0% ...........................
0% ...........................
11% .........................
0% ...........................
n.a. ..........................
14% .........................
0% ...........................
0% ...........................
11% .........................
0% ...........................
n.a. ..........................
28% .........................
0% ...........................
0% ...........................
20% .........................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
The entry ‘‘n.a.’’ means not applicable because there is no change in the standard at certain TSLs.
* Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2027.
** Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values.
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or
amended energy conservation standard
must be designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE determines is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a
standard is economically justified, the
Secretary must determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its
burdens by, to the greatest extent
practicable, considering the seven
statutory factors discussed previously.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) For
this NOPR, DOE considered the impacts
of amended standards for RCWs at each
TSL, beginning with the maximum
technologically feasible level, to
determine whether that level was
economically justified. Where the maxtech level was not justified, DOE then
considered the next most efficient level
and undertook the same evaluation until
it reached the highest efficiency level
that is both technologically feasible and
economically justified and saves a
significant amount of energy.
Samsung commented that top-loading
standard-size clothes washers, which
cover roughly 70 percent of the
marketplace, offer the greatest efficiency
improvement opportunity and should
be set to EL 3, which is included in TSL
4. (Samsung, No. 41 at pp. 2–3)
Samsung added that DOE’s analysis
demonstrates a practical payback period
of 4.2 years for top-loading standardsize RCWs, and DOE’s engineering
analysis shows that slight adjustments
to wash temperature, spray rinse, and
changing to a direct drive motor can
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
contribute to a significant National
Energy Savings of 1.85 quads. (Id.)
Samsung added that direct drive motor
and inverter control technology have
matured over the years and have
become highly cost competitive. (Id.)
Samsung commented that it predicts
these technologies will commonly be
used in the near term given the benefits
to energy efficiency, quiet operation,
and high reliability. (Id.) Samsung noted
that increasing efficiency for top-loading
standard-size clothes washers becomes
especially important if DOE’s consumer
choice model indicates that the toploading market share will increase with
increased minimum energy performance
standards on top-loading standard-size
clothes washers. (Id.)
Samsung recommended that to realize
savings for front-loading standard-size
clothes washers, DOE should adopt EL
2, which is included in TSL 2 and TSL
3. (Samsung, No. 41 at p. 3) Samsung
commented that when comparing the
models listed in DOE’s CCD and those
listed in EPA’s Qualified Products List,
78 percent of front-loading standard-size
models meet EL 2 proposed in the
September 2021 Preliminary TSD. (Id.)
Samsung noted that increasing the
MEPS beyond EL 2 provides
diminishing returns in the form of a
longer payback period. (Id.) Samsung
commented that going forward, if DOE
expects consumers to adopt top-loading
clothes washers, improvement in
National Energy Savings for frontloading clothes washers becomes
negligible as efficiency level increases.
(Id.)
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
As discussed, DOE evaluated each
TSL, beginning with the maximum
technologically feasible level, to
determine the highest efficiency level
that is both technologically feasible and
economically justified and saves a
significant amount of energy. The
following paragraphs summarize the
results of this evaluation. In particular,
the summary discussion emphasizes the
impacts on the top-loading standardsize and front-loading standard-size
product classes, which together
represent 96 percent of the market, as
presented in Table IV.34 of this
document.
DOE first considered TSL 5, which
represents the max-tech efficiency levels
for all product classes. Specifically for
top-loading standard-size RCWs, DOE’s
expected design path for TSL 5 (which
represents EL 4 for this product class)
incorporates the use of a stainless-steel
basket, a direct drive motor, a wash
plate, reduced hot and warm wash
water temperatures compared to
temperatures available on baseline
units, an increased tub size compared to
the baseline, and the fastest achievable
spin speeds. In particular, the faster
spin speeds and reduced hot and warm
wash temperatures provide the
improvement in efficiency at TSL 5
compared to TSL 4. For front-loading
standard-size RCWs, DOE’s expected
design path for TSL 5 (which represents
EL 4 for this product class) incorporates
the use of the most efficient available
direct drive motor, the implementation
of advanced sensors, and the fastest
achievable spin speeds. In particular,
the more efficient motor, faster spin
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
13610
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
speeds, and advanced sensors provide
the improvement in efficiency at TSL 5
compared to TSL 4. TSL 5 would save
an estimated 2.27 quads of energy and
2.94 trillion gallons of water, an amount
DOE considers significant. Under TSL 5,
the NPV of consumer benefit would be
$7.68 billion using a discount rate of 7
percent, and $20.77 billion using a
discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions
at TSL 5 are 86.62 Mt of CO2, 28.45
thousand tons of SO2, 160.21 thousand
tons of NOX, 0.18 tons of Hg, 718.26
thousand tons of CH4, and 0.71
thousand tons of N2O. The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC–GHG at
a 3-percent discount rate) at TSL 5 is
$4.42 billion. The estimated monetary
value of the health benefits from
reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at TSL
5 is $2.95 billion using a 7-percent
discount rate and $7.22 billion using a
3-percent discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for
consumer benefits and costs, health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions, and the 3-percent discount
rate case for climate benefits from
reduced GHG emissions, the estimated
total NPV at TSL 5 is $15.05 billion.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all
benefits and costs, the estimated total
NPV at TSL 5 is $32.41 billion. The
estimated total NPV is provided for
additional information, however DOE
primarily relies upon the NPV of
consumer benefits when determining
whether a proposed standard level is
economically justified.
At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is
a savings of $219 for semi-automatic,
$157 for top-loading standard-size, $56
for front-loading compact, and $55 for
front-loading standard-size clothes
washers. The simple payback period is
0.4 years for semi-automatic, 5.5 years
for top-loading standard-size, 7.1 years
for front-loading compact, and 3.4 years
for front-loading standard-size clothes
washers. The fraction of consumers
experiencing a net LCC cost is 0 percent
for semi-automatic, 23 percent for toploading standard-size, 29 percent for
front-loading compact, and 18 percent
for front-loading standard-size clothes
washers. Notably, for the top-loading
standard-size product class, which
represents 73 percent of the market, TSL
5 would increase the first cost by $189,
in comparison to an installed cost of
$706 for baseline units. For the frontloading standard-size product class,
which represents 23 percent of the
market, TSL 5 would increase the first
cost by $70, compared to an installed
cost of $1,195 for baseline units. At TSL
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
5, the proposed standard for top-loading
ultra-compact clothes washers is at the
baseline, resulting in no LCC impact, no
simple PBP, and no consumers
experiencing a net LCC cost.
At TSL 5, the projected change in
INPV ranges from a decrease of $939.6
million to a decrease of $752.4 million,
which correspond to a decrease of 54.1
percent and 43.3 percent, respectively.
The loss in INPV is largely driven by
industry conversion costs as
manufacturers work to redesign their
portfolio of model offerings and re-tool
entire factories to comply with amended
standards at this level. Industry
conversion costs could reach $1,253.8
million at this TSL.
Conversion costs at max-tech are
significant, as nearly all existing RCW
models would need to be redesigned to
meet the required efficiencies.
Currently, approximately 3 percent of
RCW annual shipments meet the maxtech levels. For top-loading standardsize clothes washers, which account for
73 percent of annual shipments, less
than 1 percent of current shipments
meet this level. Of the nine OEMs
offering top-loading standard-size
products, one OEM offers models that
meet the efficiencies required by TSL 5.
The remaining eight OEMs would need
to overhaul their existing platforms and
make significant updates to their
production facilities. Those
manufacturers may need to incorporate
increased tub capacities, wash plate
designs, direct drive motors, reinforced
wash baskets, robust suspension and
balancing systems, and advanced
sensors. These product changes require
significant investment. In interviews,
several manufacturers expressed
concerns about their ability to meet
existing market demand given the
required scale of investment, redesign
effort, and 3-year compliance timeline.
Based upon the above considerations,
the Secretary tentatively concludes that
at TSL 5 for RCWs, the benefits of
energy and water savings, positive NPV
of consumer benefits, and emission
reductions would be outweighed by the
impacts on manufacturers, including the
large potential reduction in INPV. DOE
estimated the potential loss in INPV to
be as high as 54 percent. The potential
losses in INPV are primarily driven by
large conversion costs that must be
made ahead of the compliance date. At
max-tech, manufacturers would need to
make significant upfront investments to
update nearly all product lines and
manufacturing facilities. Manufacturers
expressed concern that they would not
be able to complete product and
production line updates within the 3year conversion period. Additionally,
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
when considering the estimated
monetary value of emissions
reductions—representing $4.42 billion
in climate benefits (associated with the
average SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount
rate), and $7.22 billion (using a 3percent discount rate) or $2.95 billion
(using a 7-percent discount rate) in
health benefits—DOE maintains its
tentative conclusion that the overall
benefits would be outweighed by the
impacts on manufacturers.
Consequently, the Secretary has
tentatively concluded that TSL 5 is not
economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 4, which
represents the ENERGY STAR Most
Efficient level for the front-loading
product classes, the CEE Tier 1 level for
the top-loading standard-size product
class, and a gap fill level for the semiautomatic product classes. Specifically,
for top-loading standard-size RCWs,
DOE’s expected design path for TSL 4
(which represents EL 3 for this product
class) incorporates many of the same
technologies and design strategies as
described for TSL 5. At TSL 4, toploading standard-size units would
incorporate a stainless-steel basket, a
direct drive motor, and a wash plate,
consistent with TSL 5. Models at TSL 4
would also incorporate reduced hot
wash water temperatures compared to
temperatures available at the baseline
through TSL 3 levels, increased tub size
compared to the baseline (although not
as large as TSL 5), and faster spin
speeds compared to the baseline
(although not as fast as TSL 5). In
particular, the faster spin speeds,
reduced hot wash temperatures, and use
of a wash plate provide the
improvement in efficiency at TSL 4
compared to TSL 3. For front-loading
standard-size RCWs, DOE’s expected
design path for TSL 4 (which represents
EL 3 for this product class) incorporates
the use of the most efficient direct drive
motor available and spin speeds that are
faster than the baseline level but not as
fast as at TSL 5. In particular, more
efficient motor and faster spin speeds
provide the improvement in efficiency
at TSL 4 compared to TSL 3. TSL 4
would save an estimated 1.45 quads of
energy and 2.53 trillion gallons of water,
an amount DOE considers significant.
Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer
benefit would be $5.14 billion using a
discount rate of 7 percent, and $14.52
billion using a discount rate of 3
percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions
at TSL 4 are 53.21 Mt of CO2, 19.93
thousand tons of SO2, 92.39 thousand
tons of NOX, 0.13 tons of Hg, 411.41
thousand tons of CH4, and 0.48
thousand tons of N2O. The estimated
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
monetary value of the climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC–GHG at
a 3-percent discount rate) at TSL 4 is
$2.71 billion. The estimated monetary
value of the health benefits from
reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at TSL
4 is $1.91 billion using a 7-percent
discount rate and $4.57 billion using a
3-percent discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for
consumer benefits and costs, health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions, and the 3-percent discount
rate case for climate benefits from
reduced GHG emissions, the estimated
total NPV at TSL 4 is $9.77 billion.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all
benefits and costs, the estimated total
NPV at TSL 4 is $21.80 billion. The
estimated total NPV is provided for
additional information, however DOE
primarily relies upon the NPV of
consumer benefits when determining
whether a proposed standard level is
economically justified.
At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is
a savings of $329 for semi-automatic,
$134 for top-loading standard-size, $7
for front-loading compact, and $19 for
front-loading standard-size clothes
washers. The simple payback period is
0.3 years for semi-automatic, 5.9 years
for top-loading standard-size, 9.1 years
for front-loading compact, and 3.2 years
for front-loading standard-size clothes
washers. The fraction of consumers
experiencing a net LCC cost is 0 percent
for semi-automatic, 25 percent for toploading standard-size, 24 percent for
front-loading compact, and 24 percent
for front-loading standard-size clothes
washers. For the top-loading standardsize product class, TSL 4 would
increase the first cost by $185, in
comparison to an installed cost of $706
for baseline units. For the front-loading
standard-size product class, TSL 4
would increase the first cost by $49,
compared to an installed cost of $1,195
for baseline units. At TSL 4, the
proposed standard for top-loading ultracompact clothes washers is at the
baseline resulting in no LCC impact, no
simple PBP, and no consumers
experiencing a net LCC cost. Overall,
across all product classes, around 24
percent of consumers would experience
a net LCC cost at TSL 4. DOE estimated
that about 14 percent of low-income
households would experience a net LCC
cost at TSL 4, and as a result of smaller
households and lower annual usage,
about 33 percent of senior-only
households would experience a net LCC
cost at TSL 4.
At TSL 4, the projected change in
INPV ranges from a decrease of $530.2
million to a decrease of $361.6 million,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
which correspond to a decrease of 30.5
percent and 20.8 percent, respectively.
The loss in INPV is largely driven by
industry conversion costs as
manufacturers work to redesign their
portfolio of model offerings and update
production facilities to comply with
amended standards at this level.
Industry conversion costs could reach
$690.8 million at this TSL.
At TSL 4, most top-loading standardsize products would need to be
redesigned to meet these efficiencies;
however, a substantial number of frontloading standard-size products are
available on the market due to
manufacturers’ participation in the
ENERGY STAR Most Efficient program.
Currently, approximately 14 percent of
RCW shipments meet TSL 4 efficiencies,
including nearly 46 percent of standardsize front-loading shipments. Of the
seven OEMs with standard-size frontloading products, five OEMs offer 87
basic models (representing
approximately 50 percent of all frontloading standard-size basic models) that
meet TSL 4 efficiencies. For standardsize top-loading products,
approximately two percent of shipments
meet this level. Of the nine OEMs
offering top-loading standard-size
products, two OEMs offer around 20
basic models (representing
approximately 4 percent of all toploading standard-size basic models) that
meet the efficiencies required by TSL 4.
At this level, the remaining seven
manufacturers would likely implement
largely similar design options as at TSL
5, but to a lesser extent for the increase
in tub size and hardware changes
associated with faster spin speeds (e.g.,
reinforced wash baskets, robust
suspension and balancing systems, and
advanced sensors)—which are faster
than the baseline level but not as fast as
TSL 5. In interviews, manufacturers
indicated that meeting TSL 4
efficiencies would require a less
extensive redesign than meeting TSL 5
efficiencies.
At TSL 4, manufacturers expressed
concerns—both through written
comments as well as during confidential
manufacturer interviews—regarding
impacts to certain attributes of product
performance, including wash
temperatures, cleaning and rinsing
performance, and fabric care,
particularly for top-loading standardsize RCWs. As discussed in section
V.B.4.a of this document, DOE
recognizes that in general, a consumeracceptable level of cleaning
performance (i.e., a representative
average use cycle) can be easier to
achieve through the use of higher
amounts of energy and water use during
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13611
the clothes washer cycle. Conversely,
maintaining acceptable cleaning
performance can be more difficult as
energy and water levels are reduced.
Improving one aspect of clothes washer
performance, such as reducing energy
and/or water use as a result of energy
conservation standards, may require
manufacturers to make a trade-off with
one or more other aspects of
performance, such as cleaning
performance, depending on which
performance characteristics are
prioritized by the manufacturer. DOE
expects, however, that consumers
maintain the same expectations of
cleaning performance regardless of the
efficiency of the clothes washer.
Manufacturers did not provide any
quantitative data to support the
assertion that a standard level at TSL 4
would negatively impact product
performance. As discussed in section
V.B.4.a of this document, DOE’s
analysis of third-party clothes washer
performance reviews suggests that both
top-loading and front-loading RCWs
models rated at TSL 4 can achieve equal
or better overall cleaning performance
scores than models with lower
efficiency ratings. DOE also conducted
its own performance testing on a
representative sample of top-loading
standard-size and front-loading
standard-size RCWs, the results of
which suggest that TSL 4 can be
achieved with key performance
attributes (e.g., wash temperatures, stain
removal, mechanical action, and cycle
duration) that are largely comparable to
the performance of lower-efficiency
units available on the market today. In
particular, DOE tentatively concludes
that the proposed standard level at TSL
4: (1) would not require any substantive
reduction in hot water temperature on
the hottest temperature selection in the
Normal cycle, and would not preclude
the ability to provide wash temperatures
above the 85 °F threshold at which fatty
soils are soluble; (2) would be able to
maintain total cleaning score of at least
90, the market-representative threshold
as measured on the Hot temperature
selection with the large load size;
furthermore, by prioritizing hardware
design options over reduced wash
temperatures, the proposed standard
level would not preclude the ability to
provide total cleaning scores for toploading units equally as high as the
highest scores currently achieved by
units at lower efficiency levels; (3)
would not preclude the ability to
provide mechanical action scores
comparable to the scores for units at
lower efficiency levels; and (4) would
not result in an increase in average cycle
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13612
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
time as measured by the appendix J test
procedure.
In summary, based on DOE’s testing
of models that currently meet the
proposed standards, DOE does not
expect performance to be compromised
at the proposed standard level.
Furthermore, products are readily
available on the market at each
efficiency level analyzed in the NOPR,
including TSL 4, indicating a certain
degree of market acceptance at each
efficiency level.
DOE requests data and information
regarding any quantitative performancerelated characteristics at TSL 4 in
comparison to performance at the
current baseline level (e.g., cleaning
performance, rinsing performance,
fabric wear, etc.), particularly for toploading standard-size RCWs.
As discussed, DOE’s clothes washer
test procedure does not prescribe a
method for testing clothes washer
cleaning performance or other relevant
attributes of RCW performance. DOE, in
partnership with EPA, has developed
the ENERGY STAR Test Method for
Determining Residential Clothes Washer
Cleaning Performance 133 to determine
cleaning performance for clothes
washers that meet the ENERGY STAR
Most Efficient criteria. Cleaning
performance is determined on the same
test units immediately following the
energy and water consumption tests for
ENERGY STAR qualification. Notably,
however, this test method is designed to
be performed in conjunction with DOE’s
appendix J2 test procedure—whereas
the amended standards proposed by this
NOPR would be based on testing
conducted to the appendix J test
procedure. Appendix J specifies
different load sizes than appendix J2,
among other changes, which can
significantly affect any measurement of
cleaning performance. Additional
investigation would be required to
develop a cleaning performance test
procedure designed to be conducted in
conjunction with appendix J.
After considering the analysis and
weighing the benefits and burdens, the
Secretary has tentatively concluded that
at a standard set at TSL 4 for RCWs
would be economically justified. At this
TSL, the weighted average LCC savings
for all product classes is $107. An
estimated 25 percent of top-loading
standard-size clothes washer consumers
and an estimated 24 percent of frontloading (compact and standard-size)
clothes washer consumers would
experience a net cost. DOE
acknowledges the larger impact on
senior-only households as a result of
smaller households and lower average
annual use, but notes that the average
LCC savings are still positive. The FFC
national energy and water savings are
significant and the NPV of consumer
benefits is positive using both a 3percent and 7-percent discount rate.
Notably, the benefits to consumers,
considering low-income and senior-only
subgroups as well, vastly outweigh the
cost to manufacturers. At TSL 4, the
NPV of consumer benefits, even
measured at the more conservative
discount rate of 7 percent is over 27
times higher than the maximum
estimated manufacturers’ loss in INPV.
The standard levels at TSL 4 are
economically justified even without
weighing the estimated monetary value
of emissions reductions. When those
emissions reductions are included—
representing $2.71 billion in climate
benefits (associated with the average
SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate),
and $4.57 billion (using a 3-percent
discount rate) or $1.91 billion (using a
7-percent discount rate) in health
benefits—the rationale becomes stronger
still.
Therefore, based on the above
considerations, DOE proposes to adopt
the energy conservation standards for
RCWs at TSL 4. The proposed amended
energy conservation standards for
RCWs, which are expressed in EER and
WER, are shown in Table V.38.
TABLE V.38—PROPOSED AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS
Minimum energy
efficiency ratio
(lb/kWh/cycle)
Product class
Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers ...............................................................................................................
Automatic Clothes Washers:
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) .....................................................................
Top-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) ....................................................................
Front-Loading, Compact (less than 3.0 ft3 capacity) ...........................................................................
Front-Loading, Standard-Size (3.0 ft3 or greater capacity) ..................................................................
2.12
0.27
3.79
4.78
5.02
5.73
0.29
0.63
0.71
0.77
The benefits and costs of the proposed
standards can also be expressed in terms
of annualized values. The annualized
net benefit is (1) the annualized national
economic value (expressed in 2021$) of
the benefits from operating products
that meet the proposed standards
(consisting primarily of operating cost
savings from using less energy, minus
increases in product purchase costs, and
(2) the annualized monetary value of the
climate and health benefits from
emission reductions.
Table V.39 shows the annualized
values for RCWs under TSL 4, expressed
in 2021$. The results under the primary
estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for
consumer benefits and costs and NOX
and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3percent discount rate case for GHG
social costs, the estimated cost of the
proposed standards for RCWs is $800.8
million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the estimated annual
benefits are $1,344.2 million from
reduced equipment operating costs,
$155.7 million from GHG reductions,
and $202.0 million from reduced NOX
and SO2 emissions. In this case, the net
benefit amounts to $901.1 million per
year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all
benefits and costs, the estimated cost of
the proposed standards for RCWs is
$764.0 million per year in increased
equipment costs, while the estimated
annual benefits are $1,598.0 million
from reduced equipment operating
costs, $155.7 million from GHG
reductions, and $262.2 million from
reduced NOX and SO2 emissions. In this
case, the net benefit amounts to $1,251.8
million per year.
133 ENERGY STAR test method available at
www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/
document/Test%20Method%20for%
20Determining%20Residential%20
Clothes%20Washer%20Cleaning%20
Performance%20-%20July%202018_0.pdf.
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the
Proposed Standards
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Minimum water
efficiency ratio
(lb/gal/cycle)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
13613
TABLE V.39—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL
CLOTHES WASHERS
[TSL 4]
Million 2021$/year
Primary
estimate
Low-net-benefits
estimate
High-net-benefits
estimate
3% discount rate
Consumer Operating Cost Savings .............................................................................
Climate Benefits * .........................................................................................................
Health Benefits ** .........................................................................................................
1,598.0
155.7
262.2
1,544.5
151.7
255.8
1,657.8
159.7
268.9
Total Benefits † .....................................................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ......................................................................
2,015.9
764.0
1,952.0
778.7
2,086.4
695.5
Net Benefits ..........................................................................................................
1,251.8
1,173.4
1,390.9
Consumer Operating Cost Savings .............................................................................
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) ..........................................................................
Health Benefits ** .........................................................................................................
1,344.2
155.7
202.0
1,302.8
151.7
197.5
1,389.7
159.7
206.7
Total Benefits † .....................................................................................................
Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ......................................................................
1,701.9
800.8
1,652.0
813.3
1,756.1
737.9
Net Benefits ..........................................................................................................
901.1
838.7
1,018.3
7% discount rate
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with RCWs shipped in 2027–2056. These results include benefits to consumers
which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027–2056. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2022 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and
a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and
IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC–GHG (see section IV.L of this document). For presentational
purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department
does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using
all four sets of SC–GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the Federal government’s
emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–
KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government’s appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from
‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by
the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits where
appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as
health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
† Total benefits include for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but
the Department does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate.
‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
D. Reporting, Certification, and
Sampling Plan
Manufacturers, including importers,
must use product-specific certification
templates to certify compliance to DOE.
For RCWs, the certification template
reflects the general certification
requirements specified at 10 CFR 429.12
and the product-specific requirements
specified at 10 CFR 429.20.
Ameren et al. encouraged DOE to
require manufacturers to report average
cycle time in the CCD. (Ameren et al.,
No. 42 at pp. 10–12) Ameren et al.
commented that reporting average cycle
time increases stakeholder and
consumer access to cycle time, which
Ameren et al. identify as an important
RCW performance attribute. (Id.)
Ameren et al. commented that cycle
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
time information is important for some
consumers, particularly for RCW
consumers who routinely wash serial
loads. (Id.) Ameren et al. added that
making cycle time widely available
enables stakeholders to better evaluate
the cycle time of a given clothes washer
relative to its performance level, which
could be even more important with
possible increases to standards that may
drive increases in spin times to decrease
drying energy. (Id.) Ameren et al. also
commented that reporting RCW cycle
time increases the transparency of the
energy efficiency metrics since reporting
additional information on cycle time
helps improve the transparency of how
the energy efficiency metric is derived
for a given clothes washer. (Id.) Ameren
et al. added that this is especially
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
important considering the wide
variation in the cycle time of top- and
front-loading RCWs. (Id.) Ameren et al.
further commented that reporting RCW
cycle time enables continuous
improvement of the test procedure and
energy conservation standard over time.
(Id.) Ameren et al. specified that having
access to additional data on cycle time
enables DOE and other stakeholder
groups to consider more effectively the
value of cycle time measurement as a
performance feature in future
rulemakings. (Id.) Ameren et al.
presented data from NEEA that plotted
cycle time versus rated IMEF of 18 toploading and front-loading RCWs. (Id.)
Ameren et al. found that cycle time
varies widely across front-loading and
top-loading standard-size product
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13614
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
classes. (Id.) Ameren et al. added that
according to NEEA’s testing 134 some
RCWs with identical IMEF ratings can
have cycle times that are twice as long
as other models. (Id.) Ameren et al.
therefore concluded that these cycle
times will also vary in laboratory testing
(with the appendix J2 textiles) and that
this variation represents real-world
cycle time differences. (Id.)
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE
consider disclosing other configurations
such as stacked clothes washers and
clothes dryers in the CCD. (CA IOUs,
No. 43 at p. 6) The CA IOUs commented
that there are several clothes washer
configurations available on the market
which might offer unique functionality
to some consumers while not
warranting a separate product class. (Id.)
For example, the CA IOUs listed
combination all-in-one washer-dryers,
pedestal type clothes washers, laundry
centers,135 and double clothes washer
products,136 and stated that all represent
unique product configurations that are
not differentiated in the CCD. (Id.) The
CA IOUs commented that, while these
configurations are clear and intuitive to
consumers and retailers, the public does
not have access to a reliable database
denoting these unique product
characterizations. (Id.) The CA IOUs
commented that considering the
increasing market share and marketing
of these products, they encourage DOE
to consider the disclosure of these
product configurations into certification
requirements and adding those
attributes to the CCD. (Id.)
In response to Ameren et al. and the
CA IOUs, the values for which DOE
currently requires reporting for RCWs
are product characteristics that are
required in order for DOE to determine
whether the product is in compliance
with the applicable standards. For
example, currently reported values
include characteristics that determine
product class (e.g., loading axis,
capacity), measured characteristics on
which a standard depends (e.g., IMEF,
EER), and characteristics necessary for
enforcement of standards (e.g., RMC).
At this time, DOE tentatively
concludes that cycle time and product
configuration (as recommend by
commenters) are not required to
134 NEEA’s testing was conducted using an 8.45
lb load of AHAM cotton textiles, using the Normal
Cycle on Warm Wash/Cold Rinse with default spin
settings. Ameren et al. noted that NEEA’s analysis
confirms that the cycle times of cycles run with
appendix J2 textiles and AHAM cotton textiles are
nearly identical.
135 A laundry center is a single tall unit which
contains both a clothes washer and a clothes dryer.
136 The CA IOUs reference products with two
integrated clothes washer drums, such as the
Samsung FlexWashTM as ‘‘double clothes washers.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
determine compliance with the
applicable standard. In this NOPR, DOE
is not proposing to amend the productspecific certification requirements for
RCWs. DOE would consider any
amendments to the reported values for
RCWs in a separate rulemaking.
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders
12866 and 13563
Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ as
supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O.
13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review,’’ 76 FR 3821 (Jan.
21, 2011), requires agencies, to the
extent permitted by law, to (1) propose
or adopt a regulation only upon a
reasoned determination that its benefits
justify its costs (recognizing that some
benefits and costs are difficult to
quantify); (2) tailor regulations to
impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory
objectives, taking into account, among
other things, and to the extent
practicable, the costs of cumulative
regulations; (3) select, in choosing
among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and
equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of
compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or
marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be
made by the public. DOE emphasizes as
well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to
use the best available techniques to
quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as
possible. In its guidance, the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(‘‘OIRA’’) in the OMB has emphasized
that such techniques may include
identifying changing future compliance
costs that might result from
technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes. For the reasons
stated in the preamble, this proposed
regulatory action is consistent with
these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also
requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant
regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review.
OIRA has determined that this proposed
regulatory action constitutes a
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
‘‘significant regulatory action within the
scope of section 3(f)(1)’’ of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly, pursuant to section
6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866, DOE has
provided to OIRA an assessment,
including the underlying analysis, of
benefits and costs anticipated from the
proposed regulatory action, together
with, to the extent feasible, a
quantification of those costs; and an
assessment, including the underlying
analysis, of costs and benefits of
potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives to the planned
regulation, and an explanation why the
planned regulatory action is preferable
to the identified potential alternatives.
These assessments are summarized in
this preamble and further detail can be
found in the technical support
document for this rulemaking.
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) for any rule that by
law must be proposed for public
comment, unless the agency certifies
that the rule, if promulgated, will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
As required by E.O. 13272, ‘‘Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461
(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
2003, to ensure that the potential
impacts of its rules on small entities are
properly considered during the
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of the General
Counsel’s website (www.energy.gov/gc/
office-general-counsel). DOE has
prepared the following IRFA for the
products that are the subject of this
proposed rulemaking.
For manufacturers of RCWs, the SBA
has set a size threshold, which defines
those entities classified as ‘‘small
businesses’’ for the purposes of the
statute. DOE used the SBA’s small
business size standards to determine
whether any small entities would be
subject to the requirements of the
proposed rule. (See 13 CFR part 121.)
The size standards are listed by North
American Industry Classification
System (‘‘NAICS’’) code and industry
description and are available at
www.sba.gov/document/support-tablesize-standards. Manufacturing of RCWs
is classified under NAICS 335220,
‘‘Major Household Appliance
Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a
threshold of 1,500 employees or fewer
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
for an entity to be considered as a small
business for this category.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is
Being Considered
DOE is proposing amended energy
conservation standards for RCWs. EPCA
prescribed energy conservation
standards for these products (42 U.S.C.
6295(g)(2) and (9)(A)), and directs DOE
to conduct future rulemakings to
determine whether to amend these
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4) and
(9)(B)) EPCA further provides that, not
later than 6 years after the issuance of
any final rule establishing or amending
a standard, DOE must publish either a
notice of determination that standards
for the product do not need to be
amended, or a NOPR including new
proposed energy conservation standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
This proposed rulemaking is in
accordance with DOE’s obligations
under EPCA.
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for,
Rule
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the
energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of
EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency
and established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other
Than Automobiles. These products
include RCWs, the subject of this
document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)) EPCA
prescribed energy conservation
standards for these products (42 U.S.C.
6295(g)(2) and (9)(A)), and directs DOE
to conduct future rulemakings to
determine whether to amend these
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4) and
(9)(B)) This proposed rulemaking is in
accordance the 6-year review required
under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
3. Description on Estimated Number of
Small Entities Regulated
DOE reviewed this proposed rule
under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the procedures and
policies published on February 19,
2003. 68 FR 7990. DOE conducted a
market survey to identify potential
small manufacturers of RCWs. DOE
began its assessment by reviewing
DOE’s CCD,137 California Energy
Commission’s Modernized Appliance
Efficiency Database System
137 U.S. Department of Energy’s Compliance
Certification Database is available at:
www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/
#q=Product_Group_s%3A* (Last accessed March
25, 2022).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
(‘‘MAEDbS’’),138 ENERGY STAR’s
Product Finder data set,139 individual
company websites, and prior RCW
rulemakings to identify manufacturers
of the covered product. DOE then
consulted publicly available data, such
as manufacturer websites, manufacturer
specifications and product literature,
import/export logs (e.g., bills of lading
from Panjiva 140), and basic model
numbers, to identify OEMs of RCWs.
DOE further relied on public data and
subscription-based market research
tools (e.g., Dun & Bradstreet reports 141)
to determine company location,
headcount, and annual revenue. DOE
also asked industry representatives if
they were aware of any small
manufacturers during manufacturer
interviews. DOE screened out
companies that do not offer products
covered by this rulemaking, do not meet
the SBA’s definition of a ‘‘small
business,’’ or are foreign-owned and
operated.
DOE initially identified 19 OEMs that
sell RCWs in the United States. Of the
19 OEMs identified, DOE tentatively
determined that one company qualifies
as a small business and is not foreignowned and operated.
DOE reached out to the small business
and invited them to participate in a
voluntary interview. The small business
did not respond to DOE’s interview
request. DOE also requested information
about small businesses and potential
impacts on small businesses while
interviewing large manufacturers.
4. Description and Estimate of
Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different
Groups of Small Entities
The one small business identified
manufactures one standard-size toploading clothes washer for residential
use. DOE did not identify any RCW
models manufactured by this small
business listed in the CCD, MAEDbS, or
ENERGY STAR databases. Instead, DOE
identified this manufacturer through the
prior rulemaking analysis. 77 FR 32307.
There is limited public information
about the energy and water efficiency of
138 California Energy Commission’s Modernized
Appliance Efficiency Database System is available
at: cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/
ApplianceSearch.aspx (Last accessed March 25,
2022).
139 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s
ENERGY STAR Product Finder is available at:
www.energystar.gov/productfinder/ (Last accessed
March 25, 2022).
140 S&P Global. Panjiva Market Intelligence is
available at: panjiva.com/import-export/UnitedStates (Last accessed May 5, 2022).
141 D&B Hoovers|Company Information|Industry
Information|Lists, app.dnbhoovers.com/ (Last
accessed August 1, 2022).
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13615
this small business’s RCW model. Based
on a review of available product
literature and test data of a comparable
RCW model, DOE estimates that their
current design would not meet the
efficiencies required at TSL 4.
Furthermore, DOE’s review of the
product suggests that the design could
not be easily adapted to meet TSL 4
efficiencies. DOE expects that the small
manufacturer would likely need to make
significant investments to redesign the
product to meet the proposed
efficiencies. Therefore, DOE is unable to
conclude that the proposed rule would
not have a ‘‘significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities’’ at
this time.
DOE seeks comments, information,
and data on the number of small
businesses in the industry, the names of
those small businesses, and their market
shares by product class. DOE also
requests comment on the potential
impacts of the proposed standard on
small manufacturers. In particular, DOE
seeks comment on the efficiency
performance of the small manufacturer’s
RCW model and the estimated cost to
redesign to the proposed standard level.
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict
With Other Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or
regulations that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the proposed rule.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
The discussion in the previous
section analyzes impacts on small
businesses that would result from DOE’s
proposed rule, represented by TSL 4. In
reviewing alternatives to the proposed
rule, DOE examined energy
conservation standards set at lower
efficiency levels. While TSL 1, TSL 2,
and TSL 3 would likely reduce the
impacts on the one small business
manufacturer, it would come at the
expense of a reduction in energy
savings. TSL 1 achieves 58 percent and
TSL 2 achieves 57 percent lower energy
savings compared to the energy savings
at TSL 4. TSL 3 achieves 49 percent
lower energy savings compared to the
energy savings at TSL 4. Additionally,
TSL 1 and TSL 2 achieve 50 percent and
TSL 3 achieves 18 percent lower water
savings compared to the water savings
at TSL 4. TSL 5 were also analyzed, but
it was determined this level would lead
to greater costs to manufacturers.
Based on the presented discussion,
establishing standards at TSL 4 balances
the benefits of the energy and water
savings at TSL 4 with the potential
burdens placed on RCW manufacturers,
including small business manufacturers.
Accordingly, DOE does not propose one
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13616
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
of the other TSLs considered in the
analysis, or the other policy alternatives
examined as part of the regulatory
impact analysis and included in chapter
17 of the NOPR TSD.
Additional compliance flexibilities
may be available through other means.
EPCA provides that a manufacturer
whose annual gross revenue from all of
its operations does not exceed $8
million may apply for an exemption
from all or part of an energy
conservation standard for a period not
longer than 24 months after the effective
date of a final rule establishing the
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t))
Additionally, manufacturers subject to
DOE’s energy efficiency standards may
apply to DOE’s Office of Hearings and
Appeals for exception relief under
certain circumstances. Manufacturers
should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart
E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional
details.
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act
Under the procedures established by
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(‘‘PRA’’), a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
by a Federal agency unless that
collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
OMB Control Number 1910–1400,
Compliance Statement Energy/Water
Conservation Standards for Appliances,
is currently valid and assigned to the
certification reporting requirements
applicable to covered equipment,
including RCWs.
DOE’s certification and compliance
activities ensure accurate and
comprehensive information about the
energy and water use characteristics of
covered products and covered
equipment sold in the United States.
Manufacturers of all covered products
and covered equipment must submit a
certification report before a basic model
is distributed in commerce, annually
thereafter, and if the basic model is
redesigned in such a manner to increase
the consumption or decrease the
efficiency of the basic model such that
the certified rating is no longer
supported by the test data. Additionally,
manufacturers must report when
production of a basic model has ceased
and is no longer offered for sale as part
of the next annual certification report
following such cessation. DOE requires
the manufacturer of any covered
product or covered equipment to
establish, maintain, and retain the
records of certification reports, of the
underlying test data for all certification
testing, and of any other testing
conducted to satisfy the requirements of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
part 429, part 430, and/or part 431.
Certification reports provide DOE and
consumers with comprehensive, up-to
date efficiency information and support
effective enforcement.
Revised certification data would be
required for RCWs were this NOPR to be
finalized as proposed; however, DOE is
not proposing amended certification or
reporting requirements for RCWs in this
NOPR. Instead, DOE may consider
proposals to establish certification
requirements and reporting for RCWs
under a separate rulemaking regarding
appliance and equipment certification.
DOE will address changes to OMB
Control Number 1910–1400 at that time,
as necessary.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, nor shall any person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the PRA, unless
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE is analyzing this proposed
regulation in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (‘‘NEPA’’) and DOE’s NEPA
implementing regulations (10 CFR part
1021). DOE’s regulations include a
categorical exclusion for rulemakings
that establish energy conservation
standards for consumer products or
industrial equipment. 10 CFR part 1021,
subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE
anticipates that this rulemaking
qualifies for categorical exclusion B5.1
because it is a rulemaking that
establishes energy conservation
standards for consumer products or
industrial equipment, none of the
exceptions identified in categorical
exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no
extraordinary circumstances exist that
require further environmental analysis,
and it otherwise meets the requirements
for application of a categorical
exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE
will complete its NEPA review before
issuing the final rule.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR
43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain
requirements on Federal agencies
formulating and implementing policies
or regulations that preempt State law or
that have federalism implications. The
Executive order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory
authority supporting any action that
would limit the policymaking discretion
of the States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Executive order also requires agencies to
have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy
describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR
13735. DOE has examined this proposed
rule and has tentatively determined that
it would not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. EPCA
governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to
energy conservation for the products
that are the subject of this proposed
rule. States can petition DOE for
exemption from such preemption to the
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no
further action is required by Executive
Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O.
12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ imposes
on Federal agencies the general duty to
adhere to the following requirements:
(1) eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct
rather than a general standard, and (4)
promote simplification and burden
reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996).
Regarding the review required by
section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988
specifically requires that Executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to
ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly
specifies the preemptive effect, if any,
(2) clearly specifies any effect on
existing Federal law or regulation, (3)
provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction, (4)
specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5)
adequately defines key terms, and (6)
addresses other important issues
affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship under any guidelines
issued by the Attorney General. Section
3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires
Executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in
section 3(a) and section 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of
them. DOE has completed the required
review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, this proposed
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
rule meets the relevant standards of E.O.
12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires
each Federal agency to assess the effects
of Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104–4,
section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a proposed regulatory action likely
to result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector of $100 million or more
in any one year (adjusted annually for
inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires
a Federal agency to publish a written
statement that estimates the resulting
costs, benefits, and other effects on the
national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b))
The UMRA also requires a Federal
agency to develop an effective process
to permit timely input by elected
officers of State, local, and Tribal
governments on a proposed ‘‘significant
intergovernmental mandate,’’ and
requires an agency plan for giving notice
and opportunity for timely input to
potentially affected small governments
before establishing any requirements
that might significantly or uniquely
affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE
published a statement of policy on its
process for intergovernmental
consultation under UMRA. 62 FR
12820. DOE’s policy statement is also
available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/
files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
Although this proposed rule does not
contain a Federal intergovernmental
mandate, it may require expenditures of
$100 million or more in any one year by
the private sector. Such expenditures
may include: (1) investment in research
and development and in capital
expenditures by RCW manufacturers in
the years between the final rule and the
compliance date for the new standards
and (2) incremental additional
expenditures by consumers to purchase
higher-efficiency RCWs, starting at the
compliance date for the applicable
standard.
Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a
Federal agency to respond to the content
requirements of UMRA in any other
statement or analysis that accompanies
the proposed rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c))
The content requirements of section
202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private
sector mandate substantially overlap the
economic analysis requirements that
apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and
Executive Order 12866. The
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this NOPR and the TSD for this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
proposed rule respond to those
requirements.
Under section 205 of UMRA, the
Department is obligated to identify and
consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives before
promulgating a rule for which a written
statement under section 202 is required.
(2 U.S.C. 1535(a)) DOE is required to
select from those alternatives the most
cost-effective and least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the proposed rule unless DOE
publishes an explanation for doing
otherwise, or the selection of such an
alternative is inconsistent with law. As
required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), this
proposed rule would establish amended
energy conservation standards for RCWs
that are designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE has determined to
be both technologically feasible and
economically justified, as required by 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B). A full discussion of the
alternatives considered by DOE is
presented in chapter 17 of the TSD for
this proposed rule.
13617
at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE’s guidelines were published at 67
FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to
OMB Memorandum M–19–15,
Improving Implementation of the
Information Quality Act (April 24,
2019), DOE published updated
guidelines which are available at
www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/
12/f70/DOE%20Final%20
Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20
Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed
this NOPR under the OMB and DOE
guidelines and has concluded that it is
consistent with applicable policies in
those guidelines.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630,
‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 1988),
DOE has determined that this proposed
rule would not result in any takings that
might require compensation under the
Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66
FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires
Federal agencies to prepare and submit
to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy
Effects for any proposed significant
energy action. A ‘‘significant energy
action’’ is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgates or is expected
to lead to promulgation of a final rule,
and that (1) is a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866, or
any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy, or
(3) is designated by the Administrator of
OIRA as a significant energy action. For
any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use
should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the
action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has tentatively concluded that
this regulatory action, which proposes
amended energy conservation standards
for RCWs, is not a significant energy
action because the proposed standards
are not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy, nor has it
been designated as such by the
Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly,
DOE has not prepared a Statement of
Energy Effects on this proposed rule.
J. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides
for Federal agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the
public under information quality
guidelines established by each agency
pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published
L. Information Quality
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in
consultation with the Office of Science
and Technology Policy (‘‘OSTP’’),
issued its Final Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review (‘‘the
Bulletin’’). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005).
The Bulletin establishes that certain
scientific information shall be peer
reviewed by qualified specialists before
it is disseminated by the Federal
Government, including influential
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being. This
proposed rule would not have any
impact on the autonomy or integrity of
the family as an institution.
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it
is not necessary to prepare a Family
Policymaking Assessment.
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13618
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
scientific information related to agency
regulatory actions. The purpose of the
bulletin is to enhance the quality and
credibility of the Government’s
scientific information. Under the
Bulletin, the energy conservation
standards rulemaking analyses are
‘‘influential scientific information,’’
which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific
information the agency reasonably can
determine will have, or does have, a
clear and substantial impact on
important public policies or private
sector decisions.’’ 70 FR 2664, 2667.
In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE
conducted formal peer reviews of the
energy conservation standards
development process and the analyses
that are typically used and has prepared
a report describing that peer review.142
Generation of this report involved a
rigorous, formal, and documented
evaluation using objective criteria and
qualified and independent reviewers to
make a judgment as to the technical/
scientific/business merit, the actual or
anticipated results, and the productivity
and management effectiveness of
programs and/or projects. Because
available data, models, and
technological understanding have
changed since 2007, DOE has engaged
with the NAS to review DOE’s
analytical methodologies to ascertain
whether modifications are needed to
improve the Department’s analyses.
DOE is in the process of evaluating the
resulting report.143
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
The time and date of the webinar
meeting are listed in the DATES section
at the beginning of this document.
Webinar registration information,
participant instructions, and
information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants will be
published on DOE’s website at
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/
standards.aspx?productid=68.
Participants are responsible for ensuring
their systems are compatible with the
webinar software.
142 The 2007 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards
Rulemaking Peer Review Report’’ is available at the
following website: energy.gov/eere/buildings/
downloads/energy-conservation-standardsrulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (Last accessed June
12, 2022).
143 The report is available at
www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-ofmethods-for-setting-building-and-equipmentperformance-standards.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared
General Statements for Distribution
Any person who has an interest in the
topics addressed in this document, or
who is representative of a group or class
of persons that has an interest in these
issues, may request an opportunity to
make an oral presentation at the
webinar. Such persons may submit to
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov. Persons who wish to speak
should include with their request a
computer file in WordPerfect, Microsoft
Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format
that briefly describes the nature of their
interest in this rulemaking and the
topics they wish to discuss. Such
persons should also provide a daytime
telephone number where they can be
reached.
DOE requests persons selected to
make an oral presentation to submit an
advance copy of their statements at least
two weeks before the webinar. At its
discretion, DOE may permit persons
who cannot supply an advance copy of
their statement to participate, if those
persons have made advance alternative
arrangements with the Building
Technologies Office. As necessary,
requests to give an oral presentation
should ask for such alternative
arrangements.
C. Conduct of the Webinar
DOE will designate a DOE official to
preside at the webinar/public meeting
and may also use a professional
facilitator to aid discussion. The
meeting will not be a judicial or
evidentiary-type public hearing, but
DOE will conduct it in accordance with
section 336 of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6306) A
court reporter will be present to record
the proceedings and prepare a
transcript. DOE reserves the right to
schedule the order of presentations and
to establish the procedures governing
the conduct of the webinar. There shall
not be discussion of proprietary
information, costs or prices, market
share, or other commercial matters
regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After
the webinar and until the end of the
comment period, interested parties may
submit further comments on the
proceedings, as well as on any aspect of
the proposed rulemaking.
The webinar will be conducted in an
informal, conference style. DOE will
present a general overview of the topics
addressed in this proposed rulemaking,
allow time for prepared general
statements by participants, and
encourage all interested parties to share
their views on issues affecting this
proposed rulemaking. Each participant
will be allowed to make a general
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
statement (within time limits
determined by DOE), before the
discussion of specific topics. DOE will
allow, as time permits, other
participants to comment briefly on any
general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements
on a topic, DOE will permit participants
to clarify their statements briefly.
Participants should be prepared to
answer questions by DOE and by other
participants concerning these issues.
DOE representatives may also ask
questions of participants concerning
other matters relevant to this proposed
rulemaking. The official conducting the
webinar/public meeting will accept
additional comments or questions from
those attending, as time permits. The
presiding official will announce any
further procedural rules or modification
of the previous procedures that may be
needed for the proper conduct of the
webinar.
A transcript of the webinar will be
included in the docket, which can be
viewed as described in the Docket
section at the beginning of this
document and will be accessible on the
DOE website. In addition, any person
may buy a copy of the transcript from
the transcribing reporter.
D. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and
information regarding this proposed
rule before or after the public meeting,
but no later than the date provided in
the DATES section at the beginning of
this proposed rule. Interested parties
may submit comments, data, and other
information using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at
the beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via
www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will
require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact
information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your
contact information will not be publicly
viewable except for your first and last
names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment itself or in any
documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want
to be publicly viewable should not be
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment.
Otherwise, persons viewing comments
will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence
containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the
comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov
information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute, such as trade
secrets and commercial or financial
information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information
(‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
website will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information
section.
DOE processes submissions made
through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be
posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of
comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not
be viewable for up to several weeks.
Please keep the comment tracking
number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully
uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand
delivery/courier, or postal mail.
Comments and documents submitted
via email, hand delivery/courier, or
postal mail also will be posted to
www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be
publicly viewable, do not include it in
your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your
contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as
long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. If you
submit via postal mail or hand delivery/
courier, please provide all items on a
CD, if feasible, in which case it is not
necessary to submit printed copies. No
telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be
accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide documents that are not
secured, that are written in English, and
that are free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
characters or any form of encryption
and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person
submitting information that he or she
believes to be confidential and exempt
by law from public disclosure should
submit via email two well-marked
copies: one copy of the document
marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information
believed to be confidential deleted. DOE
will make its own determination about
the confidential status of the
information and treat it according to its
determination.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments
on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is
particularly interested in receiving
comments and views of interested
parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE seeks comment on the
product class structure analyzed in this
NOPR.
(2) DOE seeks comment on the
technology options not identified in this
NOPR that manufacturers may use to
attain higher efficiency levels of RCWs.
(3) DOE seeks comment on whether
any additional technology options
should be screened out on the basis of
any of the screening criteria in this
NOPR.
(4) DOE seeks comment on whether
the baseline efficiency levels analyzed
in this NOPR for each product class are
appropriate.
(5) DOE seeks comment on whether
the higher efficiency levels analyzed in
this NOPR for each product class are
appropriate.
(6) DOE seeks comment on whether
the efficiency levels analyzed in this
NOPR for semi-automatic RCWs are
appropriate.
(7) DOE seeks comment on the
baseline MPCs and incremental MPCs
developed for each product class.
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
13619
(8) DOE seeks comment on its
tentative determination to use the DOE
dataset as the basis for the translation
equations rather than use the joint DOE–
AHAM dataset.
(9) DOE seeks comment on its
tentative determination not to merge the
compact and standard-size translations,
but to instead develop separate
translations for each product class.
(10) DOE seeks comment on whether
it should consider defining an
‘‘unadjusted’’ baseline efficiency level
based on a translation between
appendix J2 and appendix J metrics
without consideration of any changes to
spin implementations as a result of
adopting the appendix J test procedure.
(11) DOE requests comment and
information on the specific efficiency
levels at which any potential rebound
effects may happen, as well as the
magnitude of the effect.
(12) DOE requests comment and
information on frequency of cleaning
cycles run per number of cycles used to
clean clothes and associated data as
compared to the recommendations in
the manufacturer’s use and care
manuals.
(13) DOE requests comment and
information on RCW lifetime.
(14) DOE seeks comment on the
approach and inputs used to develop
no-new standards case shipments
projection and market share for each
product class.
(15) DOE requests data on the market
size and typical selling price of units
sold through the second-hand market
for residential clothes washers.
(16) For households who would be
negatively impacted by amended energy
conservation standards, a potential
rebate program to reduce the total
installed costs would be effective in
lowering the percentage of consumers
with a net cost and reducing simple
payback period. DOE is aware of 80
rebate programs currently available for
residential clothes washers meeting
ENERGY STAR requirements initiated
by 63 organizations in various States as
described in chapter 17 of the NOPR
TSD. DOE is seeking comment about
how amended energy conservation
standards may impact the low-income
and senior-only consumer economics
being presented and considered in this
proposed rulemaking.
(17) DOE is seeking comment about
definable subpopulations in addition to
low-income and senior-only households
and the associated data required to
differentiate how such subpopulation
use clothes washers.
(18) To consider to costs of
monitoring test procedure and energy
conservation standard rulemakings,
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
13620
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
DOE requests AHAM provide the costs
of monitoring, which would be
independent from the conversion costs
required to adapt product designs and
manufacturing facilities to an amended
standard, for DOE to determine whether
these costs would materially affect the
analysis. In particular, a summary of the
job titles and annual hours per job title
at a prototypical company would allow
DOE to construct a detailed analysis of
AHAM’s monitoring costs.
(19) DOE seeks comment on the
availability of direct drive motors in
quantities required by industry if DOE
were to adopt amended standards.
(20) DOE seeks comments,
information, and data on the capital
conversion costs and product
conversion costs estimated for each
TSL.
(21) DOE seeks comment on whether
manufacturers expect manufacturing
capacity constraints due to production
facility updates would limit product
availability to consumers in the
timeframe of the amended standard
compliance date (2027).
(22) DOE requests information
regarding the impact of cumulative
regulatory burden on manufacturers of
RCWs associated with multiple DOE
standards or product-specific regulatory
actions of other Federal agencies.
(23) DOE seeks comment on whether
the Consumer Reports test produces
cleaning performance results that are
representative of an average use cycle as
measured by the DOE test procedure.
DOE also seeks comment on how
relative cleaning performance results
would vary if tested under test
conditions consistent with the DOE
appendix J test procedure.
(24) DOE requests comment on its use
of the Hot temperature selection with
the large load size to evaluate potential
impacts on clothes washer performance
as a result of amended standards.
(25) DOE requests comment on its use
of the Soil/Stain Removal test and
Mechanical Action test specified in
AHAM HLW–2–2020 as the basis for
evaluating performance-related
concerns expressed by AHAM and
manufacturers.
(26) DOE requests comment on its
wash temperature data presented in the
performance characteristics test report
and on its tentative conclusions derived
from this data. DOE requests any
additional data DOE should consider
about wash temperatures at the
proposed standard level, as DOE’s data
leads to the tentative conclusion that
fatty soils would be able to be dissolved
at this efficiency level.
(27) DOE requests comment on its
stain removal data presented in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
performance characteristics test report
and on its conclusions derived from this
data. In particular, DOE requests
comment on whether the clustering of
data at or above a score of 90 (as
measured on the Hot temperature
selection with the large load size)
corresponds to a market-representative
threshold of stain removal performance
as measured with this cycle
configuration. DOE additionally
requests comment on its analysis
indicating that implementing additional
hardware design options, rather than
reducing wash temperatures, on EL 2
units could enable total cleaning scores
at EL 3 that are equally as high as the
highest scores currently achieved by
units at lower efficiency levels.
(28) DOE requests comment on its
mechanical action data presented in the
performance characteristics test report
and on its conclusions derived from this
data. In particular, DOE requests
comment on whether there is a marketrepresentative threshold of mechanical
action performance as measured on the
Hot temperature selection using the
large load size. DOE also requests
comment on whether better mechanical
action scores at higher top-loading
efficiency levels are attributable to the
use of wash plates rather than
traditional agitators in those higherefficiency units.
(29) DOE requests comment on its
cycle time data presented in the
performance characteristics test report
and on its conclusions derived from this
data.
(30) DOE seeks comment on its testing
and assessment of performance
attributes (i.e., wash temperatures, stain
removal, mechanical action, and cycle
duration), particularly at the proposed
standard level (i.e., TSL 4). In addition,
DOE seeks additional data that
stakeholders would like DOE to
consider on performance attributes at
TSL 4 efficiencies as well as the current
minimum energy conservation
standards.
(31) DOE requests comment and
information on sales of RCWs with deep
fill and/or deep rinse options or settings
and the frequency of use of cycles with
these options or settings selected.
(32) DOE requests data and
information regarding any quantitative
performance-related characteristics at
TSL 4 in comparison to performance at
the current baseline level (e.g., cleaning
performance, rinsing performance,
fabric wear, etc.), particularly for toploading standard-size RCWs.
(33) DOE seeks comments,
information, and data on the number of
small businesses in the industry, the
names of those small businesses, and
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
their market shares by product class.
DOE also requests comment on the
potential impacts of the proposed
standard on small manufacturers. In
particular, DOE seeks comment on the
efficiency performance of the small
manufacturer’s RCW model and the
estimated cost to redesign to the
proposed standard level.
Additionally, DOE welcomes
comments on other issues relevant to
the conduct of this rulemaking that may
not specifically be identified in this
document.
VIII. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this notice of proposed
rulemaking and announcement of
public meeting.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Household appliances, Imports,
Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on February 9, 2023,
by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, pursuant to
delegated authority from the Secretary
of Energy. That document with the
original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on
February 21, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, DOE proposes to amend part
430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION
PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS
1. The authority citation for part 430
continues to read as follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
13621
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
2. Amend § 430.32 by:
a. Removing paragraphs (g)(1) through
(3);
■ b. Redesignating paragraph (g)(4) as
paragraph (g)(1);
■ c. Revising the introductory sentence
of newly redesignated paragraph (g)(1);
and
■
■
d. Adding new paragraph (g)(2).
The addition and revision read as
follows:
■
§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation
standards and their compliance dates.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Clothes washers.
(1) Clothes washers manufactured on
or after January 1, 2018, and before
[Date 3 years after date of publication of
final rule in the Federal Register], shall
have an Integrated Modified Energy
Factor no less than, and an Integrated
Water Factor no greater than:* * *
(2) Clothes washers manufactured on
or after [Date 3 years after date of
publication of final rule in the Federal
Register], shall have an Energy
Efficiency Ratio and a Water Efficiency
Ratio no less than:
Product class
Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers ...........................................................................................................................
Automatic Clothes Washers:
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact (less than 1.6 ft3 capacity) .................................................................................
Top-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft3 or greater capacity) ................................................................................
Front-Loading, Compact (less than 3.0 ft3 capacity) .......................................................................................
Front-Loading, Standard-Size (3.0 ft3 or greater capacity) ..............................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2023–03862 Filed 3–2–23; 8:45 am]
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:12 Mar 02, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\03MRP2.SGM
03MRP2
Energy
efficiency ratio
(lb/kWh/cycle)
Water
efficiency ratio
(lb/gal/cycle)
2.12
0.27
3.79
4.78
5.02
5.73
0.29
0.63
0.71
0.77
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 42 (Friday, March 3, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13520-13621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03862]
[[Page 13519]]
Vol. 88
Friday,
No. 42
March 3, 2023
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 430
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Residential Clothes Washers; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 13520]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014]
RIN 1904-AD98
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Residential Clothes Washers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public
meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including residential
clothes washers (``RCWs''). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of
Energy (``DOE'') to periodically determine whether more-stringent,
standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified,
and would result in significant energy savings. In this notice of
proposed rulemaking (``NOPR''), DOE proposes amended energy
conservation standards for RCWs, and also announces a public meeting to
receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and
results.
DATES:
Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Tuesday,
March 28, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section VII of this
document, ``Public Participation,'' for webinar registration
information, participant instructions, and information about the
capabilities available to webinar participants.
Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding
this NOPR no later than May 2, 2023.
Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed
standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in
the ADDRESSES section on or before April 3, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, under docket
number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014, by any of the
following methods:
Email: [email protected]. Include the
docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014 in the subject line of the message.
Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program,
U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant
Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445.
If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section VII of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section VII of this document for information on how to submit comments
through www.regulations.gov.
EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites
input from market participants and other interested persons with views
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested
persons may contact the Division at [email protected] on or
before the date specified in the DATES section. Please indicate in the
``Subject'' line of your email the title and Docket Number of this
proposed rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-5649. Email: [email protected].
Ms. Melanie Lampton, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 751-5157. Email:
[email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting,
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202)
287-1445 or by email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits and Costs
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Residential Clothes
Washers
C. Deviation From Appendix A
III. General Discussion
A. General Comments
B. Scope of Coverage
C. Test Procedure
1. History of Appendix J
2. Metrics
3. Test Cloth
4. Other Test Procedure-Related Comments
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
E. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
F. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC
and PBP)
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Product Classes
2. Technology Options
B. Screening Analysis
1. Screened-Out Technologies
2. Remaining Technologies
[[Page 13521]]
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Preliminary Analysis Prediction Tool
2. Efficiency Analysis
a. Baseline Efficiency Levels
b. Higher Efficiency Levels
c. Semi-Automatic
3. Cost Analysis
4. Cost-Efficiency Results
5. Translations
a. Preliminary Analysis Approach
b. NODA Approach
c. NOPR Approach
d. Alternative Approaches
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy and Water Use Analysis
1. Number of Annual Cycles
2. Rebound Effect
3. Water Heating Energy Use
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Consumer Product Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy and Water Consumption
4. Energy and Water Prices
a. Energy Prices
b. Water and Wastewater Prices
5. Repair and Maintenance Costs
6. Product Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
10. Other Issues
G. Shipments Analysis
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Product Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy and Water Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
1. Low-Income Households
2. Senior-Only Households
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
b. Shipments Projections
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios
3. Manufacturer Interviews
a. Product Classes
b. Ability To Serve Certain Consumer Segments
c. Supply Chain Constraints
4. Discussion of MIA Comments
K. Emissions Analysis
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a. Social Cost of Carbon
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
M. Utility Impact Analysis
N. Employment Impact Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy and Water Savings
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
a. Performance Characteristics
b. Availability of ``Traditional'' Agitators
c. Water Levels
d. Availability of Portable Products
e. Conclusion
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
C. Conclusion
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Residential
Clothes Washer Standards
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and
Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Information Quality
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA \2\ established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include consumer (residential) \3\
clothes washers (``RCWs''), the subject of this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
\3\ DOE uses the ``residential'' nomenclature and ``RCW''
abbreviation for consumer clothes washers in order to distinguish
from the ``CCW'' abbreviation used for commercial clothes washers,
which are also regulated equipment under EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new
or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also provides that not later
than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending
a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that
standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of
proposed rulemaking including new proposed energy conservation
standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C.
6295(m))
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed
in this document, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards
for RCWs. The proposed standards, which are expressed in terms of
energy efficiency ratio (``EER'') measured in pounds per kilowatt-hour
per cycle (``lb/kWh/cycle'') and water efficiency ratio (``WER'')
measured in pounds per gallon per cycle (``lb/gal/cycle'') as measured
using the test procedure at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(``CFR''), part 430, subpart B, appendix J (``appendix J''), are shown
in Table I.1. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all
RCWs listed in Table I.1 manufactured in, or imported into, the United
States starting on the date 3 years after the publication in the
Federal Register of the final rule for this rulemaking. As shown in
Table I.1 and discussed further in IV.A.1 of this document, DOE
proposes standards for separate RCW product classes that are
[[Page 13522]]
defined based on axis of loading (i.e., top-loading or front-loading),
clothes container capacity (measured in cubic feet (``ft\3\'')), and
whether the product is automatic or semi-automatic.
Table I.1--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Residential
Clothes Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum energy Minimum water
Product class efficiency ratio efficiency ratio
(lb/kWh/cycle) (lb/gal/cycle)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers.... 2.12 0.27
Automatic Clothes Washers:
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact 3.79 0.29
(less than 1.6 ft\3\
capacity)....................
Top-Loading, Standard-Size 4.78 0.63
(1.6 ft\3\ or greater
capacity)....................
Front-Loading, Compact (less 5.02 0.71
than 3.0 ft\3\ capacity).....
Front-Loading, Standard-Size 5.73 0.77
(3.0 ft\3\ or greater
capacity)....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
Table I.2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the
proposed standards, represented by trial standard level (``TSL'') 4, on
consumers of RCWs, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (``LCC'')
savings and the simple payback period (``PBP'').\4\ The average LCC
savings are positive for all product classes, and the PBP is less than
the average lifetime of RCWs, which is estimated to be 13.7 years (see
section IV.F.6 of this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected
by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency
distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market
in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards
(see section IV.F.8 of this document). The simple PBP, which is
designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative
to the baseline product (see section IV.F.9 of this document).
Table I.2--Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on
Consumers of Residential Clothes Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Simple payback
Product class savings (2021$) period (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers.... $329 0.3
Automatic Clothes Washers:
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact n.a. n.a.
(less than 1.6 ft\3\
capacity) *..................
Top-Loading, Standard-Size 134 5.9
(1.6 ft\3\ or greater
capacity)....................
Front-Loading, Compact (less 7 9.1
than 3.0 ft\3\ capacity).....
Front-Loading, Standard-Size 19 3.2
(3.0 ft\3\ or greater
capacity)....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The entry ``n.a.'' means not applicable because the standard at the
proposed TSL is the baseline.
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on
consumers is described in section IV.F of this document.
B. Impact on Manufacturers
The industry net present value (``INPV'') is the sum of the
discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the
end of the analysis period (2022-2056). Using a real discount rate of
9.3 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of RCWs in
the case without amended standards is $1,738.3 million in 2021$. Under
the proposed standards, the change in INPV is estimated to range from -
30.5 percent to -20.8 percent, which is approximately -$530.2 million
to -$361.6 million. In order to bring products into compliance with
amended standards, it is estimated that the industry would incur total
conversion costs of $690.8 million.
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on
manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document. The
analytic results of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') are
presented in section V.B.2 of this document.
C. National Benefits and Costs 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2021
dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation
standards for RCWs would save a significant amount of energy and water.
Relative to the case without amended standards, the lifetime energy and
water savings for RCWs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in
the anticipated year of compliance with the standards (2027-2056)
amount to 1.45 quadrillion British thermal units (``Btu''), or quads of
energy and 2.53 trillion gallons of water, respectively.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy
savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal,
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete
picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more
information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer
benefits of the proposed standards for RCWs ranges from $5.14 billion
(at a 7-percent discount rate) to $14.52 billion (at a 3-percent
discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future
operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs and
installation costs for RCWs purchased in 2027-2056.
In addition, the proposed standards for RCWs are projected to yield
significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the proposed
standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same
period as for energy savings) of 53.21 million metric tons (``Mt'') \7\
of carbon dioxide (``CO2''), 19.93 thousand tons of sulfur
dioxide (``SO2''), 92.39 thousand tons of nitrogen
[[Page 13523]]
oxides (``NOX''), 411.43 thousand tons of methane
(``CH4''), 0.48 thousand tons of nitrous oxide
(``N2O''), and 0.13 tons of mercury (``Hg'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for
emissions other than CO2 are presented in short tons.
\8\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy
Outlook 2022 (``AEO2022''). AEO2022 represents current federal and
state legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the
time of its preparation. See section IV.K of this document for
further discussion of AEO2022 assumptions that effect air pollutant
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in
greenhouse gases (``GHG'') using four different estimates of the social
cost of CO2 (``SC-CO2''), the social cost of
methane (``SC-CH4''), and the social cost of nitrous oxide
(``SC-N2O''). Together these represent the social cost of
GHG (``SC-GHG'').\9\ DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by an
Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases
(``IWG'').\10\ The derivation of these values is discussed in section
IV.L of this document. For presentational purposes, the climate
benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount
rate are estimated to be $2.71 billion. DOE does not have a single
central SC-GHG point estimate and it emphasizes the importance and
value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-
GHG estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No.
22-30087) granted the Federal government's emergency motion for stay
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction
issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a
result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is
no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's
appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other
things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that
case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying
upon'' the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse
gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize
the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in
this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction
and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible
under law.
\10\ See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse
Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane,
and Nitrous Oxide. Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990,
Washington, DC, February 2021. www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO2 and
NOX emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates
from the scientific literature, as discussed in section IV.L of this
document. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would
be $1.91 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $4.57 billion
using a 3-percent discount rate.\11\ DOE is currently only monetizing
(for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor
health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health
benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other
effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
PM2.5 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of
complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table I.3 summarizes the economic benefits and costs expected to
result from the proposed standards for RCWs. There are other important
unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate benefits,
unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air
pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits,
and distributional effects, among others.
Table I.3--Summary of Monetized Economic Benefits and Costs of Proposed
Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers
[TSL 4]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Billion 2021$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings...................... 27.83
Climate Benefits *................................... 2.71
Health Benefits **................................... 4.57
------------------
Total Benefits [dagger].......................... 35.11
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].......... 13.31
------------------
Net Benefits..................................... 14.52
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings...................... 12.73
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)................ 2.71
Health Benefits **................................... 1.91
------------------
Total Benefits [dagger].......................... 17.35
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger].......... 7.58
------------------
Net Benefits..................................... 5.14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with RCWs
shipped in 2027-2056. These results include benefits to consumers
which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the
social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), methane (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide
(SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent
discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate) (see
section IV.L of this document). Together these represent the global SC-
GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits
associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are
shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087)
granted the Federal government's emergency motion for stay pending
appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in
Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of
the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in
effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's appeal of that
injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the
preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from
``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the
interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were
issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has
reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents
monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
[[Page 13524]]
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX
and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5
precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health
benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other
effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5
emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and
health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation
purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent
cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount
rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits
calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as
installation costs.
The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be
expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the
total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating
costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and
installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and benefits of
emission reductions, all annualized.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2021, the year
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings.
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur
(e.g., 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year
to 2021. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for
all costs and benefits. Using the present value, DOE then calculated
the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the
compliance year, that yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The national operating savings are domestic private U.S. consumer
monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered
products and are measured for the lifetime of RCWs shipped in 2027-
2056. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a
result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the
lifetime of RCWs shipped in 2027-2056. Total benefits for both the 3-
percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social
costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are
presented for all four discount rates in section IV.L of this document.
Table I.4 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs
associated with the proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized
values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from reduced NOX and SO2
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards
proposed in this rule is $800.8 million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $1,344.2 million in
reduced equipment operating costs, $155.7 million in climate benefits,
and $202.0 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit
would amount to $901.1 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the proposed standards is $764.0 million per year in
increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are
$1,598.0 million in reduced operating costs, $155.7 million in climate
benefits, and $262.2 million in health benefits. In this case, the net
benefit would amount to $1,251.8 million per year.
Table I.4--Annualized Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Residential
Clothes Washers
[TSL 4]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 2021$/year
-----------------------------------------------
Low-net- High-net-
Primary benefits benefits
estimate estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings................................. 1,598.0 1,544.5 1,657.8
Climate Benefits *.............................................. 155.7 151.7 159.7
Health Benefits **.............................................. 262.2 255.8 268.9
-----------------------------------------------
Total Benefits[dagger]...................................... 2,015.9 1,952.0 2,086.4
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]..................... 764.0 778.7 695.5
-----------------------------------------------
Net Benefits................................................ 1,251.8 1,173.4 1,390.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings................................. 1,344.2 1,302.8 1,389.7
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)........................... 155.7 151.7 159.7
Health Benefits **.............................................. 202.0 197.5 206.7
-----------------------------------------------
Total Benefits [dagger]..................................... 1,701.9 1,652.0 1,756.1
Consumer Incremental Product Costs[Dagger]...................... 800.8 813.3 737.9
-----------------------------------------------
Net Benefits................................................ 901.1 838.7 1,018.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with RCWs shipped in 2027-2056. These results
include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056. The Primary, Low
Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2022 Reference
case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental
equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net
Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive
projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits
and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
[[Page 13525]]
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this
document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG
at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point
estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four
sets of SC-GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the
Federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction
issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the
preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's appeal of that
injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in
that case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim estimates of the
social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As
reflected in this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized
benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
(for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits include for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-
GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is
described in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this document.
D. Conclusion
DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified, and would result in the
significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to
technological feasibility, products achieving these standard levels are
already commercially available for all product classes covered by this
proposal. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that the
benefits of the proposed standard exceed, to a great extent, the
burdens of the proposed standards.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
NOx and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3-percent discount
rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the proposed
standards for RCWs is $800.8 million per year in increased product
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $1,344.2 million in
reduced product operating costs, $155.7 million in climate benefits and
$202.0 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $901.1
million per year.
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\13\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have substantial energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates
the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously mentioned, the proposed standards are projected to
result in estimated national energy savings of 1.45 quads FFC, the
equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 16 million homes. The
NPV of consumer benefit for these projected energy savings is $5.14
billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $14.52 billion using a
discount rate of 3 percent. The cumulative emissions reductions
associated with these energy savings are 53.21 Mt of CO2,
19.93 thousand tons of SO2, 92.39 thousand tons of
NOX, 0.13 tons of Hg, 411.43 thousand tons of
CH4, and 0.48 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) is
$2.71 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health benefits from
reduced SO2 and NOX emissions is $1.91 billion
using a 7-percent discount rate and $4.57 billion using a 3-percent
discount rate. As such, DOE has initially determined the energy savings
from the proposed standard levels are ``significant'' within the
meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).\14\ A more detailed discussion of
the basis for these tentative conclusions is contained in the remainder
of this document and the accompanying technical support document
(``TSD'').\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See section III.E.2 of this document for further discussion
of how DOE determines whether energy savings are ``significant''
within the context of the statute.
\15\ The TSD is available in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as
potential standards, and is still considering them in this proposed
rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential
burdens of the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh
the projected benefits.
Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in
response to this document and related information collected and
analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt
energy efficiency levels presented in this document that are either
higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of
level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant
historical background related to the establishment of standards for
RCWs.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include RCWs, the
subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)) EPCA prescribed energy
conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(2) and
(9)(A)), and directs DOE to conduct future rulemakings to determine
whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4) and (9)(B))
EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance
of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish
either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not
need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy
conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate).
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy
[[Page 13526]]
conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal
preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with
the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (See 42
U.S.C. 6297(d))
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products must use the prescribed DOE
test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products
comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under
EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy
use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 U.S.C.
6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine
whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for RCWs appear at 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix J (``appendix J'') and appendix J2
(``appendix J2'').
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered products, including RCWs. Any new or
amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy
(``Secretary'') determines is technologically feasible and economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in
the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard if DOE determines by
rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In deciding whether a proposed
standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving
comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest
extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and on
the consumers of the products subject to such standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance
expenses of, the covered products which are likely to result from the
imposition of the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy, or as applicable, water,
savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
products likely to result from the imposition of the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
imposition of the standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard
is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional
cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy
conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of
the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive
as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA also contains what is known as an ``anti-backsliding''
provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended
standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended
or new standard if interested persons have established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in
the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(4))
Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an
energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more
subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type
or class of product that has the same function or intended use, if DOE
determines that products within such group: (A) consume a different
kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such
type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related
feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have
and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature
justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE must
consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and
other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing such a
standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher
or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public Law 110-
140, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards
promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and
off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE
adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if
justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into
a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate
standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's current test procedures for RCWs address
standby mode and off mode energy use as part of the EER metric. In this
rulemaking, DOE intends to incorporate such energy use into any amended
energy conservation standards that it may adopt.
B. Background
1. Current Standards
The current energy conservation standards for RCWs were established
in a direct final rule published on May 31, 2012. 77 FR 32308 (``May
2012 Final Rule'').\16\ These standards are consistent with a joint
proposal submitted to DOE
[[Page 13527]]
by interested parties representing manufacturers, energy and
environmental advocates, and consumer groups.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ DOE published a confirmation of effective date and
compliance date for the direct final rule on October 1, 2012. 77 FR
59719.
\17\ Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019-0032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current standards are defined in terms of a minimum allowable
integrated modified energy factor (``IMEF''), measured in cubic feet
per kilowatt-hour per cycle (``ft\3\/kWh/cycle''), and maximum
allowable integrated water factor (``IWF''), measured in gallons per
cycle per cubic foot (``gal/cycle/ft\3\''), as measured according to
appendix J2. Id. The May 2012 Final Rule established four classes of
RCW: top-loading, compact (less than 1.6 ft\3\ capacity); top-loading,
standard-size (1.6 ft\3\ or greater capacity); front-loading, compact
(less than 1.6 ft\3\ capacity); and front-loading, standard-size (1.6
ft\3\ or greater capacity). 77 FR 32308, 32316-32320. The May 2012
Final Rule established a two-phase compliance date--the first phase of
amended standards applied to RCWs manufactured on or after March 7,
2015. 77 FR 32308, 32380. The second phase of amended standards, which
is currently applicable, applies to RCWs manufactured on or after
January 1, 2018. Id.
The current energy conservation standards for RCWs are set forth in
DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(g)(4) and are shown in Table II.1.
Table II.1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Residential
Clothes Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum integrated
modified energy Maximum integrated
Product class factor (ft\3\/kWh/ water factor (gal/
cycle) cycle/ft\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-Loading, Compact (less 1.15 12.0
than 1.6 ft\3\ capacity)...
Top-Loading, Standard-Size 1.57 6.5
(1.6 ft\3\ or greater
capacity)..................
Front-Loading, Compact (less 1.13 8.3
than 1.6 ft\3\ capacity)...
Front-Loading, Standard-Size 1.84 4.7
(1.6 ft\3\ or greater
capacity)..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Residential Clothes Washers
On August 2, 2019, DOE published a request for information
(``RFI'') to initiate an effort to determine whether to amend the
current energy conservation standards for RCWs. 84 FR 37794 (``August
2019 RFI''). Specifically, through the August 2019 RFI, DOE sought data
and information that could enable the agency to determine whether DOE
should propose a ``no new standard'' determination because a more
stringent standard: (1) would not result in a significant savings of
energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3) is not economically
justified; or (4) any combination of foregoing. Id.
On September 29, 2021, DOE published a notification of the
availability of a preliminary technical support document for RCWs
(``September 2021 Preliminary Analysis''). 86 FR 53886. In that
notification, DOE sought comment on the analytical framework, models,
and tools that DOE used to evaluate potential standards for RCWs, the
results of preliminary analyses performed, and the potential energy
conservation standard levels derived from these analyses, which DOE
presented in the accompanying Preliminary TSD (``September 2021
Preliminary TSD'').\18\ Id. On October 29, 2021, DOE extended the
comment period for the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis for an
additional 45 days. 86 FR 59889.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ September 2021 Residential Clothes Washers Energy
Conservation Standards Preliminary Technical Support Document.
Available online at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0014-0030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The September 2021 Preliminary Analysis was conducted based on
energy and water use metrics as measured according to proposed
amendments to the test procedure as published in a NOPR on September 1,
2021 (``September 2021 TP NOPR''). 86 FR 49140. Part of this analysis
included developing translations between the metrics established by the
current appendix J2 test procedure (i.e., IMEF and IWF) and the new
metrics proposed to be established by the new appendix J test procedure
(i.e., EER and WER).
On April 13, 2022, DOE published a notification of data
availability (``NODA'') presenting the results of additional testing
conducted in furtherance of the development of the translations between
the current test procedure and the proposed new test procedure. 87 FR
21816 (``April 2022 NODA''). The April 2022 NODA included a larger
sample size of RCWs than the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis (44
units compared to 16 in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, and
covering all proposed product classes). The April 2022 NODA presented
detailed energy and water use measurements for each model as well as a
summary of key characteristics pertaining to each model (e.g., product
class, capacity, cabinet width, etc.). On May 19, 2022, DOE reopened
the comment period for the April 2022 NODA and provided additional
information in response to stakeholder questions. 87 FR 30433.
DOE received comments in response to the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis and April 2022 NODA from the interested parties listed in
Table II.2.
[[Page 13528]]
Table II.2--Written Comments Received in Response to the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis and April 2022 NODA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment No. in the docket
------------------------------------
In response to
Commenter(s) Abbreviation September 2021 In response to Commenter type
Preliminary April 2022 NODA
Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Illinois, Commonwealth Ameren et al............. 42 * n/a Efficiency
Edison Company, Northwest Organization &
Energy Efficiency Alliance, Utilities.
and Northwest Power and
Conservation Council Staff.
Appliance Standards Awareness ASAP et al............... 37 51 Efficiency
Project, American Council for Organizations.
an Energy-Efficient Economy,
Consumer Federation of
America, Natural Resources
Defense Council.
Art Fraas..................... Fraas.................... 35 n/a Individual.
Association of Home Appliance AHAM..................... 40 53 Trade
Manufacturers. Association.
Commonwealth Edison Company ComEd and NEEA........... n/a 50 Utility &
and Northwest Energy Efficiency
Efficiency Alliance. Organization.
GE Appliances................. GEA...................... 38 n/a Manufacturer.
Members of the committee of NAS Members.............. 34 n/a National
the National Academies of Advisors.
Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine.
New York State Energy Research NYSERDA.................. 36 n/a Public Benefit
and Development Authority. Corporation.
Pacific Gas and Electric CA IOUs.................. 43 52 Utilities.
Company, San Diego Gas and
Electric, and Southern
California Edison;
collectively, the California
Investor-Owned Utilities.
Samsung....................... Samsung.................. 41 n/a Manufacturer.
Whirlpool Corporation......... Whirlpool................ 39 n/a Manufacturer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ``n/a'' signifies that the commenter or group of commenters did not provide a comment in response to the
particular notification.
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\19\
To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments
that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided
during the November 10, 2021, public meeting, DOE cites the written
comments throughout this document. Any oral comments provided during
the webinar that are not substantively addressed by written comments
are summarized and cited separately throughout this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for RCWs. (Docket NO. EERE-2017-BT-
STD-0014, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The
references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket
ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GEA commented in support of AHAM's comments and incorporated AHAM's
comments into its own by reference. (GEA, No. 38 at p. 2)
Whirlpool commented that it supports and echo AHAM's positions.
(Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 2) Whirlpool added that its comments expand
upon AHAM's comments and provide additional detail or data to reinforce
its positions, as well as to comment on areas where AHAM cannot
comment. (Id.)
NYSERDA commented that it supports the detailed comments provided
by ASAP et al., most notably investigating the correlation between
clothes washer capacity and measured efficiency. (NYSERDA, No. 36 at p.
2)
AHAM specified that its comments in response to the April 2022 NODA
do not supplant its previous comments submitted in response to the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, but instead supplement those
comments. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 2)
C. Deviation From Appendix A
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A (``appendix A''), DOE notes that it is deviating from the
provision in appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR stages for an energy
conservation standards rulemaking. Section 6(a)(2) of appendix A states
that if the Department determines it is appropriate to proceed with a
rulemaking, the preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue or amend an
energy conservation standard that DOE will undertake will be a
framework document and preliminary analysis, or an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking. While DOE published a preliminary analysis for
this rulemaking, DOE did not publish a framework document in
conjunction with the preliminary analysis. DOE notes, however, chapter
2 of the September 2021 Preliminary TSD that accompanied the September
2021 Preliminary Analysis--entitled Analytical Framework, Comments from
Interested Parties, and DOE Responses--describes the general analytical
framework that DOE uses in evaluating and developing potential amended
energy conservation standards. Additionally, prior to the notification
of the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE published an RFI in
which DOE identified and sought comment on the analyses conducted in
support of the most recent energy conservation standards rulemakings
for RCWs. 84 FR 37794. As such, publication of a separate framework
document would be largely redundant of previously published documents.
Section 6(f)(2) of appendix A specifies that the length of the
public comment period for a NOPR will vary depending upon the
circumstances of the particular rulemaking, but will not be less than
75 calendar days. For this NOPR, DOE has opted to instead provide a 60-
day comment period. DOE requested comment in the August 2019 RFI on the
technical and economic analyses and provided stakeholders a 60-day
comment period, after publishing the comment period extension. 84 FR
37794, 84 FR 44557. Additionally, DOE initially provided a 75-day
comment period for the September 2021
[[Page 13529]]
Preliminary Analysis with an extension to 120 days. 86 FR 53886, 86 FR
59889. DOE also provided a 30-day comment period for the April 2022
NODA and re-opened the comment period for an additional 9 days. 87 FR
21816, 87 FR 30433. The analytical methods used for this NOPR are
similar to those used in previous rulemaking notices. As such, DOE
believes a 60-day comment period is necessary and appropriate and will
provide interested parties with a meaningful opportunity to comment on
the proposed rule.
III. General Discussion
DOE developed this proposal after considering oral and written
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent
a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues
raised by these commenters.
A. General Comments
This section summarizes general comments received from interested
parties regarding rulemaking timing and process.
AHAM commented that publishing the September 2021 TP NOPR and the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis concurrently did not allow
sufficient time for stakeholders to provide meaningful comments on
either publication. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 2-4) AHAM commented that
although DOE missed the statutory deadlines for both the test procedure
and standards rulemakings, it is disingenuous to claim that the only
option is to move forward concurrently on these rulemakings. (Id.) AHAM
suggested that DOE should have published the test procedure earlier,
considered implementing fewer changes to the test procedure, or made
changes that do not require testing to evaluate or reestablish the
baseline energy conservation standards. (Id.) AHAM expressed concern
that DOE moving forward concurrently with these rulemakings will likely
lead to DOE needing to conduct additional analysis based on the
finalized test procedure before proposing a new energy conservation
standard, and that DOE is missing the opportunity to receive meaningful
feedback on the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis. (Id.) AHAM added
that despite DOE's desire to move quickly to rectify missed statutory
deadlines, DOE must ensure it meets other statutory criteria, including
that a standard must be technically and economically justified. (Id.)
AHAM noted that the comment periods for the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis and the September 2021 TP NOPR overlapped by 34
days. AHAM noted that it requested a 92-day comment period extension
for the September 2021 TP NOPR to provide adequate time to evaluate the
proposed changes to the test procedure through testing. (AHAM, No. 53
at p. 2) AHAM added that while it appreciated DOE considering that
request and extending the comment period by 28 days, that extension was
insufficient to complete the robust testing plan developed by AHAM and
its members, gather the test data, and analyze the results. (AHAM, No.
40 at pp. 2-4; AHAM, No. 53 at p. 2)
AHAM stated that because of the insufficient time, it was unable to
provide detailed comment on the accuracy, repeatability, and testing
burden associated with the proposed test procedure and on its potential
impact on measured efficiency, or fully comment on the proposed test
procedures implications related to the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 2) AHAM further stated that it was
planning its own testing in order to fully understand and evaluate
DOE's proposed changes. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 2-4)
AHAM commented that it was poor process for DOE to issue a test
procedure final rule before receiving comments on the April 2022 NODA,
and to do so during a brief comment period extension. (Id.) AHAM added
that DOE finalizing the test procedure during the brief NODA comment
period extension made it nearly impossible for AHAM to review and
analyze the final test procedure in addition to the new data and
responses to AHAM's questions in order to formulate complete comments
on the NODA. (Id.)
AHAM further commented that although DOE did not hold a public
meeting for the April 2022 NODA, it appreciated that DOE answered its
questions and provided more time for comments in order to allow
commenters to review the updates. (AHAM, No. 53 at pp. 2-3) AHAM
stated, however, that the timing of when DOE provided links to the
updated data and responses to questions left very little time for
review and analysis of the additional data and information. (Id.)
AHAM noted that although the April 2022 NODA is technically part of
the energy conservation standards docket, comments on DOE's test data
could relate to both the energy conservation standards and test
procedure rulemakings. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 3) AHAM stated that its
comments in response to the April 2022 NODA therefore address both the
test procedure and the energy conservation standards. (Id.) AHAM
commented that it was poor process for DOE to issue a test procedure
final rule before receiving comments on the April 2022 NODA, and to do
so during a brief comment period extension. (Id.) AHAM further
explained that even though DOE answered or deferred most of AHAM's
requests in the test procedure final rule and in the April 2022 NODA,
AHAM's comments on the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis indicated
that additional information was needed in order to provide full
feedback to DOE on the test procedure. (Id.) AHAM added that DOE
finalizing the test procedure during the brief NODA comment period
extension made it nearly impossible for AHAM to review and analyze the
final test procedure in addition to the new data and responses to
AHAM's questions in order to formulate complete comments on the NODA.
(Id.)
AHAM requested that DOE allow for 180 days between the publication
of the test procedure final rule and the end of the comment period for
the energy conservation standards NOPR. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 4-6; AHAM,
No. 53 at p. 12)
Samsung also commented that, given the scope of changes proposed in
appendix J, more data would be needed to establish the baseline and
efficiency levels, which could further delay the finalization of the
next energy conservation standards. (Samsung, No. 41 at p. 3) Samsung
commented that it therefore believes more time and test data are needed
to fully adopt appendix J. (Id.)
NYSERDA encouraged DOE to quickly proceed in this rulemaking to
unlock additional significant savings for New Yorkers. (NYSERDA, No. 36
at p. 3)
In response to AHAM's comments regarding the timing of the
September 2021 TP NOPR and the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE
notes that the timing of the test procedure and energy conservation
standards rulemakings have been conducted in accordance with DOE's
procedures at appendix A to subpart C of part 430, Procedures,
Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised
Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products
and Certain Commercial/Industrial Equipment (``appendix A'' or
``Process Rule''). The Process Rule inherently recognizes a certain
amount of overlap between test procedure and energy conservation
standards rulemakings. In particular, the Process Rule specifies that
new test procedures and amended test procedures that impact measured
energy use or efficiency will be finalized at least 180 days prior to
the close of the
[[Page 13530]]
comment period for a NOPR proposing new or amended energy conservation
standards or a notice of proposed determination that standards do not
need to be amended. Section 8(d)(1) of appendix A. Inherent to this
requirement is a recognition that the earlier stages of the test
procedure rulemaking (i.e., the test procedure NOPR stage) would be
conducted concurrently with the pre-NOPR stages of the energy
conservation standards rulemaking (i.e., the preliminary analysis
stage). In other words, the implication of the timing established by
the Process Rule is that a test procedure NOPR may provide the basis
for a standards preliminary analysis; while a test procedure final rule
provides the basis for a standards NOPR. DOE published a test procedure
final rule on June 1, 2022 (``June 2022 TP Final Rule''). 87 FR 33316.
This standards NOPR is publishing more than 180 days after the
publication of the June 2022 TP Final Rule, in accordance with the
requirements of the Process Rule.
As acknowledged by AHAM, DOE is conducting this rulemaking in
fulfillment of its statutory obligations under EPCA. DOE recognizes and
appreciates the information and data provided by multiple interested
parties in response to the September 2021 TP NOPR, September 2021
Preliminary Analysis, and April 2022 NODA. As discussed throughout this
NOPR, DOE has incorporated data and other information received during
these prior rulemaking stages into the analyses conducted for this
NOPR.
In response to the September 2021 Preliminary TSD, AHAM commented
that DOE did not provide sufficient data to support the September 2021
Preliminary TSD, and that DOE's analysis was not transparent. (AHAM,
No. 40 at pp. 4-6) AHAM asserted that by providing summary data and
conclusions without providing further detail, DOE failed to meet the
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act or the Data Quality
Act. (Id.) AHAM further commented that the summary information that DOE
provided as part of the September 2021 Preliminary TSD was somewhat
helpful but did not allow stakeholders to fully assess the data and did
not clearly demonstrate that DOE's proposed translation between
appendix J2 and proposed appendix J was accurate. (Id.) AHAM requested
that DOE provide its full test data by model for all models tested to
appendix J2 and new appendix J, via a NODA or other appropriate
regulatory tool. (Id.) AHAM also requested that DOE share the model
numbers of the clothes washers it tested since it would help
stakeholders, such as AHAM and its members, determine the
representativeness of the sample. (Id.) Specifically, AHAM requested
that all data released contain all variables including, but not limited
to: total weighted per-cycle hot water energy consumption
(``HET''), total weighted per-cycle machine electrical
energy consumption (``MET''), total per-cycle energy
consumption for removal of moisture (``DET''), combined per-
cycle low power mode energy consumption (``ETLP''), and
total weighted per-cycle water consumption (``QT''). (Id.)
AHAM asked that if DOE cannot provide the information AHAM requested,
DOE should issue an explanation as to why it cannot produce the data.
(Id.) AHAM added that it will consider sharing its data confidentially
with DOE once its analysis is complete so that DOE can include its
analysis on the docket. (Id.)
AHAM stated that DOE should not issue an energy conservation
standards NOPR until it publishes a NODA that provides updated data
from DOE and AHAM members' testing. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 4-6)
In response to the April 2022 NODA, AHAM commented that it had
tested 26 RCW models that represent a cross-section of the market in
terms of capacity and features. (AHAM, No. 53 at pp. 6-7) AHAM tested
each model one to three times and averaged the results. (Id.) AHAM
presented data comparing IMEF versus EER and IWF versus WER for the 26
units tested by AHAM and the 44 units tested by DOE in the April 2022
NODA, by product class. (Id.) AHAM concluded that DOE's data presented
in the April 2022 NODA appears to be similar to AHAM's data in terms of
test results, distribution of models, and variability. (Id.) AHAM
commented that while it appreciates DOE including equations and other
transparent information in the April 2022 NODA, DOE still has not
provided model numbers for the units it tested. (Id.) AHAM therefore
noted that it is impossible for AHAM to know whether DOE and AHAM
tested some of the same models. (Id.)
The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to disclose clothes washer cycle time,
length of spin time for extracting rinse water, and the maximum spin
speed for the 62 clothes washers tested by DOE so that interested
parties could better ascertain the trade-offs related to cycle time and
gain a better understanding of the differences between the remaining
moisture content (``RMC'') \20\ as calculated using appendix J2 versus
appendix J. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 4) The CA IOUs commented that in the
September 2021 Preliminary TSD, higher spin speeds and longer spin
times were both used as design options for efficiency level (``EL'') 3
and EL 4, depending on the product class and that based on the publicly
available information, they were unable to assess the potential impacts
to the overall cycle time or to understand the potential trade-offs for
higher spin speeds in lieu of longer cycle times. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The RMC represents the amount of moisture remaining in the
test load at the end of the washer cycle. RMC is used to calculate
the drying energy component of IMEF and EER. On most clothes
washers, the drying energy component represents the largest portion
of energy captured in the IMEF and EER metrics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in section II.B.2 of this document, the April 2022
NODA presented additional test data and detailed information
characterizing each tested model. This data included the key energy and
water use parameters requested by AHAM (i.e., HET,
MET, DET, ETLP, and QT) for
each of the models tested. DOE also provided a number of key
characteristics pertaining to each model (e.g., product class,
capacity, cabinet width, etc.) that illustrate the types of units on
the market that were represented by DOE's test program. DOE appreciates
the additional test data subsequently provided by AHAM. As discussed in
section IV.C.5 of this document, DOE used AHAM's data in combination
with DOE's data to evaluate the appendix J2 to appendix J efficiency
metric translation methods under consideration.
Regarding the CA IOUs' comment requesting disclosure of the cycle
time measured for each unit in DOE's test sample, although the April
2022 NODA did not indicate the measured cycle time of each unit in
DOE's test sample, DOE has characterized the average cycle time
associated with each defined efficiency level for each product, as
described in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
NAS Members commented generally on DOE's analytical approach to
setting efficiency standards and offered findings and recommendations
for improving DOE's methodology, and ultimately, the net social
benefits of the efficiency standards DOE establishes under EPCA. (NAS
Members, No. 34 at pp. 1-7)
AHAM commented that National Academy of Sciences (``NAS'') recently
released a peer review of methods used by DOE in setting appliance and
equipment standards. (AHAM, No. 40 at p. 9) AHAM recommended that DOE
determine how it will address the NAS
[[Page 13531]]
report before engaging in further rulemakings or new amended standards.
(Id.) AHAM acknowledged that although this may not be feasible given
the number of missed deadlines and the need to move forward to mitigate
further missed deadlines, AHAM and its members are reviewing the NAS
report and may have additional comments on how DOE should revise its
methodology for future rulemakings both generally, and with regard to
RCWs. (Id.)
In response to AHAM, DOE is addressing the contents of the NAS
report \21\ in a separate rulemaking, in parallel with other ongoing
rulemakings including this RCW rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The Consensus Study Report, ``Review of Methods Used by the
U.S. Department of Energy in Setting Appliance and Equipment
Standards,'' January 7, 2022. Available at www.nap.edu/catalog/25992/review-of-methods-used-by-the-us-department-of-energy-in-setting-appliance-and-equipment-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Scope of Coverage
This NOPR covers those consumer products that meet the definition
of ``clothes washer.'' 10 CFR 430.2.
EPCA does not define the term ``clothes washer.'' DOE has defined a
``clothes washer'' as a consumer product designed to clean clothes,
utilizing a water solution of soap and/or detergent and mechanical
agitation or other movement, that must be one of the following classes:
automatic clothes washers, semi-automatic clothes washers, and other
clothes washers. Id.
An ``automatic clothes washer'' is a class of clothes washer that
has a control system that is capable of scheduling a preselected
combination of operations, such as regulation of water temperature,
regulation of the water fill level, and performance of wash, rinse,
drain, and spin functions without the need for user intervention
subsequent to the initiation of machine operation. Some models may
require user intervention to initiate these different segments of the
cycle after the machine has begun operation, but they do not require
the user to intervene to regulate the water temperature by adjusting
the external water faucet valves. Id.
A ``semi-automatic clothes washer'' is a class of clothes washer
that is the same as an automatic clothes washer except that user
intervention is required to regulate the water temperature by adjusting
the external water faucet valves. Id. ``Other clothes washer'' means a
class of clothes washer that is not an automatic or semi-automatic
clothes washer. Id.
See section IV.A.1 of this document for discussion of the product
classes analyzed in this NOPR.
Other definitions relevant to RCWs have been established by the
Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') for purposes of the ENERGY
STAR program. For example, Version 8.1 of the Program Requirements
Product Specification for Clothes Washers (``ENERGY STAR Version 8.1
Specification'') \22\ defines a ``combination all-in-one washer-dryer''
as a consumer product that meets the definition of an RCW and an
electric clothes dryer or gas clothes dryer, which cleans and dries
clothes in a single tumble-type drum; a drying cycle can be performed
independently without first performing a wash cycle. During the drying
cycle, combination all-in-one washer-dryers use one of two methods to
dry the clothing load: either using circulated air (without the use of
water) to cool and condense moisture from the dryer process air (i.e.,
``combination all-in-one washer-dryers with air-only drying''), or
consuming water to cool and condense moisture from the dryer process
air (i.e., ``combination all-in-one washer-dryers with water-cooled
drying''). In the ENERGY STAR Version 8.1 Specification, combination
all-in-one washer-dryers with air-only drying are eligible for ENERGY
STAR certification, whereas combination all-in-one washer-dryers with
water-cooled drying are ineligible for ENERGY STAR certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ ENERGY STAR Version 8.1 Program Requirements Product
Specification for Clothes Washers. Available online at
www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/ENERGY%20STAR%20Version%208.1%20Clothes%20Washer%20Final%20Specificaiton%20-%20Partner%20Commitments%20and%20Eligibility%20Criteria.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to investigate water-cooled combination
all-in-one washer-dryers and to take steps to address water usage
concerns raised by the ENERGY STAR Version 8.1 Specification published
in April 2021. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 6-7) The CA IOUs noted that
combination all-in-one washer-dryers with water-cooled drying are not
currently subject to any water use standards or water-usage testing
requirements despite the recent changes finalized by the clothes dryer
test procedure final rule published on October 8, 2021. (See 86 FR
56608; Id.) The CA IOUs expressed concern that there is unmeasured and
unregulated water use in products that seemingly include a water
standard for the washing mode of the same product. (Id.) The CA IOUs
encouraged DOE to find ways to disclose this information, including
requiring public disclosure of any product configurations that use
water during the drying cycle as part of the certification requirements
and relevant product labeling; making changes to the consumer clothes
dryer test procedure to measure water use for combination clothes
washer products; and developing a separate test procedure and standard
for combination all-in-one washer-dryers and laundry centers that
include both the washing and drying functions. (Id.)
Evaluating or developing test procedures is outside the scope of
this energy conservation standards rulemaking. DOE is not proposing any
certification or labeling requirements in this NOPR. Instead, DOE may
consider proposals to establish certification requirements and
reporting for RCWs under a separate rulemaking regarding appliance and
equipment certification.
C. Test Procedure
EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293)
Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to
certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. DOE's
current energy conservation standards for RCWs are expressed in terms
of IMEF and IWF as measured using appendix J2. (See 10 CFR
430.32(g)(4).)
1. History of Appendix J
As discussed, the September 2021 TP NOPR proposed a new test
procedure at appendix J, which proposed to define new energy efficiency
metrics: an energy efficiency ratio (i.e., EER) and a water efficiency
ratio (i.e., WER). 86 FR 49140, 49172. EER is defined as the weighted-
average load size in pounds (``lbs'') divided by the sum of (1) the
per-cycle machine energy, (2) the per-cycle water heating energy, (3)
the per-cycle drying energy, and (4) the per-cycle standby and off mode
energy consumption, in kilowatt-hours (``kWh''). Id. WER is defined as
the weighted-average load size in lbs divided by the total weighted
per-cycle water consumption for all wash cycles in gallons. Id. For
both EER and WER, a higher value indicates more efficient performance.
Id. The September 2021 Preliminary Analysis was performed using the
appendix J test procedure as it was proposed in the September 2021 TP
NOPR.
As discussed, DOE finalized the new appendix J test procedure in
the June 2022 TP Final Rule. 87 FR 33316. DOE used appendix J as
finalized in the June
[[Page 13532]]
2022 TP Final Rule as the basis for the analysis in this NOPR.
AHAM commented that DOE did not finalize appendix J as proposed in
the September 2021 TP NOPR and that the test procedure changes
described in the June 2022 TP Final Rule could impact measured energy
and water efficiency. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 12) AHAM asserted that it may
be premature to use the April 2022 NODA data or AHAM's additional data
to inform the translation from appendix J2 metric to appendix J metrics
because appendix J is not identical to the test procedure proposed in
the September 2021 TP NOPR. (Id. at p. 3)
AHAM commented that it is still reviewing finalized appendix J and
noted that even if DOE's and AHAM's samples together represent a
significant portion of shipments, it may be necessary to reconsider the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis based on finalized appendix J.
(Id.)
The appendix J test procedure finalized by the June 2022 TP Final
Rule included only one change that affects measured energy consumption.
Specifically, the June 2022 TP Final Rule updated the assumed final
moisture content (``FMC'') assumption in the drying energy formula from
4 percent as proposed in the September 2021 NOPR to 2 percent in
finalized appendix J. Id. at 87 FR 33354. DOE specifically discussed in
the September 2021 NOPR that it would consider updating the FMC from 4
percent to 2 percent. 86 FR 49140, 49176. The updated FMC value affects
only the drying energy calculation and can be implemented formulaically
on any test data that was acquired using the version of appendix J as
proposed in the September 2021 TP NOPR. In the April 2022 NODA, DOE
published two sets of translation equations corresponding to an FMC of
4 percent and 2 percent, respectively, providing interested parties
with the opportunity to evaluate the data under both approaches. 87 FR
21816, 21817.
2. Metrics
As discussed, under appendix J2, energy efficiency is measured
using the IMEF metric, measured in ft\3\/kWh/cycle, and water
efficiency is measured using the IWF metric, measured in gal/cycle/
ft\3\. Under appendix J, energy efficiency is measured using the EER
metric, measured in lb/kWh/cycle, and water efficiency is measured
using the WER metric, measured in lb/gal/cycle.
Samsung commented in support of the efficiency metric changes
shifting from capacity-based to load size-based, stating that it would
be better understood by consumers. (Samsung, No. 41 at p. 3) Samsung
recommended, however, that this be the only change that DOE implements
to calculate the new energy and water efficiency metrics EER and WER.
(Id.) Samsung added that shifting the metrics to EER and WER in this
way will only result in a change in the numeric quantity of measured
efficiency, given that the capacity and weighted-average load size
relationship is linear. (Id.) Samsung commented that changing only the
metric calculation would ease burden for manufacturers while making it
easier for consumers to understand their clothes washer's efficiency.
(Id.)
EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended by DOE
shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure
energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a
covered product or equipment during a representative average use cycle
or period of use, and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) As presented in the June 2022 TP Final Rule, in
general the changes in appendix J in comparison to appendix J2 improve
the representativeness of test results and reduce test burden, among
other benefits. 87 FR 33316, 33320-33321. In this NOPR, DOE is
proposing standards based on the new metrics defined in appendix J as
finalized. To aid interested parties in understanding the translation
between the current metrics and the new metrics, the engineering
analysis is presented using both the current metrics (i.e., IMEF and
IWF) and the new metrics (i.e., EER and WER), as discussed in section
IV.C of this document.
ASAP et al., commented in support of DOE's change to make the
efficiency metrics based on load size instead of capacity, which they
asserted will help mitigate the current bias toward large-capacity
clothes washers. (ASAP et al., No. 37 at p. 2) ASAP et al., expressed
concern, however, that for top-loading standard-size clothes washers,
large-capacity clothes washers still achieve higher efficiency ratings.
(Id.) ASAP et al., stated that while the correlation between large
capacity and high efficiency is less pronounced for EER than for IMEF,
it persists based on the data presented in the September 2021
Preliminary TSD. (Id.) ASAP et al., therefore encouraged DOE to
investigate whether this correlation results from larger clothes
washers being inherently more efficient, larger clothes washers
employing additional technology options that improve efficiency, or
some remaining inherent bias toward larger capacity clothes washers.
(Id.)
The CA IOUs commented that while they agree that the appendix J
test procedure offers improvements to the test procedure to reduce some
inherent biases between efficiency metrics and capacity, tub capacity
can still contribute to improved efficiency because a larger amount of
clothing can be washed using an incremental increase in the quantity of
water, and a larger drum diameter can exert a higher g-force on
clothing, thereby removing more water during the final spin and
reducing the drying energy. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 2-3)
Whirlpool commented that based on its initial testing, it does not
agree with DOE's conclusion that there is no benefit to larger
capacities using the EER metric. Whirlpool commented that since
capacity is still factored into the load sizes used for testing, and
those load sizes remain a part of the EER calculation, capacity will
still affect efficiency ratings. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 19)
In the June 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE noted that under the current
metrics in appendix J2, energy use (i.e., the denominator of the IMEF
equation) scales with weighted-average load size, whereas capacity
(i.e., the numerator of the IMEF equation) scales with maximum load
size. 87 FR 33316, 33349. This provides an inherent numerical advantage
to large-capacity clothes washers that is disproportionate to the
efficiency advantage that can be achieved through ``economies of
scale'' associated with washing larger loads. Id. This advantage means
that a larger-capacity clothes washer consumes more energy to wash a
pound of clothes than a smaller-capacity clothes washer with the same
IMEF rating. Id. This relationship applies similarly to water
efficiency through the IWF equation. Id. This disproportionate benefit
increases as average clothes washer capacity increases over time. Id.
To avoid providing bias for large-capacity clothes washers, DOE changed
the energy and water efficiency metrics in new appendix J by replacing
the capacity term with the weighted-average load size. Id. Under
appendix J, energy and water use scale proportionally with weighted-
average load size, thus eliminating the efficiency ``bias'' currently
provided to large-capacity clothes washers. Id.
To the extent that larger clothes washers continue to achieve
higher ratings than smaller clothes washers under the new metrics, such
higher performance reflects inherent design option advantages
applicable to larger-
[[Page 13533]]
capacity clothes washers. For example, as noted by the CA IOUs, large-
capacity clothes washers typically have wider drum diameters, which can
exert higher g-forces on the load during the spin cycle for a given
spin speed, effectively yielding a lower RMC measurement (i.e., reduced
drying energy) compared to an otherwise identical smaller clothes
washer with a narrower drum diameter. Having removed the numerical
``bias'' inherent within the current IMEF and IWF metrics, any
remaining performance advantage provided to larger-capacity clothes
washers under the new metrics is an accurate and representative
reflection of differences in efficiency between smaller- and larger-
capacity clothes washers on a per-pound of clothing basis.
AHAM commented that it appreciates that the appendix J test
procedure results in a reduction of test burden and that DOE could even
further reduce test burden by eliminating the requirement to measure
and calculate standby energy. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 13) AHAM further
commented that in most cases, the standby energy is so low that it is
not offset by a benefit to the environment or consumers under EPCA.
(Id.) AHAM added that because standby energy use is so low, it is
unlikely that manufacturers will reduce it further in order to meet
future energy conservation standards; and because manufactures are not
likely to increase standby energy use since they have already invested
in reducing it, standby energy use will not be a differentiator between
products. (Id.) AHAM therefore recommended eliminating the standby
measurement requirement because it will not have a material effect on
overall energy savings or individual energy testing results. (Id.)
As discussed, EPCA requires that any test procedure for RCWs
prescribed in a final rule after June 30, 2009 must include standby
mode and off mode energy consumption, taking into consideration the
most current versions of Standards 62301 and 62087 of the International
Electrotechnical Commission, with such energy consumption integrated
into the overall energy efficiency, energy consumption, or other energy
descriptor for each covered product, unless the Secretary determines
that either the current test procedures already fully account for and
incorporate the standby mode and off mode energy consumption of the
covered product; or such an integrated test procedure is technically
infeasible for a particular covered product, in which case EPCA
requires the Secretary to prescribe a separate standby mode and off
mode energy use test procedure for the covered product, if technically
feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)-(B))
3. Test Cloth
Both appendix J2 and appendix J require the use of specialized test
cloth that conforms to the specifications outlined in 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix J3 (``appendix J3''). As discussed in the June 2022
TP Final Rule, the specifications for the energy test cloth were
developed to be representative of the range of fabrics comprising
consumer wash loads: a 50-percent cotton/50-percent polyester blended
material was specified to approximate the typical mix of cotton,
cotton/polyester blend, and synthetic articles that are machine-washed
by consumers. 87 FR 33316, 33366. In developing the test cloth
specifications, DOE also considered:
Manufacturability: A 50/50 cotton-polyester momie weave
was specified because at the time, such cloth was produced in high
volume, had been produced to a consistent specification for many years,
and was expected to be produced on this basis for the foreseeable
future. 66 FR 3314, 3331.
Consistency in test cloth production: The cloth material
properties were specified in detail, including fiber content, thread
count, and fabric weight; as well as requirements to verify that water
repellent finishes are not applied to the cloth. Id.
Consistency of the RMC measurement among different lots: A
procedure was developed to generate correction factors for each new
``lot'' (i.e., batch) of test cloth to normalize test results and
ensure consistent RMC measurements regardless of which lot is used for
testing. Id.
Test cloth is manufactured in batches called ``lots,'' which are
quantities of test cloth that have been manufactured with the same
batches of cotton and polyester during one continuous process. Due to
differences between batches of cotton and polyester used to manufacture
the test cloth, each lot has slightly different absorption properties.
To account for these differences in absorption during the RMC
measurement, appendix J3 specifies a procedure to determine correction
factors for each lot that correlate the measured RMC values of the new
test cloth lot with a set of standard RMC values established as the
historical reference point. These correction factors are applied to the
RMC test results in appendix J and appendix J2 to ensure the
repeatability and reproducibility of test results performed using
different lots of test cloth. In particular, the measured RMC of each
clothes washer is used to calculate the drying energy, which has a
significant impact on the final IMEF or EER value. Application of these
correction factors significantly reduces lot-to-lot variation in RMC,
from over 10 percentage points uncorrected to around 3 percentage
points corrected. 87 FR 33316, 33369.
AHAM commented that it recently notified DOE of an issue concerning
Lot 24 of the test cloth used in clothes washer testing, stating that
AHAM's initial investigations have revealed serious issues with
variation in Lot 24 that are impacting certification, verification, and
regulatory testing efforts. (AHAM, No. 53 at pp. 4-5) AHAM specified
that the correction factor for Lot 24 is not accurate across the entire
lot. (Id.) AHAM further explained that this has resulted in an
increased difficulty in meeting the applicable standard because the
inaccurate correction factor is negatively impacting efficiency. (Id.)
AHAM also specified that it is more difficult to certify products
correctly or with certainty because the variation in results and
enforcement are major concerns. (Id.) AHAM also expressed concern that
testing related to appendix J may be questionable given the Lot 24
correction factor variation since both DOE and AHAM used Lot 24 for
over half the units in their test samples. (Id.) AHAM therefore
concluded that the results of DOE's and AHAM's testing should not be
used to reestablish a baseline, as they likely do not accurately
represent measured energy or water efficiency. (Id.) AHAM further
commented that it convened its test cloth task force to address the
correction factor variation issue with the goal of providing
recommendations for DOE, and has sought guidance and an enforcement
policy from DOE to address the Lot 24 issues in the short-term. (Id.)
AHAM noted that since the test cloth Lot 24 variation will likely
impact the accuracy of DOE and AHAM's testing, AHAM will conduct
further review of its data and may need to submit revised data and/or
comments once the impact of this variation on the test data is better
understood. (Id.) AHAM recommended that DOE work to understand the
impact of this variation on the accuracy of its test data and standards
analysis. (Id.) For example, AHAM noted that if it has been more
difficult to meet current standards due to the uncertainty in Lot 24's
correction factor, DOE will need to understand whether current products
have been tuned to be more efficient just because of the test cloth.
(Id.) AHAM added that this could impact DOE's
[[Page 13534]]
analysis of more stringent standards, as some technology options may
already be in use due to the correction factor issue. (Id.) AHAM also
recommended that DOE conduct its own analysis of AHAM's data, as well
as the combined AHAM and DOE dataset, which should include an
evaluation of the Lot 24 variation. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 12)
AHAM also commented that for some time, several manufacturers and,
likely other testing laboratories, have experienced delays in obtaining
test cloth. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 5) AHAM further explained that delays
in obtaining test cloth mean that some companies need to ration testing
and may not be able to do testing other than certification and/or audit
testing until test cloth is received. (Id.) AHAM added that it will
therefore take more time for AHAM and its members to provide test
results to support DOE's rulemaking efforts related to clothes washers
and clothes dryers. (Id.) AHAM requested that DOE ensure it does not
move so quickly that its analysis (and manufacturers' comments) are
unable to account for these test cloth challenges. (Id.)
DOE is acutely aware of the issues regarding variation in Lot 24
and is participating in the AHAM test cloth task force to help
determine the root causes of the observed variation and to develop
solutions to mitigate these concerns for Lot 24 as well as for future
test cloth lots. Subsequent to the submission of AHAM's comment, the
AHAM test cloth task force determined to divide Lot 24 into four
distinct ``sub-lots,'' each with its own correction factors developed
using the process specified by appendix J3. DOE has added these sub-lot
correction factors to the RCW test report template published on the DOE
website.\23\ Establishing these separate sub-lots, each with separate
correction factors, has mitigated much of the concern regarding
variability throughout Lot 24. DOE is aware that the task force
continues to investigate the extent to which any variability that
remains within each sub-lot can be further mitigated, and DOE continues
to participate in those efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ DOE's test report templates are available at energy.gov/eere/buildings/standardized-templates-reporting-test-results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to delays in obtaining test cloth, DOE is aware that
the causes of delay have largely been addressed and that the test cloth
supplier is currently working to fulfill the backlog of test cloth
orders.
4. Other Test Procedure-Related Comments
In response to the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis and the
April 2022 NODA, a number of stakeholders made comments pertaining to
the clothes washer test procedure, many of which DOE subsequently
addressed in the June 2022 TP Final Rule. Comments regarding certain
test procedure issues that were not discussed in the June 2022 TP Final
Rule are summarized in the paragraphs that follow. Addressing test
procedure concerns is outside the scope of this energy conservation
standards rulemaking; however, DOE encourages stakeholders to resubmit
these comments during the next clothes washer test procedure
rulemaking.
AHAM commented in opposition to DOE's decision to change the FMC
assumption from 4 percent in appendix J2 to 2 percent in appendix J.
(AHAM, No. 53 at p. 12) AHAM stated that the change in FMC assumption
from 4 to 2 percent will overstate the impact of drying energy and will
likely drive many clothes washer designs to increase spin speeds and
spin times beyond an acceptable level. (Id.) AHAM expressed concern
that this could change a clothes washer's core functionality into a
water extractor, and in effect, remove the consumer functionality of
washing the clothes. (Id.) AHAM commented that the test procedure
should not drive design changes of this magnitude, and added that this
change will limit the opportunity in the energy conservation standards
rulemaking for technologically feasible and cost efficient improvements
because there are limits on how much spin speeds can increase before
the chassis needs to be redesigned or before safety and consumer
utility are impacted. (Id.)
AHAM commented that if DOE moves forward with changing FMC from 4
to 2 percent, it must address the impact of the apparent mismatch
between clothes washer drying energy and total per-cycle electric dryer
energy consumption defined in the clothes dryer test procedures at 10
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D2 (``appendix D2'') or 10 CFR part
430, subpart B, appendix D1 (``appendix D1''). (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 13)
AHAM further explained that currently, the drying impact of a clothes
washer is significantly over-credited as a result of the mismatch in
clothes loads between the clothes washer and clothes dryer test
procedures. (Id.) For example, AHAM noted that the average weight of
the load in appendix J can be nearly 50 percent greater than the weight
of a load in the clothes dryer test procedure. (Id.) AHAM stated that
according to the clothes washer test procedure, the annual weight to
dry for a 6 ft\3\ clothes washer is 2,917 pounds per year, whereas the
annual weight to dry according to the clothes dryer test procedure is
1,994 pounds per year, despite the units being a matching pair. (Id.)
AHAM commented that it acknowledges that this difference makes sense
because consumers do not dry in the clothes dryer all the clothes they
wash in the clothes washer. (Id.) However, AHAM emphasized that
lowering the FMC to 2 percent for clothes washer exacerbates this
mismatch in energy contribution. (Id.)
ASAP et al. commented that both DOE's recent analysis for clothes
dryers and real-world data suggest that drying energy usage in the
clothes washers analysis is being underestimated and encouraged DOE to
update its drying energy use calculations in the test procedure to
better align with DOE's clothes dryers analysis and real-world energy
usage. (ASAP et al., No. 37 at pp. 3-4) ASAP et al. noted that in the
September 2021 Preliminary TSD, DOE stated that drying energy use
represents 75 to 83 percent of total energy usage. (Id.) ASAP et al.
therefore commented that changes in drying energy estimates can have a
significant impact on overall energy savings and economic analysis.
(Id.) ASAP et al. emphasized that, based on DOE's April 2021 Clothes
Dryers Preliminary TSD,\24\ the active-mode energy use of a clothes
dryer is between 67 and 93 percent greater than the estimated drying
energy usage presented in the September 2021 Preliminary TSD for top-
loading standard-size and front-loading clothes washers,
respectively.\25\ (Id.) ASAP et al. further commented that the clothes
dryer analysis more closely agrees with real-world clothes dryer energy
use estimates from data from the Energy Information Administration's
(``EIA's'') 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (``RECS
2015''),\26\ which estimates 776 kWh per year, and NEEA's Dryer Field
Study published in 2014 (``NEEA's Dryer Field Study''),\27\ which
estimates 915 kWh per year. (Id.) ASAP et al. therefore commented that
higher, more realistic drying energy
[[Page 13535]]
usage estimates should further improve the cost-effectiveness of higher
efficiency clothes washers that reduce drying energy use. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Available online at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0016.
\25\ ASAP et al. based this estimate on energy use of 700 kWh/
year for clothes dryers, 419 kWh/year for top-loading clothes
washers and 362 kWh/year for front-loading clothes washers.
\26\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 2015 Public
Use Data Files, 2015. Available at www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recspubuse15/pubuse15.html.
\27\ Dryer Field Study, 2014. Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance. Available online at neea.org/resources/rbsa-laundry-study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren et al. encouraged DOE to mathematically adjust RMC to
account for the drying energy of 100 percent cotton textiles using the
relationship established in the 2020 NEEA report \28\ that analyzed the
RMC of two types of test loads across a broad range of RCW efficiency
levels and technology types: the 100-percent cotton load specified in
AHAM's HLW-1-2013 test procedure and the 50/50 cotton-polyester momie
weave test cloth specified in appendix J2 and appendix J. (Ameren et
al., No. 42 at pp. 12-13) The NEEA report also developed a linear
mathematical relationship between the two types of load. (Id.) Ameren
et al. found that this relationship has an R-squared value close to 1
and determined that it could be used to adjust the measured RMC of an
appendix J2 test load to the expected RMC when using an AHAM load.
(Id.) Ameren et al. stated that adjusting the RMC of an appendix J2
test load to an RMC typical of 100 percent cotton textiles would more
realistically account for RCW impacts on drying energy use. (Id.)
Ameren et al. further commented that most typical laundry loads have a
much higher cotton content, which they asserted means that
mathematically adjusting the RMC before calculating drying energy would
better account for typical energy use. (Id.) Ameren et al. also
commented that adjusting the RMC of appendix J2 textiles to an RMC
typical of 100 percent cotton textiles would increase the alignment
between the September 2021 Preliminary TSD's clothes washer drying
energy use calculation and the measured appendix D2 clothes dryer
energy use. (Id.) Ameren et al. added that while other constants such
as DEF \29\ in appendix J2 and appendix J are relatively consistent
with most appendix D1 and D2 dryer measurements, the typical drying
energy calculated in the existing appendix J2 clothes washer test
procedure is much lower than the energy consumed by a conventional
clothes dryer tested by appendix D1 or D2. (Id.) Ameren et al. further
explained that the clothes dryer test procedures use an initial
moisture content of 57.5 percent for the clothes dryer test load, and
using NEEA's mathematical adjustment to increase RMC before calculating
drying energy would make the drying energy calculated in appendix J2
and J more similar to the drying energy calculated in appendix D1 and
D2. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Foster Porter, Suzanne; Denkenberger, Dave. 2020. Coming
Clean: Revealing Real-World Efficiency of Clothes Washers. Portland,
OR. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. Available online at:
neea.org/resources/coming-cleanrevealing-real-world-efficiency-of-clothes-washers.
\29\ ``DEF'' is defined in section 4.3 of appendix J2 and
section 4.4 of appendix J as the nominal energy required for a
clothes dryer to remove moisture from clothes and is set equal to
0.5 kWh/lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASAP et al. commented that one potential partial explanation for
the apparent underestimation of drying energy usage in the clothes
washer analysis is the estimate for DEF. (ASAP et al., No. 37 at p. 4)
ASAP et al. noted that while DOE assumes a DEF of 0.5 kWh per pound of
moisture removed from clothes, ASAP et al. estimated a higher nominal
DEF of about 0.6 kWh per pound of moisture removed using weighted-
average clothes dryer efficiency ratings and parameters from the
clothes dryers test procedure. (Id.) ASAP et al. also commented that a
2022 NEEA study \30\ suggests that even the clothes dryer test
procedure can underestimate drying energy usage, particularly when a
non-ENERGY STAR-rated top-loading clothes washer is paired with a non-
ENERGY STAR electric dryer. (Id.) ASAP et al. further noted that the
Northwest Regional Technical Forum's most recent estimate for DEF is
0.65 kWh per pounds of moisture removed.\31\ (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Perfect Pairings? Testing the Energy Efficiency of Matched
Washer-Dryer Sets, 2022. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.
Available online at neea.org/resources/perfect-pairings-testing-the-energy-efficiency-of-matched-washer-dryer-sets.
\31\ Regional Technical Forum, Residential Clothes Washers,
2021. ``Residential Clothes Washers v7.1.'' Available online at
rtf.nwcouncil.org/measure/clothes-washers-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed, DOE is not addressing test procedure changes in this
energy conservation standards rulemaking. DOE notes that FMC and the
drying energy calculations were specifically addressed in section
III.G.2 of the June 2022 TP Final Rule. 87 FR 33316, 33353-33354.
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a
screening analysis based on information gathered on all current
technology options and prototype designs that could improve the
efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the
rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list
of technology options for consideration in consultation with
manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then
determines which of those means for improving efficiency are
technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in
commercially-available products or in working prototypes to be
technologically feasible. Sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of the
Process Rule.
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1)
practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse
impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies.
Sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process Rule. Section
IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis
for RCWs, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened
out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this
rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this
rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class
of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically
feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the
engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically
feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in energy efficiency for RCWs,
using the design parameters for the most efficient products available
on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE
determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C of this
proposed rule and in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
E. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
For each trial standard level (i.e., TSL), DOE projected energy
savings from application of the TSL to RCWs purchased in the 30-year
period that begins in the year of compliance with the proposed
standards (2027-2056).\32\ The savings are measured over the entire
lifetime of RCWs purchased in the previous 30-year period. DOE
quantified the energy savings
[[Page 13536]]
attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption
between each standards case and the no-new-standards case. The no-new-
standards case represents a projection of energy consumption that
reflects how the market for a product would likely evolve in the
absence of amended energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each
product class. The TSLs considered for this NOPR are described in
section V.A of this document. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis
that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE used its national impact analysis (``NIA'') spreadsheet model
to estimate national energy savings (``NES'') and national water
savings (``NWS'') from potential amended or new standards for RCWs. The
NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document)
calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy
directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For
electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of primary
energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to
generate and transmit the site electricity. For natural gas, the
primary energy savings are considered to be equal to the site energy
savings. DOE also calculates NES in terms of FFC energy savings. The
FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and
transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels),
and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy
conservation standards.\33\ DOE's approach is based on the calculation
of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered
products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see
section IV.H.2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy
and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Significance of Savings
To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE
must determine that such action would result in significant energy
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\34\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products with relatively constant demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ The numeric threshold for determining the significance of
energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14,
2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670), was subsequently eliminated in a final rule
published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70892).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a
case-by-case basis, taking into account the significance of cumulative
FFC national energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions,
and the need to confront the global climate crisis, among other
factors. As discussed in section V.C.1 of this document, DOE is
proposing to adopt TSL 4, which would save an estimated 1.45 quads of
energy (FFC) over 30 years. DOE has initially determined the energy
savings from the proposed standard levels are ``significant'' within
the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).
F. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in
determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The
following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven
factors in this proposed rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
In determining the impacts of a potential amended standard on
manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of
this document. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine
the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term
assessment--based on the cost and capital requirements during the
period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must
comply with the regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year
period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which
values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows, (2)
cash flows by year, (3) changes in revenue and income, and (4) other
measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports
the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on
small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on
domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as
the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of
capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts
of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on
manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the
changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These
measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers
in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of
the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular
standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected
disproportionately by a standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and
PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP
analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including
its installation) and the operating expense (including energy,
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of
the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as
product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance
and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for
consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific
inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a
distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will
purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with new
or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency
levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected
market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and
PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this
document.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory
[[Page 13537]]
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As
discussed in section III.E of this document, DOE uses the NIA
spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing product classes and in evaluating design options
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the
considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data
available to DOE, the standards proposed in this document would not
reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration
in this proposed rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is
likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine
the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result
from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the
Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule,
together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of this proposed
rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of
Justice (``DOJ'') provide its determination on this issue. DOE will
publish and respond to the Attorney General's determination in the
final rule. DOE invites comment from the public regarding the
competitive impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule.
In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ
regarding these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES section for
information to send comments to DOJ.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water
conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy
savings from the proposed standards are likely to provide improvements
to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system.
Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced
costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity
system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how
standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity, as
discussed in section IV.M of this document.
DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take
into account when considering the need for national energy
conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air
pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with energy production and
use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential
standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K of
this document; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in section
V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value of
climate and health benefits from certain emissions reductions resulting
from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L of this
document.
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To
the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic
justification that does not fit into the other categories described
previously, DOE could consider such information under ``other
factors.''
2. Rebuttable Presumption
As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a
rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is
economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a
product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP
analyses generate values used to calculate the effects that proposed
energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for
consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year
payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In
addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers
the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and
the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The
results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the
economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby
supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of
economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation
is discussed in section IV.F.9 of this proposed rule.
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
rulemaking with regard to RCWs. Separate subsections address each
component of DOE's analyses.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the
standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new
energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a
second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and
calculates national energy savings and net present value of total
consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy
conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the
Government Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), to assess manufacturer
impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are
available on the DOE website for this rulemaking: www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014. Additionally, DOE used output from the
latest version of the EIA's Annual Energy Outlook (``AEO''), a widely
known energy projection for the United States, for the emissions and
utility impact analyses.
A. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products
concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used
in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly-available
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology
assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope
of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry
structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information,
(5) market and industry
[[Page 13538]]
trends; and (6) technologies or design options that could improve the
energy efficiency of RCWs. The key findings of DOE's market assessment
are summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD
for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.
1. Product Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
may establish separate standards for a group of covered products (i.e.,
establish a separate product class) if DOE determines that separate
standards are justified based on the type of energy used, or if DOE
determines that a product's capacity or other performance-related
feature justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a
determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a
different standard, DOE must consider factors such as the utility of
the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE determines are
appropriate. (Id.)
DOE currently defines separate energy conservation standards for
four RCW product classes (10 CFR 430.32(g)(4)):
Top-loading, compact (less than 1.6 ft\3\ capacity)
Top-loading, standard-size (1.6 ft\3\ or greater capacity)
Front-loading, compact (less than 1.6 ft\3\ capacity)
Front-loading, standard-size (1.6 ft\3\ or greater capacity)
In the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE analyzed four
potential product classes for RCWs using a threshold of 3.0 ft\3\ to
differentiate between compact and standard-size front-loading RCWs, in
contrast to the existing threshold of 1.6 ft\3\, resulting in the
following product classes being analyzed:
Top-loading, compact (less than 1.6 ft\3\ capacity)
Top-loading, standard-size (1.6 ft\3\ capacity or greater)
Front-loading, compact (less than 3.0 ft\3\ capacity)
Front-loading, standard-size (3.0 ft\3\ capacity or greater)
As noted in chapter 2 of the September 2021 Preliminary TSD, there
are no front-loading RCWs with a capacity less than 1.6 ft\3\ certified
to DOE, indicating that the current threshold of 1.6 ft\3\ may no
longer be a relevant differentiator of capacity within the front-
loading RCW market. Based on front-loading RCW models certified in
DOE's Compliance Certification Database (``CCD''),\35\ DOE identified a
gap in front-loading capacity between 2.8 ft\3\ and 3.4 ft\3\ (i.e., no
products are available on the market within this range). The capacity
gap is directly related to cabinet size--capacities less than 2.8 ft\3\
correspond to a 24-inch cabinet width, and capacities larger than 3.4
ft\3\ correspond to a 27-inch cabinet width. In the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis, DOE evaluated an updated capacity threshold of
3.0 ft\3\ between compact-size and standard-size to align more closely
with product differentiation in the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ DOE's Compliance Certification Database is available at
www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE requested comment
on whether it should revise the definitions of the front-loading
product classes by increasing the capacity threshold of the front-
loading compact product class to 3.0 ft\3\. DOE also requested comment
on whether any other changes to product class definitions are
warranted.
Prior to the May 2012 Final Rule, DOE also defined a separate RCW
product class for top-loading semi-automatic clothes washers. Semi-
automatic clothes washers are designed to be intermittently attached to
a kitchen or bathroom faucet and require user intervention to regulate
the water temperature by adjusting the external water faucet valves.
Top-loading semi-automatic clothes washers were subject to a design
standard requiring an unheated rinse water option, as established by
the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987, Public Law 100-
12 (``NAECA''). NAECA amended EPCA to require that all rinse cycles of
RCWs shall include an unheated water option, but may have a heated
water rinse option, for products manufactured on or after January 1,
1988.
In the May 2012 Final Rule, DOE eliminated the top-loading semi-
automatic product class distinction, having determined based on its
market research and comments submitted by AHAM and three manufacturers
that such products were no longer available on the market. 77 FR 32308,
32317. The top-loading standard-size levels that were established in
the May 2012 Final Rule were based on consideration of only top-loading
automatic clothes washers.
In chapter 2 of the September 2021 Preliminary TSD, DOE discussed
that it is now aware of multiple top-loading semi-automatic clothes
washers on the market, from multiple manufacturers. DOE stated that it
was considering whether it should reinstate an RCW product class
definition for top-loading semi-automatic clothes washers, and whether
it should consider a performance-based standard rather than the design
standard established by EPCA as amended. DOE noted, however, that
because the user of a semi-automatic clothes washer controls the water
temperature by adjusting the external water faucet valves, semi-
automatic clothes washers inherently provide the option for an unheated
rinse. Therefore, DOE believes that a design standard that requires an
unheated rinse option may be superfluous for semi-automatic clothes
washers.
In the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE requested comment
on whether it should reinstate a product class definition for top-
loading semi-automatic clothes washers. DOE requested comment on its
preliminary conclusion that that a design standard that requires an
unheated rinse option may be superfluous for semi-automatic clothes
washers.
AHAM presented data indicating the shipment weighted average
capacity for clothes washers from 1981-2020. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 13-
14) Based on this data, AHAM commented that a reassessment of the
``compact'' definition would be justified since clothes washer
capacities in general have increased from an average of 2.63 ft\3\ in
1990 to 4.25 ft\3\ in 2020. (Id.)
AHAM recommended that DOE change the definition of the compact
product class in order to retain consumer utility of smaller-capacity
and smaller-width products for consumers. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 13-15)
AHAM recommended that DOE add an upper width limit of 24 inches in the
proposed compact product class definition, such that a top-loading or
front-loading compact product would either have a capacity less than
1.6 ft\3\, or a width less than or equal to 24 inches. (Id.) AHAM also
commented that typically, based on a review of retailer websites,
products advertised as ``compact'' or ``portable'' today appear to be
under 1.6 ft\3\ or 24 inches in width or less. (Id.) AHAM commented
that it agrees with DOE's assessment that products with smaller widths
and capacities provide a utility to consumers since they can be used in
smaller spaces, can be moved more easily from place-to-place, or can be
used together with a standard-size clothes washer. (Id.) AHAM also
agrees with DOE's acknowledgement that these products, due to their
smaller size, cannot achieve the same levels of efficiency as larger
products due to technological limitations such as drum
[[Page 13539]]
diameter and capacity, or due to being geared toward niche consumer
usage such as portability or an add-on to a standard-size clothes
washer. (Id.)
Whirlpool commented that it agrees with DOE's proposal to change
the threshold for the front-loading compact product class and suggested
that DOE make further product class changes. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p.
19) Whirlpool specifically suggested that DOE change the definition of
compact clothes washers to be based on product width, corresponding to
how they are marketed to consumers as compact or standard size. (Id.)
Whirlpool added that clothes washers with 24-inch widths and smaller
are overwhelmingly marketed as ``compact,'' regardless of their
capacity. (Id.)
Whirlpool also recommended that for standard-size clothes washers,
DOE separate the standard-size product class into three product
classes: standard, small (<=4.0 ft\3\); standard, medium (>4.0 ft\3\ to
<=5.0 ft\3\); and standard, large (>5.0 ft\3\ and above). (Whirlpool,
No. 39 at p. 19) Whirlpool commented that there are numerous
performance, technology, efficiency, and consumer-relevant differences
between clothes washers in Whirlpool's suggested product classes. (Id.)
Whirlpool further explained that entry-level price point clothes
washers generally have capacities less than or equal to 4 ft\3\ and
that the smaller diameter wash baskets of these units create challenges
in driving water extraction. (Id.) Whirlpool added that these clothes
washers also have shorter cycle times and more basic feature sets and
controls. (Id.)
Whirlpool added that even with a removal of the capacity benefit in
the EER and WER efficiency metrics, there are still other technological
challenges for clothes washers with smaller cabinet widths since
spatial limitations prevent adding technologies that increase
efficiency, including larger motors and larger wash baskets to increase
spin speed. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 19)
The CA IOUs commented that adjustments to increase the size of the
front-loading compact product class are not warranted, and added that
they are instead supportive of an equation-based metric that can
account for the efficiency differences related to capacity. (CA IOUs,
No. 43 at pp. 3-4) The CA IOUs added that they believe the definition
of standard-size versus compact product classes artificially segments
the data, and that performance is correlated with capacity without a
clear delineation. (Id.) The CA IOUs expressed three primary concerns
related to the changes to the product class definitions. (Id.) First,
the CA IOUs commented that the proposed changes to capacity definitions
would create a different definition of ``compact'' for top- and front-
loading RCWs, which the CA IOUs asserted would add confusion to the
market. (Id.) Second, the CA IOUs commented that there likely remains
an inherent relationship between capacity and performance in the test
procedure, which is insufficiently represented by the two large
discrete product class groupings of compact size and standard size.
(Id.) The CA IOUs noted that there was significant interest from
stakeholders in response to the August 2019 RFI for DOE to consider
narrower capacity ranges to facilitate a separate analysis for larger
clothes washers. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that, while they believe
this may result in some statistical improvement in the original
analysis, they would prefer an equation-based standard that can correct
for the continuum of product capacities. (Id.) The CA IOUs also
specified that creating more narrow capacity ranges may have unintended
consequences of incentivizing manufacturers to produce products in one
capacity size over another due to less stringent efficiency standards
in neighboring classes. (Id.) Third, the CA IOUs commented that while
DOE can use capacity or another ``performance related'' feature to
justify a higher or lower standard under EPCA, the CA IOUs expressed
concern regarding the arbitrary nature of the capacity definitions,
particularly for front-loading clothes washers. (Id.) The CA IOUs added
that under the appendix J2 efficiency metrics, product efficiencies
strongly varied with capacity and may continue to do so under the
appendix J efficiency metrics. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that a more
appropriate approach would be to use an equation-based standard with a
capacity, similar to what is used under the consumer refrigerators/
refrigerator-freezers/freezers standard. (Id.)
Ameren et al. commented that while they do not have a specific
recommendation for the compact RCW definition, they encourage DOE to
ensure that changing the compact product class to incorporate larger
capacities does not enable backsliding. (Ameren et al., No. 42 at p.
18) Ameren et al. commented that DOE's working definition of less than
1.6 ft\3\ for top-loading clothes washers and less than 2.5 ft\3\ for
front-loading clothes washers would not result in backsliding because
there is not a front-loading product less than 1.6 ft\3\ on the market.
(Id.) However, Ameren et al. noted that, if defined differently, RCW
models presently considered standard-sized (and therefore subject to a
higher efficiency standard) could be recategorized as compact (and
therefore subject to a lower efficiency standard). (Id.)
As discussed, currently, no front-loading products with a capacity
less than 1.6 ft\3\ are certified to DOE as being available on the
market, indicating that the current threshold of 1.6 ft\3\ is no longer
a relevant differentiator of capacity within the front-loading RCW
market. DOE analysis tentatively confirms AHAM and Whirlpool's comments
that despite the removal of the capacity ``bias'' in the EER and WER
efficiency metrics, the reduced dimensions of smaller-width products
limit the use of certain technologies for increasing efficiency, such
as larger wash baskets that can exert a higher g-force on clothing. For
this reason, DOE tentatively concludes that a separate product class is
warranted for space-constrained front-loading RCWs at a revised
threshold that is more relevant to the current market.
DOE recognizes that one of the defining characteristics of front-
loading RCWs marketed as ``compact'' is the width-constrained design
(i.e., the ability for the clothes washer to be installed in narrow
space that would not accommodate a full-size clothes washer). DOE
considered defining the front-loading compact-size product classes on
the basis of width. Based on DOE's market research, and supported by
comments from AHAM and manufacturers, products marketed as ``compact''
typically have a nominal cabinet width of 24-inches, whereas full-size
products most typically have a nominal cabinet width of 27 inches. DOE
has identified a number of practical challenges in basing the product
class distinction on a measurement of the width of a clothes washer.
The test procedure would need to require measuring the width of the
clothes washer and would need to specify how the measurement would be
performed. While DOE could consider such amendments to its test
procedure, DOE has identified nuances in product design that could
create complexities in defining such a measurement. For example, on
front-loading clothes washers, DOE has observed that certain aesthetic
features, such as the borders of the control panel, may extend beyond
the width of the main body of the cabinet. In general, certain
measurements of width may not provide an appropriate representation of
product width as it relates to product class designation. DOE also
notes that although front-loading clothes washers are most often
marketed according to
[[Page 13540]]
their nominal width as a whole number, the actual width may be a
fraction of an inch higher or lower than the advertised nominal width.
Furthermore, DOE is concerned that by defining the ``compact-size''
threshold as a width equal to or less than 24 inches, for example, if a
manufacturer were to bring to market a 25-inch width product, such a
product would be defined as standard-size but would presumably share
many of the same inherent efficiency constraints as a 24-inch product
(i.e., a 25-inch product may be more appropriately classified as
compact-size rather than standard-size).
Having considered these challenges in defining the front-loading
compact-size threshold on the basis of product width, DOE further
considered defining the threshold based on an updated capacity value
that would be more relevant to the current market than the existing
threshold of 1.6 ft\3\. Based on front-loading RCW models currently
certified in DOE's CCD, there is a gap in front-loading capacity
between 2.8 ft\3\ and 3.4 ft\3\ (i.e., no products are available on the
market within this range), consistent with DOE's findings presented in
the September 2021 Preliminary TSD. DOE evaluated every front-loading
model in the CCD and has determined that this capacity gap directly
correlates with nominal cabinet size--capacities less than 2.8 ft\3\
correspond to a nominal 24-inch cabinet width, and capacities larger
than 3.4 ft\3\ correspond to a nominal 27-inch cabinet width or
greater. Based on this analysis, DOE tentatively concludes that for
front-loading RCWs, using a capacity threshold rather than a width
threshold would provide a perfectly correlated proxy for
differentiating between standard-size products and space-constrained
products. DOE therefore proposes to define a threshold of 3.0 ft\3\ to
differentiate between compact-size and standard-size front-loading
RCWs. DOE further notes that given the current gap in capacity between
2.8 ft\3\ and 3.4 ft\3\ for units currently on the market, defining the
threshold at 3.0 ft\3\ would provide opportunities for manufacturers to
introduce compact-size products with slightly higher capacity, or
standard-size products with slightly lower capacity, with such
potential products being classified within the appropriate product
class. DOE would consider other means for defining the threshold
between the compact-size and standard-size front-loading product
classes if in the future a capacity threshold were to no longer
provides a clear proxy to distinguish between standard-size products
and space-constrained products.
Specific to the front-loading standard-size product class, DOE
evaluated the merits of separately defining a larger product class
(e.g., greater than 5.0 ft\3\), as suggested by multiple commenters.
Data submitted by AHAM indicates a shipment-weighted average capacity
of around 4.2 ft\3\ for all RCWs, and the results of the engineering
analysis indicate that a capacity of 4.2 ft\3\ is representative of the
baseline efficiency level for the standard-size front-loading product
class. DOE's testing and teardown analysis indicates that all of the
evaluated efficiency levels for the standard-size front-loading product
class can be achieved by units at 4.2 ft\3\ capacity (i.e., an increase
in capacity is not required as a means for achieving the higher
efficiency levels analyzed). On this basis, DOE tentatively determines
that additional capacity-based product classes within the standard-size
front-loading product class are not warranted.
For top-loading clothes washers, DOE proposes in this NOPR to
maintain the existing ``compact'' and ``standard'' product class
distinctions (i.e., using a capacity threshold of 1.6 ft\3\ to
differentiate the two classes); however, DOE continues to consider
alternative approaches as discussed further in the paragraphs that
follow and in chapter 3 and chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
Unlike for front-loading RCWs, top-loading compact-size products
are available on the market at capacities less than 1.6 ft\3\ (i.e.,
the current threshold). Considering only automatic top-loading clothes
washers,\36\ those with capacity less than 1.6 ft\3\ are exclusively
height-constrained ``companion'' clothes washers, which are designed to
serve as an auxiliary clothes washer for washing a small or delicate
load while simultaneously washing a ``normal'' load in the accompanying
standard-size RCW.\37\ Among standard-size top-loading clothes washers
(i.e., those with capacity equal to or greater than 1.6 ft\3\), DOE's
CCD indicates a relatively continuous spectrum of capacities available
on the market across the entire range (i.e., no large gaps in
capacity), with no apparent capacity threshold that closely correlates
with product differentiation on the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ As discussed further in section IV.C.2.c of this document,
the CCD includes both automatic clothes washer models and semi-
automatic clothes washer models certified within the top-loading
compact product class.
\37\ Companion clothes washers are currently available in two
different configurations: (1) Integrated into (i.e., built into) the
cabinet above a standard-size front-loading RCW, and (2) built into
a pedestal drawer for installation underneath a standard-size front-
loading RCW. Both configurations are constrained in the height
dimension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For standard-size top-loading RCWs, DOE's engineering analysis
indicates that despite the removal of capacity ``bias'' from the EER
and WER metrics, increases in capacity are required to achieve higher
efficiency levels beyond EL 1. (See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD). DOE
continues to consider whether this conclusion justifies separating the
standard-size product class into separate product classes, as suggested
by Whirlpool. Given this close relationship between efficiency and
capacity, DOE also continues to consider whether to specify an
equation-based standard for the top-loading standard-size product
class, as suggested by the CA IOUs. Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD provides
further details of DOE's consideration of these potential alternate
product class definitions for top-loading standard-size RCWs.
DOE recognizes that an equations-based standards approach would be
unfamiliar to RCW stakeholders and would significantly alter the
structure of the standards analysis. As such, the analysis of potential
amended standards, and how such standards would impact the existing
market, could be difficult for stakeholders to interpret, particularly
given the proposed change in metrics to EER and WER. DOE also
recognizes that implementing equation-based standards could potentially
increase compliance burden from manufacturers. For example, a simple
modification made to the balance ring on a top-loading model or the
door shape on a front-loading model for aesthetic purposes could change
the model's measured capacity, which would in turn change the standard
applicable to that unit and would therefore require corresponding
changes to the controls to reduce energy and water use. As
manufacturers iterate product designs, any change that would affect a
model's measured capacity would result in the model being subject to a
different standard.
In addition, defining an equation-based standard for only the top-
loading standard-size product class would create complexity that may
lead to confusion or added regulatory burden for manufacturers.
At this time, DOE tentatively determines that the increased
complexity and potential burdens of an equation-based standard outweigh
the benefits. As discussed, in this NOPR, DOE proposes a numerically
based standard for the top-loading standard-size product class.
[[Page 13541]]
In response to the CA IOUs' concern that having a different
definition of the ``compact'' threshold for top-loading and front-
loading RCWs would add confusion to the market, DOE is proposing to
rename the product class for top-loading RCWs with capacities less than
1.6 ft\3\ as ``ultra-compact.''
In response to Ameren et al.'s comment that changing the compact
product class threshold should not enable backsliding, DOE notes that,
as discussed, EPCA contains what is known as an ``anti-backsliding''
provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended
standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) As discussed in section IV.C.2.a of this
document, DOE used the current DOE standard applicable to front-loading
standard-size clothes washers as the baseline efficiency level for the
newly created front-loading compact-size product class, which prevents
any possibility of backsliding.
Ameren et al. provided comments pertaining to portable clothes
washers, which the comment equates with semi-automatic clothes washers.
(Ameren et al., No. 42 at pp. 6-8). Ameren et al. commented that since
the last standards rulemaking, portable RCWs are now widely available
for sale through national retailers and online direct-to-consumer
marketplaces. (Id.) Ameren et al. referenced NEEA research as verifying
that the portable RCWs currently on the market meet or exceed current
standards, and that therefore they do not require a separate product
class. (Id.) Ameren et al. also commented that nothing should prevent
efficient technologies employed in conventional automatic top-loading
RCWs from being leveraged in portable top-loading RCWs, including wash
plates and higher spin speeds. (Id.)
DOE cautions that portable clothes washers \38\ as a whole
represent a broader category of clothes washers than semi-automatic
clothes washers specifically. Although all semi-automatic clothes
washers currently on the market are portable, not all portable clothes
washers on the market are semi-automatic--certain portable clothes
washers are automatic (i.e., they provide means for internal regulation
of water temperature, as opposed to requiring the user to adjust the
water temperature externally to the clothes washer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ In this NOPR, DOE uses the term ``portable clothes washer''
to mean a clothes washer, typically with caster wheels, designed to
be easily moved by the consumer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to Ameren et al.'s comment that portable RCWs currently
on the market meet or exceed current standards and therefore do not
require a separate product class, DOE does not agree that this
conclusion can be applied to semi-automatic clothes washers
specifically, since many of the data points referenced by Ameren et al.
correspond to automatic top-loading clothes washers. In addition,
appendix J includes significant changes to the testing of semi-
automatic clothes washers--which improve the representativeness of the
test results while reducing test burden--such that when tested under
appendix J, a semi-automatic clothes washer uses significantly more hot
water (and therefore has inherently lower EER values) than would a
similarly-sized automatic clothes washer.\39\ Section IV.C.2.c of this
document provides further discussion of the efficiency level analysis
for semi-automatic clothes washers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ For example, most automatic clothes washers offer only a
cold rinse, whereas appendix J requires semi-automatic clothes
washers to be tested on both Hot Wash/Hot Rinse, and Warm Wash/Warm
Rinse cycles, based on the assumption that the user would not adjust
the water temperature during the cycle. 87 FR 33316. Significantly
more hot water is used in these cycles than on the equivalent cycles
(Hot Wash/Cold Rinse and Warm Wash/Cold Rinse) on an automatic
clothes washer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the reemergence of semi-automatic clothes washers on the
market, and improvements to the test procedure to improve the
representativeness of test results for semi-automatic clothes washers,
DOE is proposing to re-establish a separate product class for semi-
automatic clothes washers and to establish performance-based standards
for semi-automatic clothes washers.
In summary, for this NOPR, DOE analyzed five product classes for
RCWs as follows:
Semi-automatic clothes washers
Automatic clothes washers: \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ For simplicity, many of the tables in the following
sections of this document omit the designation that these four
product classes pertain to automatic clothes washers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] Top-loading, ultra-compact (less than 1.6 ft\3\ capacity)
[cir] Top-loading, standard-size (1.6 ft\3\ or greater capacity)
[cir] Front-loading, compact (less than 3.0 ft\3\ capacity)
[cir] Front-loading, standard-size (3.0 ft\3\ or greater capacity)
DOE seeks comment on the product class structure analyzed in this
NOPR.
2. Technology Options
In the preliminary market analysis and technology assessment, DOE
identified a comprehensive list of technology options that would be
expected to improve the efficiency of RCWs, as measured by the DOE test
procedures.\41\ Initially, these technologies encompass all those that
DOE believes are technologically feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See section 3.15.2 of the September 2021 Preliminary TSD.
Available online at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0014-0030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE requested
information on any technology options not identified in the September
2021 Preliminary TSD that manufacturers may use to attain higher
efficiency levels of RCWs.
Ameren et al. commented in support of DOE's inclusion of all
relevant technologies, including those to reduce drying energy. (Ameren
et al., No. 42 at p. 19) Ameren et al. also commented that they
appreciate DOE's consideration of technologies that have been found in
working prototypes in addition to those available in current models.
(Id.)
In this NOPR, DOE considered the technology options listed in Table
IV.1. In addition to the technology options DOE considered for the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE added capacity increase as a
technology option for this NOPR.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ In this NOPR, DOE considers capacity increase only as a
technology option of ``last resort.'' In defining a representative
``path'' that manufacturers would be expected to use to achieve
higher efficiency levels, DOE included capacity increase only for
those efficiency levels that cannot be reasonably achieved without
an increase in capacity. See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for more
details.
Table IV.1--Technology Options for Residential Clothes Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methods for Decreasing Water Use: *
Adaptive water fill controls.
Hardware features enabling lower water levels.
Spray rinse.
Polymer bead cleaning.
Methods for Decreasing Machine Energy:
More efficient motor.
Direct drive motor.
Methods for Decreasing Water Heating Energy:
Wash temperature decrease.
Ozonated laundering.
Methods for Decreasing Drying Energy:
Hardware features enabling spin speed increase.
Spin time increase.
Methods for Decreasing Standby Energy:
Lower standby power components.
Methods for Increasing Overall Efficiency:
Capacity increase.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Most of the methods for decreasing water use are also methods for
decreasing water heating energy, since less hot water is used.
[[Page 13542]]
Chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD includes the detailed descriptions of
each technology option.
DOE seeks comment on the technology options not identified in this
NOPR that manufacturers may use to attain higher efficiency levels of
RCWs.
B. Screening Analysis
DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy
conservation standards rulemaking:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial products or in commercially viable, existing
prototypes will not be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the
time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that
technology will not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility. If a technology is determined to
have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to
subgroups of consumers, or result in the unavailability of any covered
product type with performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as products generally available in the United States at the time,
it will not be considered further.
(4) Safety of technologies. If it is determined that a technology
would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not
be considered further.
(5) Unique-pathway proprietary technologies. If a proprietary
technology has proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway
to achieving a given efficiency level, it will not be considered
further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).
In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination
of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria,
it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering
analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in
the following sections.
The subsequent sections include comments from interested parties
pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each
technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether
DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (``screened
out'') based on the screening criteria.
1. Screened-Out Technologies
In chapter 4 of the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE
screened out electrolytic disassociation of water, ozonated laundering,
and polymer bead cleaning on the basis of their practicability to
install, manufacture and service. DOE also noted that electrolytic
disassociation of water could have impacts on product utility or
availability and that polymer bead cleaning was a unique-pathway
proprietary technology.
In the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE sought comment on
whether any additional technology options should be screened out on the
basis of any of the screening criteria.
AHAM commented that decreasing water temperature, particularly on
the warmest warm wash temperature, could decrease cleaning and rinsing
performance by making it harder to remove fatty soils, which are
soluble around 85 degrees Fahrenheit (``[deg]F''). (AHAM, No. 40 at pp.
9-10) AHAM added that despite the existence of some detergents designed
for lower temperatures, detergents alone cannot solve this issue. (Id.)
AHAM commented that decreased water temperature could also have
negative impacts on fabric care resulting from reduced detergent
removal, biofilm accumulation, reduced particulate removal, and
increased white residues on clothing. (Id.) AHAM also noted that if
wash time is increased to compensate for a decrease in cleaning
performance at lower wash temperatures, the cycle time will
consequently increase. (Id.)
Whirlpool suggested that lowering wash temperatures from current
levels should not be a technology option considered by DOE. (Whirlpool,
No. 39 at pp. 6-8) Whirlpool added that it strongly believes that wash
temperatures are already low enough, and that lowering temperatures
further will effectively create a disconnect between consumer
perceptions of acceptable wash water temperatures and what Whirlpool
could actually offer. (Id.) Whirlpool commented that this impact is
compounded by the proposed appendix J test procedure, which proposes to
test the hottest and coldest Warm Wash/Cold Rinse settings for all
clothes washers instead of using the 25/50/75 test.\43\ (Id.) Whirlpool
commented that changing the test procedure at the same time as the
energy conservation standards may impede Whirlpool's ability to offer
warm wash temperatures that consumers find acceptable and could affect
clothes washers' ability to consistently clean laundry to the
consumers' satisfaction, since higher temperatures are needed to
effectively remove fatty soils, white residue, and particulates from
laundry. (Id.) Whirlpool further commented that DOE's standards should
not drive wash water temperatures below levels that are acceptable
based on consumer perceptions of these temperatures. (Id.) Whirlpool
recommended that instead, DOE's standards should protect the ability of
clothes washers to offer adequate wash temperatures that align with
consumer expectations and can deliver on the core purpose of owning and
using a clothes washer, which is to remove soils and clean clothes.
(Id.) Whirlpool noted that the overall impact of lowering wash
temperature on improving efficiency is minimal in comparison to other
technology options like improving spin speed, but it is still something
manufacturers must consider when making tradeoffs between cost and
efficiency when designing a clothes washer to meet new standards. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ The ``25/50/75'' test refers to the provision in section
3.5 of appendix J2 that allows a clothes washer that has four or
more Warm Wash/Cold Rinse temperature selections to be tested at the
25-percent, 50-percent, and 75-percent positions of the temperature
selection device between the hottest hot (<=135 [deg]F (57.2
[deg]C)) wash and the coldest cold wash. If a selection is not
available at the 25-, 50- or 75-percent position, in place of each
such unavailable selection, the next warmer temperature selection
shall be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool further commented that detergents become less effective
at lower wash temperatures, and that consumers will see this reduction
immediately or within several loads, depending on the soil type on the
clothing. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 11) Whirlpool added that even
detergents formulated specifically for cold water washing may not be
validated for temperatures below 70 [deg]F. (Id.) Whirlpool noted that
in northern states such as Michigan, yearly ground water temperatures
are in the 42-49 [deg]F range, and that Whirlpool is not aware of any
detergent that was formulated and validated for performance at
temperatures that low. (Id.) Whirlpool stated that many clothes washers
on the market today have tap cold options, and some have a variety of
cold and cool temperatures that mix in some amount of hot water. (Id.)
Whirlpool commented that some clothes washers offer these temperatures
in the 55 [deg]F range. (Id.) Whirlpool expressed concern that, due to
any amendments to the standards that necessitate a reduction in wash
[[Page 13543]]
temperatures, the temperature range of these tap cold, cold, and cool
settings may be driven down well below the validated temperatures for
good performance for even the best detergent formulations on the
market. (Id.) Whirlpool added that this problem would be even more
pronounced for the cheaper and less effective detergents, which may be
popular with low-income consumers. (Id.) Whirlpool concluded that
detergents would need to be reformulated to reflect this broad-scale
lowering of wash temperatures in clothes washers, and Whirlpool is not
sure if it would be possible to validate a detergent for good
performance at these lower temperatures. (Id.)
Unlike certain other discrete technology options evaluated by DOE
(e.g., direct drive motor), wash temperature decrease can be
implemented to varying extents. For example, some manufacturers may
implement it to small extent (e.g., a decrease by 0.5 [deg]F), whereas
other manufacturers may implement it to a significantly larger extent
(e.g., a decrease of 5 [deg]F or more). In addition, DOE observes
through testing that manufacturers employ a wide variety of ``paths''
to achieve higher efficiency levels--some manufacturers may opt to
reduce wash temperatures as a means for achieving a particular
efficiency level, whereas other manufacturers may prioritize
maintaining wash temperatures and instead reducing motor energy use or
drying energy. Indeed, through its testing, as discussed in a test
report accompanying this NOPR (hereafter, the ``performance
characteristics test report''), which is available in the docket for
this rulemaking, DOE has observed a wide range of wash temperatures
available on the market among products with identical efficiency
ratings. Because of this variation in implementation from manufacturer
to manufacturer, and because DOE observes that some manufacturers
choose a ``path'' to higher efficiency that includes reduced wash
temperatures, DOE has not screened out decreased wash temperatures as a
design option for improving efficiency.
In chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD, section 5.5.3 describes the design
option paths most typically associated with each analyzed efficiency
level within each product class, based on DOE's testing and teardowns
of a representative sample of units on the market. For the top-loading
standard-size product class, the design option path considered by DOE
for the analysis incorporates a slight reduction in hot wash water
temperatures at EL 3 and a more substantive reduction in hot wash water
temperatures at EL 4, reflecting the most prevalent design option path
used by units currently on the market at these ELs. Although the most
typical design option path includes reduced wash temperatures, DOE's
analysis described in the performance characteristics test report
suggests that the proposed efficiency level (in particular, EL 3 for
the top-loading standard-size product class) can be achieved through a
variety of design option paths, including paths that do not require a
substantive reduction in wash temperatures compared to the range of
wash temperatures provided by lower-efficiency units. Such design
option paths could incorporate more efficient motors or higher spin
speeds, for example, in lieu of any reductions in wash water
temperatures. Such alternate design option paths would have higher
manufacturing costs than a path that uses reduction in wash water
temperatures.
Additionally, for this NOPR analysis, DOE partially screened out
capacity increase as a technology option. Specifically, DOE screened
out any capacity increase that would require a corresponding increase
in cabinet width larger than 27 inches, on the basis of the
practicability to install and service RCWs with cabinet widths larger
than 27 inches. DOE recognizes that products with a width greater than
27 inches may not be able to fit through many standards-size interior
doorways.
For the reasons discussed in chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD, for this
NOPR analysis DOE screened out ozonated laundering, and polymer bead
cleaning on the basis of their practicability to install, manufacture
and service.
DOE seeks comment on whether any additional technology options
should be screened out on the basis of any of the screening criteria in
this NOPR.
2. Remaining Technologies
Through a review of each technology, DOE retained (i.e., did not
screen out) the technology options listed in Table IV.2 and tentatively
concludes that each of these technologies meets all five screening
criteria to be examined further as design options.
Table IV.2--Retained Design Options for Residential Clothes Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methods for Decreasing Water Use: *
Adaptive water fill controls.
Hardware features enabling lower water levels.
Spray Rinse.
Methods for Decreasing Machine Energy:
More efficient motor.
Direct drive motor.
Methods for Decreasing Water Heating Energy:
Wash temperature decrease.
Methods for Decreasing Drying Energy:
Hardware features enabling spin speed increase.
Spin time increase.
Methods for Decreasing Standby Energy:
Lower Standby power components.
Methods for Increasing Overall Efficiency:
Capacity increase (without requiring a cabinet width increase).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Most of the methods for decreasing water use are also methods for
decreasing water heating energy, since less hot water is used.
DOE has initially determined that these technology options are
technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously
been used in commercially available products or working prototypes. DOE
also finds that all of the remaining technology options meet the other
screening criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, and
service; do not result in adverse impacts on product utility or product
availability; do not result in adverse impacts on health or safety; and
do not represent unique-pathway proprietary technologies). For
additional details, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.
C. Engineering Analysis
The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between the efficiency and cost of RCWs. There are two
elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of
efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ``efficiency analysis'') and
the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the
``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency
products, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations not
eliminated by the screening analysis. For each product class, DOE
estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the
product at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output of the
engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency ``curves'' that are
used in downstream analyses (i.e., the LCC and PBP analyses and the
NIA).
In this section, DOE discusses comments received in response to the
prediction tool developed in support of the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis. In the sections that follow, DOE details the efficiency
levels analyzed for each product class; the approach used to develop
cost estimates for each efficiency level and the resulting cost-
efficiency relationship; the equations used to translate IMEF and IWF
into EER and WER; and the
[[Page 13544]]
approach used to develop the manufacturer markup.
In response to the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, ASAP et al.
commented generally in support of DOE's approach to select efficiency
levels based on the proposed new efficiency metrics, EER and WER. (ASAP
et al., No. 37 at p. 1)
1. Preliminary Analysis Prediction Tool
In support of the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE tested a
sample of RCWs under both appendix J2 and appendix J as proposed in the
September 2021 TP NOPR. As described in chapter 5 of the September 2021
Preliminary TSD, DOE supplemented its tested dataset with ``predicted''
EER and WER values for a larger sample of units. The EER and WER
predictions which were estimated based on each model's measured
performance under appendix J2 and on the model's physical and
operational characteristics. DOE also published an explanation of how
the predictive tool was developed, including a table listing the
impacts to each underlying variable that were assumed as part of the
predictive analysis. DOE explained that it planned to continue testing
additional units to appendix J to increase the number of tested, rather
than predicted, EER and WER values in future stages of the rulemaking.
AHAM commented that DOE did not provide sufficient explanation for
the ``prediction tool'' that DOE used to predict a clothes washer's EER
and WER values based on appendix J2 test results. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp.
4-6) AHAM further explained that its data, which include models
representing approximately half of total 2020 shipments, contradicted
the data presented in the September 2021 Preliminary TSD. (Id.) AHAM
expressed concern that DOE did not provide any statistical outcomes to
justify the accuracy of the prediction tool it used to predict a
clothes washers EER and WER values based on appendix J2 test results.
(AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 15-17) AHAM commented that without data on
statistical outcomes, AHAM cannot assess the accuracy of the prediction
tool. (Id.) AHAM also commented that based on the analysis that
transposes efficiency levels, DOE's prediction tool appears to be
inaccurate and that under the best-fit line method for front-loading
clothes washers, the R-squared values show the prediction tool is
insufficient. (Id.) AHAM therefore recommended that DOE update its
analysis based on tested data instead of predicted data, especially for
top-loading standard clothes washers with capacities less than 3.0
ft\3\, and for front-loading compact clothes washers. (Id.) AHAM also
requested that DOE provide appendix J2 and appendix J test data; the
statistical data demonstrating correlation of the prediction tool; the
data supporting the development of the tool, including the equations
the prediction tool used; and DOE's comparison between predicted and
tested EER where applicable. (Id.) AHAM noted that, unlike DOE, its
data was all based on actual testing instead of using a model or
prediction tool. (Id.)
AHAM presented a table showing the variation in tested
HET, MET, DET, ETLP,
QT, and corrected RMC between appendix J2 and appendix J for
the AHAM data, DOE data, and the combined AHAM and DOE dataset. (AHAM,
No. 53 at pp. 7-8) AHAM measured variation by measuring the percent
difference in each metric between appendix J2 and appendix J for all
units, and presented an overall variation in each metric by calculating
the average percent differences for each metric, the standard deviation
of the percent differences for each metric, and the range of percent
differences for each metric. (Id.) AHAM noted that on average, values
for HET, MET, DET, ETLP,
QT, and corrected RMC were higher under appendix J than
under appendix J2. (Id.) AHAM also noted that the level of variation
was particularly high for DET and ETLP. (Id.)
AHAM commented that, while the overall impact of standby energy in the
final calculation for energy efficiency is quite small, the impact of
dryer energy on the final calculated efficiency is significant. (Id.)
Based on its analysis, AHAM concluded that this variation shows that a
direct translation between the appendix J2 and appendix J test
procedures is not possible. (Id.) AHAM specifically pointed out that
the total dryer energy consumption showed an average increase of 22.5
percent, but that the range of differences with the tested models is
quite wide, indicating that it is impossible to predict the impact of
appendix J on dryer energy consumption. (Id.) AHAM added that the
appendix J2 to appendix J translation has a similar effect on corrected
RMC, and is most apparent with respect to ETLP, where
measured values varied by as much as 221 percent. (Id.) AHAM further
explained that the relatively high standard deviations of percent
differences underscore the wide ranges in the measured value
differences between appendix J2 and appendix J. (Id.)
Samsung commented that the prediction tool used in the September
2021 Preliminary TSD does not have a high correlation between EER and
IMEF. (Samsung, No. 41 at p. 3)
ASAP et al. commented that they support DOE's approach to use its
predictive tool and that they support conducting additional testing
using the new proposed appendix J test procedure to refine this
approach. (ASAP et al., No. 37 at p. 1)
Ameren et al. expressed support for DOE's approach to predict EER
and WER values from tested IMEF and IWF value and commented that they
support future testing with appendix J to collect more results with the
proposed new appendix J test procedure. (Ameren et al., No. 42 at pp.
19-20). Ameren et al. added that DOE's RMC and Warm Wash temperature
results are consistent with findings in the 2020 NEEA report. (Id.)
Ameren et al. added that the non-linear nature of the relationship
between IMEF and IWF values and EER and WER values is similar to the
non-linearity that NEEA identified in a translation of appendix J2
tests to real-world energy use. (Id.)
As noted, DOE stated in the September 2021 Preliminary TSD that it
planned to continue testing additional units to appendix J to increase
the number of tested, rather than predicted, EER and WER values for
future stages of this proposed rulemaking.
As described in the April 2022 NODA, DOE has tested additional 28
additional RCW models to both appendix J2 and appendix J in order to
provide additional data points for the translation equations and to
eliminate the need to rely on ``predicted'' EER and WER values in the
translation analysis. 87 FR 21816, 21817. DOE's total test sample
includes 44 units across all five product classes analyzed for this
NOPR. DOE made available detailed appendix J and appendix J2 test data
for its full set of tested units as part of the April 2022 NODA. As
discussed in section IV.C.5 of this document, for this NOPR DOE relied
exclusively on tested data for developing translation equations for
each automatic clothes washer product class and did not continue the
usage of its prediction tool as part of its analysis. The
discontinuation of the prediction tool addresses many of the concerns
expressed by AHAM and Samsung. As detailed in section IV.C.5 of this
document, the comprehensive dataset has enabled DOE to develop robust
translations between the appendix J2 and appendix J metrics.
2. Efficiency Analysis
DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed
efficiency levels in
[[Page 13545]]
the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach), or (2) determining
the incremental efficiency improvements associated with incorporating
specific design options to a baseline model (i.e., the design-option
approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the efficiency levels
established for the analysis are determined based on the market
distribution of existing products (in other words, based on the range
of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that already exist on
the market). Using the design option approach, the efficiency levels
established for the analysis are determined through detailed
engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the efficiency
improvements from implementing specific design options that have been
identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on a
combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-level
approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended using
the design option approach to ``gap fill'' levels (to bridge large gaps
between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate to
the max-tech level (particularly in cases where the max-tech level
exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on the
market).
For this NOPR, DOE used an efficiency-level approach, supplemented
with the design-option approach for certain ``gap fill'' efficiency
levels. The efficiency-level approach is appropriate for RCWs, given
the availability of certification data to determine the market
distribution of existing products and to identify efficiency level
``clusters'' that already exist on the market.
In conducting the efficiency analysis for the automatic clothes
washer product classes, DOE first identified efficiency levels in terms
of the current IMEF and IWF metrics defined in appendix J2 that are the
most familiar to interested parties. DOE also initially determined the
cost-efficiency relationships based on these metrics. Following that,
DOE translated each efficiency level into its corresponding EER and WER
values using the translation equations developed for each product
class, as discussed further in section IV.C.5 of this document.
For the semi-automatic product class, for which reliable
certification data is unavailable, DOE tested a representative sample
of units to appendix J and used that set of data points to determine
the baseline and higher efficiency levels, as described further in
section IV.C.2.c of this document.
The efficiency levels that DOE considered in the engineering
analysis are attainable using technologies currently available on the
market in RCWs. DOE used the results of the testing and teardown
analyses to determine a representative set of technologies and design
strategies that manufacturers use to achieve each higher efficiency
level. This information provides interested parties with additional
transparency of assumptions and results, and the ability to perform
independent analyses for verification. Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD
describes the methodology and results of the analysis used to derive
the cost-efficiency relationships.
a. Baseline Efficiency Levels
For each product class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as a
reference point for each class, and measures changes resulting from
potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The
baseline model in each product class represents the characteristics of
a product typical of that class (e.g., capacity, physical size).
Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy
conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline
is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market.
In the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE presented an
initial set of baseline levels for each product class, as shown in
Table IV.3.
Table IV.3--Preliminary Baseline Efficiency Levels Presented in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum IMEF Maximum IWF (gal/
Product class Source (ft\3\/kWh/cycle) cycle/ft\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-Loading, Compact (<1.6 ft\3\) *........ Current DOE standard......... 1.15 12.0
Top-Loading, Standard-Size (>=1.6 ft\3\)... Current DOE standard......... 1.57 6.5
Front-Loading, Compact (<3.0 ft\3\)........ Current DOE standard for 1.84 4.7
front-loading, standard-size
(>=1.6 ft\3\) **.
Front-Loading, Standard-Size (>=3.0 ft\3\). ENERGY STAR v. 7.0 ***....... 2.38 3.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As discussed in section IV.A.1 of this document, DOE is proposing in this NOPR to rename the top-loading
compact product class analyzed in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis to top-loading ``ultra-compact.''
** Although the current DOE standard for front-loading, compact (<1.6 ft\3\) is 1.13 IMEF/8.3 IWF, no front-
loading units are currently on the market with a capacity <1.6 ft\3\. The proposed baseline efficiency level
reflects the currently applicable standard for front-loading RCWs with capacities between 1.6 and 3.0 ft\3\.
*** Although the current DOE standard for front-loading standard-size (>=1.6 ft\3\) is 1.84 IMEF/4.7 IWF, at the
time of analysis, the least efficient front-loading standard-size RCW available on the market had an
efficiency rating of 2.38 IMEF/3.7 IWF.
Additionally, in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE
sought comment on whether the baseline efficiency levels identified in
its analysis for each product class were appropriate.
The CA IOUs presented data from their analysis of front-loading
standard-size products available on DOE's CCD. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at pp.
5-6) The CA IOUs commented that, according to their analysis of the
CCD, eight models ranging from 4.3 ft\3\ to 5 ft\3\ are rated at the
current federal minimum standard of 1.84 IMEF and 4.7 IWF, and
recommended that DOE update the baseline definition to the current
minimum efficiency levels to prevent an undercount of the overall
savings potential. (Id.) The CA IOUs also identified some models rated
at 2.92 IMEF and 4.5 IWF in the CCD, which reflects a worse IWF
(although a better IMEF) than the baseline level analyzed in the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis. (Id.)
NYSERDA commented that DOE's CCD shows front-loading standard-size
clothes washers from 4.3 to 5.0 ft\3\ rated at the current minimum
standard level of 1.84 IMEF. (NYSERDA, No. 36 at p. 2) NYSERDA
recommended that DOE therefore consider the existing standard as the
baseline for these products instead of the ENERGY STAR 2015 level of
2.38 IMEF. (Id.)
In response to the CA IOUs and NYSERDA's comment that the CCD
includes standard-size front-loading clothes washers that are rated at
the current standard level of 1.84 IMEF, DOE has determined through
testing
[[Page 13546]]
that these units perform significantly above their rated value at the
current standard level. DOE has also confirmed these findings through
confidential manufacturer interviews.
In response to the CA IOUs' comment that the CCD also includes a
model with a worse IWF rating of 4.5 IWF, DOE notes that this unit's
rating appears to be a typographical error. DOE notes that this unit is
listed in the ENERGY STAR database with an IWF rating of 2.9 and a
capacity of 4.5 ft\3\, suggesting that the capacity measurement was
inadvertently reported as the IWF value in DOE's CCD.
For these reasons, DOE tentatively concludes that for the standard-
size front-loading product class, the lowest available efficiency on
the market is 2.38 IMEF and 3.7 IWF, and this level is an appropriate
representation of baseline efficiency.
Accordingly, in this NOPR, DOE analyzed the baseline efficiency
levels shown in Table IV.4 for each automatic product class.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See section IV.C.2.c of this document for a discussion of
efficiency levels for the semi-automatic product class.
Table IV.4--Baseline Efficiency Levels Analyzed in This NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum IMEF Maximum IWF (gal/
Product class Source (ft\3\/kWh/cycle) cycle/ft\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact (<1.6 ft\3\).... Current DOE standard......... 1.15 12.0
Top-Loading, Standard-Size (>=1.6 ft\3\)... Current DOE standard......... 1.57 6.5
Front-Loading, Compact (<3.0 ft\3\)........ Current DOE standard for 1.84 4.7
front-loading, standard-size
(>=1.6 ft\3\) *.
Front-Loading, Standard-Size (>=3.0 ft\3\). ENERGY STAR v. 7.0 **........ 2.38 3.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Although the current DOE standard for front-loading compact (<1.6 ft\3\) is 1.13 IMEF/8.3 IWF, no front-
loading units are currently on the market with a capacity <1.6 ft\3\. The proposed baseline efficiency level
reflects the currently applicable standard for front-loading RCWs with capacities between 1.6 and 3.0 ft\3\.
** Although the current DOE standard for front-loading standard-size (>=1.6 ft\3\) is 1.84 IMEF/4.7 IWF, at the
time of analysis, the least efficient front-loading standard-size RCW available on the has an efficiency
rating of 2.38 IMEF/3.7 IWF.
DOE seeks comment on whether the baseline efficiency levels
analyzed in this NOPR for each product class are appropriate.
b. Higher Efficiency Levels
To establish higher efficiency levels for the analysis, DOE
reviewed data in DOE's CCD to evaluate the range of efficiencies for
RCWs currently available on the market.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ DOE's Compliance Certification Database is available at
www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data. Analysis conducted May
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of DOE's analysis, the ``maximum available'' efficiency
level is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market.
DOE also defines a ``max-tech'' efficiency level to represent the
maximum possible efficiency for a given product in each product class.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) DOE typically determines max-tech levels based
on technologies that are either commercially available or have been
demonstrated as working prototypes. If the max-tech design meets DOE's
screening criteria, DOE considers the design in further analysis.
DOE has tentatively determined that the max-tech efficiency level
for each RCW product class corresponds to the maximum available level
for each product class. In other words, DOE has not defined or analyzed
any efficiency levels higher than those currently available on the
market.
As noted, EPCA requires that any new or amended energy conservation
standard be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))
For RCWs, a determination of technological feasibility must encompass
not only an achievable reduction in energy and/or water consumption,
but also the ability of the product to perform its intended function
(i.e., wash clothing) at reduced energy or water levels.\46\ Attributes
that are relevant to consumers encompass multiple aspects of RCW
operation such as stain removal, solid particle removal, rinsing
effectiveness, fabric gentleness, cycle time, noise, vibration, and
others. Each of these attributes may be affected by energy and water
efficiency levels, and achieving better performance in one attribute
may require a tradeoff with one or more other attributes. DOE does not
have the means to be able to determine whether a product that uses less
water or energy than the maximum efficiency level available on the
market would represent a viable (i.e., technologically feasible)
product that would satisfy consumer expectations regarding all the
other aspects of RCW performance that are not measured by the DOE test
procedure. As far as DOE is aware, the complexity of the
interdependence among all these attributes precludes being able to use
a computer model or other similar means to predict changes in these
product attributes as a result of reduced energy and water levels.
Rather, as far as DOE is aware, such determinations are made in an
iterative fashion through extensive product testing as part of
manufacturers' design processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ As an extreme example, DOE could consider a hypothetical
RCW that reduces its water consumption to near-zero, but such a
product would not be viable for washing clothing, given current
technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, for all product classes
except top-loading compact, DOE considered efficiency levels higher
than baseline levels based on specifications prescribed by ENERGY
STAR[supreg] and the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (``CEE'')'s Super
Efficient Home-Appliances Initiative,\47\ as well as gap-fill levels.
At the time of the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, large clusters
of models were available at the ENERGY STAR and CEE Tier levels, as
evident in the market distribution plots presented in chapter 3 of the
September 2021 Preliminary TSD. At the time of the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis, no automatic top-loading compact RCWs were
available on the market that exceeded the baseline level. Accordingly,
DOE did not consider any higher efficiency levels for this product
class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ CEE Super-Efficient Home Appliance Initiative available at
cee1.org/content/cee-program-resources. Accessed July 13, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In chapter 5 of the September 2021 Preliminary TSD, DOE established
the preliminary efficiency levels for each product class as presented
in Table IV.5 through Table IV.8.
[[Page 13547]]
Table IV.5--Top-Loading, Compact * (<1.6 ft\3\) Preliminary Efficiency Levels, as Presented in the September
2021 Preliminary Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMEF (ft\3\/kWh/ IWF (gal/cycle/
EL Efficiency level description cycle) ft\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.............................. Current DOE standard.............. 1.15 12.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As discussed in section IV.A.1 of this document, DOE is proposing in this NOPR to rename the top-loading
compact product class analyzed in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis to top-loading ``ultra-compact.''
Table IV.6--Top-Loading, Standard-Size (>=1.6 ft\3\) Preliminary Efficiency Levels, as Presented in the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMEF (ft\3\/kWh/ IWF (gal/cycle/
EL Efficiency level description cycle) ft\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.............................. Current DOE standard.............. 1.57 6.5
1..................................... Gap fill.......................... 1.70 5.0
2..................................... ENERGY STAR (v. 8.1).............. 2.06 4.3
3..................................... 2015-2017 CEE Tier 1.............. 2.38 3.7
4..................................... 2015 ENERGY STAR Most Efficient/ 2.76 3.5
Maximum available.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.7--Front-Loading, Compact (<3.0 ft\3\) Preliminary Efficiency Levels, as Presented in the September
2021 Preliminary Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMEF (ft\3\/kWh/ IWF (gal/cycle/
EL Efficiency level description cycle) ft\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.............................. Current DOE standard for front- 1.84 4.7
loading, standard-size (>=1.6
ft\3\).
1..................................... ENERGY STAR v. 8.1 level for units 2.07 4.2
<=2.5 ft\3\.
2..................................... 2018-2022 ENERGY STAR Most 2.20 3.7
Efficient for units <=2.5 ft\3\.
3..................................... ENERGY STAR v. 7.0 level for units 2.38 3.7
>2.5 ft\3\.
4..................................... ENERGY STAR v. 8.1 level for units 2.76 3.2
>2.5 ft\3\/Maximum available.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.8--Front-Loading, Standard-Size (>=3.0 ft\3\) Preliminary Efficiency Levels, as Presented in the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMEF (ft\3\/kWh/ IWF (gal/cycle/
EL Efficiency level description cycle) ft\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.............................. ENERGY STAR v. 7.0................ 2.38 3.7
1..................................... Gap fill.......................... 2.60 3.5
2..................................... ENERGY STAR v. 8.1................ 2.76 3.2
3..................................... 2018-2022 ENERGY STAR Most 2.92 3.2
Efficient.
4..................................... Maximum available................. 3.00 2.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE sought comment on whether the preliminary higher efficiency
levels identified in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis for each
product class were appropriate.
The CA IOUs, ASAP et al., and NYSERDA recommended that DOE consider
revisiting max-tech and higher efficiency levels based on currently
available products, for the top-loading compact product class. (CA
IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 4-5; ASAP et al., No. 37 at p. 4; NYSERDA, No. 36
at p. 2) These stakeholders expressed concern that DOE did not consider
any products above the baseline levels of 1.15 IMEF and 12.0 IWF, since
the ratings in DOE's CCD indicates top-loading compact models that
exceed these levels. (Id.) ASAP et al. noted that DOE's CCD includes 8
top-loading compact models with IMEF ratings between 1.24 and 1.36.
(ASAP et al., No. 37 at p. 4) Furthermore, ASAP et al. commented that
the new proposed test procedure could change the relative rankings and
range of efficiency ratings for top-loading compact models. (Id.)
DOE's CCD currently includes both automatic clothes washer models
and semi-automatic clothes washer models certified within the top-
loading compact product class. While the certification database does
not differentiate between automatic and semi-automatic configurations,
DOE conducted an analysis of product literature for each certified
model to identify the configuration of each model in the CCD. DOE's
analysis indicates that considering only automatic top-loading compact
clothes washers, models are available only at the baseline efficiency
level. All of the other top-loading compact-size models in the CCD at
higher efficiency levels are semi-automatic top-loading clothes washers
with capacities less than 1.6 ft\3\. When evaluating only automatic
top-loading compact clothes washers in the CCD, only products with
baseline efficiency have been certified to DOE. Therefore, because DOE
is not aware of any automatic top-loading compact RCWs available on the
market at the time of this analysis that exceed the baseline level, DOE
is not proposing any higher efficiency levels for this product class.
Section IV.C.2.c of this document discusses the efficiency levels
that DOE proposes for semi-automatic clothes washers.
The CA IOUs and NYSERDA also recommended that DOE consider
revisiting max-tech and higher efficiency levels based on currently
[[Page 13548]]
available products, for the top-loading standard-size product class.
(CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 5; NYSERDA, No. 36 at p. 2) These stakeholders
commented that according to their analysis of the CCD, nine models are
certified to lower (more efficient) IWFs than the most efficient
considered efficiency level presented in the September 2021 Preliminary
TSD. (Id.) The CA IOUs therefore recommended that DOE adjust the
maximum achievable efficiency level to reflect the market availability
of top-loading standard-size products. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 5)
NYSERDA recommended that DOE add an EL 5 using the maximum
technologically available efficiency ratings rather than the 2015
ENERGY STAR Most Efficient level to better reflect the constantly
improving market. (NYSERDA, No. 36 at p. 2)
The CA IOUs and NYSERDA also recommended that DOE consider
revisiting max-tech and higher efficiency levels based on currently
available products, for the front-loading standard-size product class.
(CA IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 5-6; NYSERDA, No. 36 at p. 2) These
stakeholders commented that the CCD contains units with higher
efficiencies than the max-tech level DOE considered in the September
2021 Preliminary Analysis and recommended that DOE adjust the highest
efficiency levels to reflect the availability of these products. (Id.)
The CA IOUs identified 11 models that surpass the IMEF and IWF maximum
available level presented in the September 2021 Preliminary TSD, at 3.1
IMEF and 2.7 and 2.9 IWF. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 5-6)
In response to changes in availability on the market since the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, as reflected by the models in
DOE's CCD identified by commenters, DOE has updated the max-tech levels
for the top-loading standard-size and front-loading standard-size
product classes to reflect the maximum efficiency available in the CCD
at the time of this NOPR analysis. The updated max-tech level for top-
loading standard-size is 2.76 IMEF/3.2 IWF, which DOE notes corresponds
to the 2016/2017 ENERGY STAR Most Efficient criteria. The updated max-
tech level for front-loading standard-size is 3.10 IMEF/2.9 IWF.
Although DOE also identified two RCW models in DOE's CCD that are rated
at 3.10 IMEF/2.7 IWF, these units have extra-large capacity drums that
necessitate cabinet widths greater than 27 inches. As discussed in
section IV.B.1 of this NOPR, DOE excluded from consideration any drum
capacities increase that require a cabinet width increase beyond 27
inches.
DOE also updated the definition of the top-loading standard-size
gap-fill level (i.e., EL 1) to reflect changes in the market since
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis. In the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis, DOE defined EL 1 as 1.70 IMEF/5.0 IWF based on a small
cluster of units in DOE's CCD rated at or near that level. Subsequent
to the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, these units have been
discontinued from the market and are no longer listed in DOE's CCD; in
addition, DOE's market research indicates that the brand associated
with these units no longer offers top-loading clothes washers for sale
in the U.S. market. In lieu of any product offerings currently on the
market between the baseline level (corresponding to the DOE minimum
standard) and EL 2 (corresponding to the applicable ENERGY STAR
criteria), in this NOPR DOE has defined EL 1 as the numerical midpoint
between the baseline and EL 2 levels.
Lastly, DOE updated the definition of EL 3 for the front-loading
compact product class to better align with an existing market cluster.
In the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE had defined EL 3 as
2.38 IMEF/3.7 IWF, which represented the ENERGY STAR v. 7.0 level for
units with capacity greater than 2.5 ft\3\. This resulted in a
relatively large gap in IMEF between EL 3 and EL 4 (2.38 to 2.76 IMEF).
For this NOPR, DOE has instead defined EL 3 as 2.50 IMEF/3.5 IWF as a
gap fill level representing a market cluster at that point. This also
results in EL 3 being closer to the midpoint of EL 2 and EL 4.
In summary, for this NOPR, DOE analyzed the efficiency levels for
each product class shown in Table IV.9 through Table IV.12.
Table IV.9--Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact (<1.6 ft\3\) Efficiency Levels Analyzed in This NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMEF (ft\3\/kWh/ IWF (gal/cycle/
EL Efficiency level description cycle) ft\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.............................. Current DOE standard.............. 1.15 12.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.10--Top-Loading, Standard-Size (>=1.6 ft\3\) Efficiency Levels Analyzed in This NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMEF (ft\3\/kWh/ IWF (gal/cycle/
EL Efficiency level description cycle) ft\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.............................. Current DOE standard.............. 1.57 6.5
1..................................... Gap fill.......................... 1.82 5.4
2..................................... ENERGY STAR v. 8.1................ 2.06 4.3
3..................................... 2015-2017 CEE Tier 1.............. 2.38 3.7
4..................................... Maximum available (2016/2017 2.76 3.2
ENERGY STAR Most Efficient).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.11--Front-Loading, Compact (<3.0 ft\3\) Efficiency Levels Analyzed in This NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMEF (ft\3\/kWh/ IWF (gal/cycle/
EL Efficiency level description cycle) ft\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.............................. Current DOE standard for front- 1.84 4.7
loading, standard-size (>=1.6
ft\3\).
1..................................... ENERGY STAR v. 8.1 level for units 2.07 4.2
<=2.5 ft\3\.
2..................................... 2023 ENERGY STAR Most Efficient 2.20 3.7
for units <=2.5 ft\3\.
3..................................... Gap fill.......................... 2.50 3.5
4..................................... Maximum available (ENERGY STAR v. 2.76 3.2
8.1 level for units >2.5 ft\3\).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 13549]]
Table IV.12--Front-Loading, Standard-Size (>=3.0 ft\3\) Efficiency Levels Analyzed in This NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMEF (ft\3\/kWh/ IWF (gal/cycle/
EL Efficiency level description cycle) ft\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.............................. ENERGY STAR v. 7.0................ 2.38 3.7
1..................................... Gap fill.......................... 2.60 3.5
2..................................... ENERGY STAR v. 8.1................ 2.76 3.2
3..................................... 2023 ENERGY STAR Most Efficient... 2.92 3.2
4..................................... Maximum available................. 3.10 2.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on whether the higher efficiency levels analyzed
in this NOPR for each product class are appropriate.
c. Semi-Automatic
As discussed, DOE's CCD includes both automatic clothes washer
models and semi-automatic clothes washer models certified within the
top-loading compact product class. While the certification database
does not differentiate between automatic and semi-automatic
configurations, DOE conducted an analysis of product literature for
each certified model to identify whether each model is automatic or
semi-automatic.
In the September 2021 Preliminary TSD and the April 2022 NODA, DOE
did not present any data or analysis for semi-automatic clothes
washers. As discussed in section IV.A.1 of this document, in this NOPR,
DOE is proposing to re-establish a separate product class for semi-
automatic clothes washers and to establish performance-based standards
for semi-automatic clothes washers.
As discussed previously, CCD currently includes both automatic
clothes washer models and semi-automatic clothes washer models
certified within the top-loading compact product class. While the
certification database does not differentiate between automatic and
semi-automatic configurations, DOE conducted an analysis of product
literature for each certified model to identify the semi-automatic
models in the CCD.
To define the efficiency levels for analysis for the semi-automatic
product class, DOE did not rely on any ratings currently provided in
the CCD. As discussed in the September 2021 TP NOPR, DOE identified
areas in which the current test procedure does not provide explicit
instruction with regard to semi-automatic clothe washers. 86 FR 49140,
49147. As a result, DOE stated that it recognizes that the proposed
specifications for testing semi-automatic clothes washers in appendix J
may differ from how manufacturers are currently testing semi-automatic
clothes washers under appendix J2. Id. at 86 FR 49168.
As finalized, appendix J includes significant changes to the
testing of semi-automatic clothes washers, which improve the
representativeness of the test results while reducing test burden.
Given the lack of specificity in appendix J2 regarding semi-automatic
clothes washers, and the significant differences in testing between
appendix J2 versus appendix J for semi-automatic clothes washers, DOE
tentatively determined that it could not develop an accurate
correlation between appendix J2 metrics (i.e., IMEF and IWF) and
appendix J metrics (i.e., EER and WER) for semi-automatic clothes
washers. Therefore, in this NOPR analysis, DOE defined efficiency
levels in terms of EER and WER directly rather than first defining
efficiency levels in terms of IMEF and IWF and then developing
translation equations to translate those levels to EER and WER. DOE
defined the proposed efficiency levels for semi-automatic clothes
washers by testing a representative sample of models on the market and
observing the range of EER and WER results. Table IV.13 shows the
proposed efficiency levels for the semi-automatic product class. See
chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for more details.
Table IV.13--Semi-Automatic Efficiency Levels Analyzed in This NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EER (ft\3\/kWh/ WER (gal/cycle/
EL Efficiency level description cycle) ft\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.............................. Minimum available................. 1.60 0.17
1..................................... Gap fill.......................... 2.12 0.27
2..................................... Maximum available................. 2.51 0.36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on whether the efficiency levels analyzed in this
NOPR for semi-automatic RCWs are appropriate.
3. Cost Analysis
The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost
approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated
product, the availability and timeliness of purchasing the product on
the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically
dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to
develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.
Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a
product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available
from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example)
to develop the bill of materials for the product.
Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as
fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which
parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise
impractical (e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price
surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online
retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and
other commercial channels.
In the present case, DOE conducted the analysis using the physical
teardown approach. For each product class, DOE tore down a
representative sample of models spanning the entire
[[Page 13550]]
range of efficiency levels, as well as multiple manufacturers within
each product class. DOE aggregated the results so that the cost-
efficiency relationship developed for each product class reflects DOE's
assessment of a market-representative ``path'' to achieve each higher
efficiency level. The resulting bill of materials provides the basis
for the manufacturer production cost (``MPC'') estimates.
The detailed description of DOE's determination of costs for
baseline and higher efficiency levels is provided in chapter 5 of the
NOPR TSD.
Ameren et al. noted that the vast majority of RCW energy savings
documented in the September 2021 Preliminary TSD is driven by the top-
loading standard-size product class, and recommended that DOE take a
rigorous approach to evaluate the baseline technologies, likely
technology pathways, and associated incremental cost for this product
class. (Ameren et al., No. 42 at pp. 3-4) As discussed, DOE followed a
rigorous approach to developing the cost-efficiency relationship for
each product class.
4. Cost-Efficiency Results
In the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE conducted teardowns
on 31 models, which covered the entire range of efficiency levels
within each analyzed product class.
The preliminary baseline MPCs presented in the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis for each product class are shown in Table IV.14.
Table IV.14--Preliminary Baseline Manufacturer Production Costs (2020$),
as Presented in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer
Product class production cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft\3\ capacity) $311.00
*..................................................
Top-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft\3\ or greater 241.97
capacity)..........................................
Front-Loading, Compact (less than 3.0 ft\3\ 292.85
capacity)..........................................
Front-Loading, Standard-Size (3.0 ft\3\ or greater 410.15
capacity)..........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As discussed in section IV.A.1 of this document, DOE is proposing in
this NOPR to rename the top-loading compact product class analyzed in
the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis to top-loading ``ultra-
compact.''
The incremental MPCs presented in the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis for top-loading standard-size; front-loading compact; and
front-loading standard-size product classes are shown in Table IV.15
through Table IV.17, respectively. As described previously, DOE did not
analyze any higher efficiency levels for the top-loading compact
product class in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis since no units
on the market exceeded the baseline level.
Table IV.15--Preliminary Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs for Top-Loading, Standard-Size (>=1.6 ft\3\)
Product Class (2020$), as Presented in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL IMEF IWF Incremental cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.................................................... 1.57 6.5 ..................
1........................................................... 1.70 5.0 $39.44
2........................................................... 2.06 4.3 69.34
3........................................................... 2.38 3.7 112.83
4........................................................... 2.76 3.5 115.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.16--Preliminary Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs for Front-Loading, Compact (<3.0 ft\3\)
Product Class (2020$), as Presented in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL IMEF IWF Incremental cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.................................................... 1.84 4.7 ..................
1........................................................... 2.07 4.2 $17.97
2........................................................... 2.20 3.7 45.58
3........................................................... 2.38 3.7 83.81
4........................................................... 2.76 3.2 94.53
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.17--Preliminary Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs for Front-Loading, Standard-Size (>=3.0
ft\3\) Product Class (2020$), as Presented in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL IMEF IWF Incremental cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.................................................... 1.57 6.5 ..................
1........................................................... 1.70 5.0 $39.44
2........................................................... 2.06 4.3 69.34
3........................................................... 2.38 3.7 112.83
4........................................................... 2.76 3.5 115.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 13551]]
In the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE sought comment on
the cost efficiency relationships developed for each product class. In
particular, DOE sought data and information that could be used to
further improve the determination of cost at each efficiency level.
Ameren et al. commented that NEEA commissioned a laboratory
engineering teardown study (``2019 NEEA Teardown''), comparing appendix
J2 testing and teardown results of a top-loading standard-size RCW
rated at the ENERGY STAR level with a similar top-loading standard-size
RCW rated at the baseline level. (Ameren et al., No. 42 at pp. 13-14)
Ameren et al. stated that the 2019 NEEA Teardown revealed the key
difference between the two RCW models was technology that improved
water extraction and therefore reduced drying energy. (Id.)
Specifically, the ENERGY STAR model had a 0.4 horsepower motor, whereas
the baseline model had a 0.33 horsepower motor, and the ENERGY STAR
model had a slightly larger diameter pully that enabled a higher spin
speed of 800 rpm compared to the 700 rpm of the baseline model. (Id.)
Ameren et al. added that even though these differences resulted in
slightly higher machine energy use for the ENERGY STAR model, the
overall IMEF was better than the baseline model because the ENERGY STAR
model had better water extraction capability. (Id.) Based on the data
from the 2019 NEEA Teardown, Ameren et al. recommended that DOE
consider an increased motor size and alternate pully ratio as a lower-
cost compliance pathway to enable higher spin speeds and lower drying
energy sufficient to meet EL 2 as proposed in the September 2021
Preliminary TSD. (Id.) Ameren et al. added that this lower-cost
technology pathway may be more likely given the higher manufacturing
cost of the significant redesign needed to employ a direct drive motor
for compliance with EL 2. (Id.)
As noted, DOE conducted teardowns on a wide range of top-loading
RCWs to inform the cost-efficiency relationships presented in the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis and in this NOPR. DOE's analysis
confirms Ameren et al.'s finding that reduced drying energy through
improved water extraction is a key difference between the baseline
level and the ENERGY STAR level (i.e., EL 2) in the top-loading
standard-size product class. As noted by Ameren et al., DOE's teardown
analysis conducted in support of the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis indicated that to achieve EL 2, manufacturers would likely
incorporate a wash plate (sometimes also called an ``impeller'');
direct-drive motor; spray rinse; and other hardware features to enable
a spin speed increase. As described previously, the cost-efficiency
relationship developed for each product class reflects DOE's assessment
of a market-representative ``path'' to achieve each higher efficiency
level; i.e., it does not necessarily reflect the lowest-cost pathway
employed by a particular manufacturer. Through the breadth of models
torn down at the baseline level and EL 2, DOE determined that the most
typical approach currently being used by manufacturers to achieve EL 2
is through the use of a direct-drive motor. DOE also notes that
regardless of whether higher spin speeds are achieved through the use
of a conventional motor or direct-drive motor, other hardware-related
changes must also be employed to safely enable higher spin speeds. The
cost-efficiency relationship reflects the totality of these costs.
The CA IOUs commented that the September 2021 Preliminary TSD does
not appear to incorporate lower standby components at any efficiency
levels for top-loading clothes washers, despite lower standby power
being listed in remaining design options of the screening analysis. (CA
IOUs, No. 43 at p. 5) The CA IOUs therefore recommended that DOE
consider adding lower standby power components as a design option for
top-loading products when incorporating changes to its analysis. (Id.)
Through its testing and teardowns conducted in support of the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis as well as this NOPR, DOE has not
observed any consistent trend of lower-standby power components being
used to achieve higher efficiency levels within the top-loading
standard-size product class. As discussed, the cost-efficiency
relationship developed for each product class reflects DOE's assessment
of a market-representative ``path'' to achieve each higher efficiency
level. DOE notes that given the relatively small contribution of
standby power to the total energy measured by the test procedure,
reducing standby power has a relatively minor impact on EER compared to
other design options.
AHAM commented that based on its test data, it would be challenging
for low priced top-loading clothes washers to meet the efficiency
levels DOE analyzed in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis. (AHAM,
No. 40 at p. 16) Whirlpool commented that many of the design options
DOE suggested in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis to reach EL 2
would present significant challenges to manufacturers and cautioned DOE
against considering some of these design options as viable technology
options. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 3)
With regard to top-loading standard-size EL 2 specifically, in the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE indicated that the following
design options are used: wash plate, direct-drive motor, spray rinse,
and hardware features enabling spin speed increase. As discussed, DOE's
identification of design options reflects DOE's observations through
teardowns of those design options that manufacturers are currently
employing to achieve each higher efficiency level. DOE's analyses
consider the costs required to implement these design options as well
as other implications that may be associated with each higher
efficiency level.
Ameren et al. commented that NEEA's market research identified key
characteristics of baseline top-loading standard-size RCWs, including
capacity, water fill control, number of programs, number of wash
temperatures, price, and wash basket material type, based on a sample
of 9 RCWs, representing 6 brands, and comprising 32 percent of total
top-loading standard-size RCW sales. (Ameren et al., No. 42 at p. 3-6)
Ameren et al. concluded that NEEA's data matched well with DOE's
characterization of the baseline product market with one key exception:
NEEA observed a dominance of stainless-steel wash baskets in the
baseline market, while DOE characterizes the baseline product as having
an enameled steel wash basket. (Id.) NEEA found that, among RCWs with a
retail price less than $600, 64 percent of top-loading baseline
efficiency RCWs had stainless-steel wash baskets, and that among RCWs
with a retail price less than $500, 51 percent of RCWs had stainless-
steel wash baskets. (Id.) Given NEEA's findings, Ameren et al.
recommended that DOE adjust the engineering analysis to include
stainless-steel wash baskets in its characterization of the baseline
model by either adopting a representative baseline model with a
stainless-steel wash basket to represent the baseline top-loading
standard-size RCWs, or developing a sales-weighted average cost of the
top-loading RCW baseline model and a sales-weighted average incremental
cost for EL 1 and EL 2. (Id.)
Whirlpool also commented on the use of stainless-steel wash baskets
as a design option. Whirlpool commented that its testing confirmed
DOE's statement that drying energy is the largest component of overall
efficiency
[[Page 13552]]
and stated that a faster and longer spin speed is the number one
technology option for many clothes washer models to enable increased
efficiency as measured using IMEF or EER. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at pp. 4-
6) Whirlpool added that for some clothes washers, increasing spin speed
or spin time would be the only viable path to meet EL 2. (Id.)
Whirlpool commented that using stainless-steel wash baskets instead of
porcelain ones is a necessary technology upgrade to increase spin speed
and spin time because porcelain tends to chip or crack at higher
speeds, which exposes the underlying steel, which then rusts. (Id.)
Whirlpool commented that an increase to amended standards could drive
porcelain wash baskets out of the market and force a massive costly
shift to stainless-steel wash baskets. (Id.) Whirlpool noted that
clothes washers with porcelain wash baskets comprise a majority of its
opening-price-point top-loading standard-size clothes washers, which
are popular with consumers for their traditional look and
affordability. (Id.) Whirlpool expressed concern that the transition to
using stainless-steel wash baskets would lead to increased costs for
redesign, retooling, lost sales volume, reduced margins, marketing and
reflooring, and potential job losses, all of which may be a cost burden
to bear by low-income consumers. (Id.)
DOE defines a baseline model for each product class as a reference
point against which any changes resulting from energy conservation
standards can be measured. The baseline model in each product class
represents the characteristics of common or typical products in that
class. Typically, a baseline model is one that exactly meets the
current minimum energy conservation standards. DOE's cost efficiency
curves are intended to represent incremental costs associated with
design options that are required in order to achieve higher efficiency
levels above the baseline. For top-loading standard-size clothes
washers, the faster spin speed at EL 2 requires the use of a stainless-
steel wash basket, which has higher strength than the enameled steel
material used in baseline models. For top-loading standard-size
products at lower efficiency levels (i.e., baseline and EL 1),
stainless steel may be used for aesthetic purposes but is not required
in order to operate at that efficiency level. DOE teardowns indicate
that use of an enameled steel material is representative of a ``true''
baseline top-loading compact RCW, and DOE maintains this as the basis
for its baseline manufacturing cost estimate in this NOPR. However, DOE
notes that its industry conversion cost estimates account for the costs
associated with transitioning the portion of the market using porcelain
wash baskets to stainless-steel wash baskets.
Whirlpool also commented that in addition to using a stainless-
steel wash basket, other hardware features would be needed to enable
the higher spin speeds required under EL 2 including motor power and
powertrain upgrades; more robust product structure such as drive
stampings, suspension, and attachments; and components that keep noise
and vibration levels consistent with current products. (Id.) Whirlpool
concluded that, while DOE captured some of the design options needed to
increase spin speed and spin time, DOE's analysis may not be
comprehensive of the number and scale of changes needed when
simultaneously changing the test procedure and standards. (Id.)
Whirlpool commented that, while implementing a direct drive motor
could use up to 50 percent less motor energy, which corresponds with
about 5 percent less total energy, the larger savings would come from
the increase to spin speed enabled by these new motors and powertrain
systems. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 6) Whirlpool also commented that most
ENERGY STAR level clothes washers have a direct drive motor or more
advanced brushless permanent magnet (``BPM'') motor, while baseline
models typically use a permanent split capacitor (``PSC'') motor, which
is less expensive, but is not capable of reaching higher speeds without
tradeoffs. (Id.)
AHAM commented that increasing spin speed and spin time will drive
motor structure and other product design changes including larger
counterweights in front-loading clothes washers. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp.
9-10) AHAM further commented that increasing spin speed and spin time
could cause increased vibration and noise, negatively impact fabric
care due to tangling and wrinkling, and increase cycle time. (Id.)
Whirlpool commented that more efficient spray rinses are a critical
piece in the package of technology options needed to meet EL 2 for top-
loading standard-size clothes washers. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 6)
Whirlpool further explained that while spray rinse is already being
used for most models, a further reduction of the amount of water used
during spray rinses will be necessary at higher efficiency levels.
(Id.) Whirlpool commented that changes to make spray rinse technology
even more efficient may impact the design of dispensers and hydraulic
components to use less water for the removal of detergent from the
load. (Id.) Whirlpool commented that it is uncertain whether DOE has
adequately captured these additional design considerations for spray
rinse technology and recommended that DOE ensure that they are
captured. (Id.)
In response to Whirlpool and AHAM's comments regarding the costs
associated with specific design options, DOE notes that it developed
its cost-efficiency relationships based on comprehensive teardowns in
which DOE physically dismantles commercially available products,
component-by-component, to develop a detailed bill of materials for the
product. In this regard, any ancillary components or parts that
accompany the major design options indicated in chapter 5 of the NOPR
TSD would also be accounted for in DOE's cost estimates. In particular,
with regard to hardware features needed to enable higher spin speeds,
DOE's teardown costs include the cost increases associated with motor
structure, bearings, and counterweights. With regard to hardware
features needed to enable spray rinse, DOE's teardown costs include the
cost increases associated with water dispensers and tubing.
As discussed, DOE conducted additional testing and teardowns
following the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis. Table IV.18 shows
the updated MPCs for each product class. Table IV.19 through Table
IV.22 provide the incremental MPCs for each higher efficiency level for
each product class. As discussed, no automatic top-loading compact RCWs
are available on the market that exceed the baseline level.
Accordingly, DOE did not consider any higher efficiency levels for this
product class.
[[Page 13553]]
Table IV.18--Baseline Manufacturer Production Costs
[2021$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer
Product class production cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semi-Automatic...................................... $192.96
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact (less than 1.6 ft\3\ 374.62
capacity)..........................................
Top-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft\3\ or greater 272.42
capacity)..........................................
Front-Loading, Compact (less than 3.0 ft\3\ 326.18
capacity)..........................................
Front-Loading, Standard-Size (3.0 ft\3\ or greater 525.52
capacity)..........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.19--Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs for Semi-Automatic Product Class
[2021$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL EER WER Incremental cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.................................................... 1.60 0.17 ..................
1........................................................... 2.12 0.27 $5.45
2........................................................... 2.51 0.36 9.55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.20--Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs for Top-Loading, Standard-Size (>=1.6 ft\3\) Product
Class
[2021$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL IMEF IWF Incremental cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.................................................... 1.57 6.5 ..................
1........................................................... 1.82 5.4 $55.49
2........................................................... 2.06 4.3 108.76
3........................................................... 2.38 3.7 114.95
4........................................................... 2.76 3.5 117.90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.21--Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs for Front-Loading, Compact (<3.0 ft\3\) Product Class
[2021$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL IMEF IWF Incremental cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.................................................... 1.84 4.7 ..................
1........................................................... 2.07 4.2 $32.21
2........................................................... 2.20 3.7 62.07
3........................................................... 2.50 3.5 82.10
4........................................................... 2.76 3.2 84.04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.22--Manufacturer Production Costs for Front-Loading, Standard-Size (>=3.0 ft\3\) Product Class
[2021$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL IMEF IWF Incremental cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.................................................... 1.57 6.5 ..................
1........................................................... 1.70 5.0 $11.41
2........................................................... 2.06 4.3 19.71
3........................................................... 2.38 3.7 30.52
4........................................................... 2.76 3.5 43.64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on the baseline MPCs and incremental MPCs
developed for each product class.
5. Translations
As discussed in section III.C of this document, the June 2022 TP
Final Rule established a new test procedure, appendix J, which
established new efficiency metrics: EER and WER. Appendix J also
incorporates a number of revisions that affect the per-cycle energy and
water use in comparison to results obtained under the current appendix
J2 test procedure.
a. Preliminary Analysis Approach
In chapter 5 of the September 2021 Preliminary TSD, DOE performed
an initial analysis to translate the appendix J2 efficiency levels into
appendix J efficiency levels, expressed in EER and WER. Since appendix
J was not yet finalized at the time of publication for the September
2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE's initial analysis was performed using
the version of appendix J proposed in the September 2021 TP NOPR.
In the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE explored two
potential methods for translating the IMEF and IWF efficiency levels
into equivalent
[[Page 13554]]
values of EER and WER: using a best-fit line equation for each product
class, and using a more qualitative market-cluster method. The IMEF-EER
plots generally had lower R-squared values \48\ than the IWF-WER plots,
indicating a weaker correlation between EER and IMEF than the
relatively stronger correlation between WER and IWF. In particular, the
front-loading standard-size product class had an R-squared value of
0.08--indicating a high amount of variance around the line of best
fit--such that the linear translation formula would not provide a
robust prediction of how individual front-loading standard-size models
would be rated under appendix J compared to under appendix J2.
Conversely, the top-loading standard-size product class had a higher R-
squared value of 0.77 for the IMEF to EER translation, indicating a
much higher degree of confidence in the prediction of how individual
top-loading standard-size models would be rated under appendix J. Given
the lack of strong R-squared value correlation for the front-loading
product classes using the best-fit line method, for the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis, DOE used a market-cluster approach to define the
EER and WER levels corresponding to the selected IMEF and IWF
efficiency levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ The R-squared values of each line of best fit represents
the variability of the data around the lines of best fit. The closer
the R-squared value is to 1.0, the more the equation of best fit is
an accurate representation of the conversion between the two
metrics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The translated EER and WER efficiency levels presented in the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis are shown in Table IV.23 through
Table IV.26.
Table IV.23--Top-Loading, Compact * (<1.6 ft\3\) Preliminary Efficiency Levels Analyzed in the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency Level IMEF (ft\3\/kWh/ IWF (gal/cycle/ EER (lb/kWh/ WER (lb/gal/
EL Description cycle) ft\3\) cycle) cycle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline............. Current DOE 1.15 12.0 4.26 0.33
standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As discussed in section IV.A.1 of this document, DOE is proposing in this NOPR to rename the top-loading
compact product class analyzed in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis to top-loading ``ultra-compact.''
Table IV.24--Top-Loading, Standard-Size (>=1.6 ft\3\) Preliminary Efficiency Levels Analyzed in the September
2021 Preliminary Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level IMEF (ft\3\/ IWF (gal/cycle/ EER (lb/kWh/ WER (lb/gal/
EL description kWh/cycle) ft\3\) cycle) cycle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................... Current DOE 1.57 6.5 3.73 0.42
standard.
1............................. Gap fill........ 1.70 5.0 4.05 0.54
2............................. ENERGY STAR v. 2.06 4.3 4.37 0.65
8.1.
3............................. 2015-2017 CEE 2.38 3.7 4.96 0.73
Tier 1.
4............................. 2015 ENERGY STAR 2.76 3.5 5.30 0.73
Most Efficient/
Maximum
available.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.25--Front-Loading, Compact (<3.0 ft\3\) Preliminary Efficiency Levels Analyzed in the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level IMEF (ft\3\/ IWF (gal/cycle/ EER (lb/kWh/ WER (lb/gal/
EL description kWh/cycle) ft\3\) cycle) cycle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................... Current DOE 1.84 4.7 4.20 0.61
standard for
front-loading,
standard-size
(>=1.6 ft\3\).
1............................. ENERGY STAR v. 2.07 4.2 4.49 0.66
8.1 level for.
units <=2.5
ft\3\.
2............................. 2018-2022 ENERGY 2.20 3.7 4.78 0.71
STAR Most
Efficient for
units <=2.5
ft\3\.
3............................. ENERGY STAR v. 2.38 3.7 5.10 0.78
7.0 level for.
units >2.5 ft\3\
4............................. ENERGY STAR v. 2.76 3.2 5.60 0.88
8.1 level for.
units >2.5 ft\3\/
Maximum
available.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.26--Front-Loading, Standard-Size (>=3.0 ft\3\) Preliminary Efficiency Levels Analyzed in the September
2021 Preliminary Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level IMEF (ft\3\/ IWF (gal/cycle/ EER (lb/kWh/ WER (lb/gal/
EL description kWh/cycle) ft\3\) cycle) cycle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline...................... ENERGY STAR v. 2.38 3.7 4.90 0.81
7.0.
1............................. Gap fill........ 2.60 3.5 5.10 0.85
2............................. ENERGY STAR v. 2.76 3.2 5.30 0.90
8.1.
3............................. 2018-2022 ENERGY 2.92 3.2 5.60 0.90
STAR Most
Efficient.
4............................. Maximum 3.00 2.9 6.06 1.10
available.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 13555]]
In the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE sought comment on
the EER and WER levels identified as being equivalent to the IMEF and
IWF efficiency levels. DOE further requested data from manufacturers
indicating the EER and WER values equivalent to the IMEF and IWF
values, respectively, for RCW models currently on the market.
Whirlpool commented that DOE underestimated the impacts of the
amended test procedure on RCW efficiency and overestimated the number
of models that could meet the EER associated with EL 2 in the September
2021 Preliminary TSD, when tested under appendix J. (Whirlpool, No. 39
at p. 3) Whirlpool also commented that many current ENERGY STAR
certified RCWs meet the IMEF and IWF levels associated with preliminary
EL 2, but would not meet the EER and WER levels defined for EL 2. (Id.)
Whirlpool commented that this discrepancy could indicate that the
impact of the proposed amended standards could be more severe than DOE
analyzed. (Id.)
AHAM commented that without a proven translation between appendix
J2 and appendix J, DOE has no reliable means to estimate energy savings
from its incremental ELs. (AHAM, No. 40 at p. 16) AHAM commented that
it attempted to evaluate the accuracy of DOE's translation by comparing
tested appendix J2 and appendix J data among clothes washers that AHAM
tested. (Id.) AHAM presented a table comparing R-squared values for
AHAM test data with those presented by DOE in the preliminary analysis.
(Id.) AHAM commented that its results are consistent with DOE's
statement that the best-fit line method is insufficient for front-
loading clothes washers. (Id.) Additionally, AHAM concluded that DOE's
best-fit line equations show low levels of correlation between appendix
J2 and appendix J testing, especially for top-loading standard-size and
front-loading compact products. (Id.) AHAM therefore recommended that
DOE update its analysis to improve the accuracy of the best-fit line
equations and that DOE further investigate the impact of changing from
a capacity-based test procedure to a load size-based test procedure on
energy and water use. (Id.)
AHAM also presented data that plotted DOE's proposed efficiency
levels as well as EER versus WER data for the clothes washers that AHAM
tested. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 16-17) Based on the data, AHAM found that
65 percent of the top-loading standard-size RCWs it tested, which
represent about half of top-loading standard-size clothes washer
shipments, are less efficient than the EER/WER baseline proposed in the
September 2021 Preliminary TSD. (Id.) AHAM similarly noted that 44.5
percent of DOE's tested and predicted results are less efficient that
the proposed EER/WER baseline. (Id.) AHAM therefore recommended that
DOE shift the baseline for top-loading standard-size clothes washers so
that it appropriately represents the least efficient clothes washers on
the market. (Id.) AHAM suggested that DOE evaluate a gap-fill level
between a baseline level that accounts for the RCWs that fall below
DOE's proposed baseline level and DOE's proposed EL 1. (AHAM, No. 40 at
p. 18) AHAM further commented that the baseline EER/WER level DOE
proposed in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis could serve as a
gap-fill level. (Id.)
AHAM commented that it is challenging for top-loading standard-size
RCWs to reach the EER and WER levels associated with preliminary EL 2.
(AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 17-18) Since the IMEF and IWF efficiency levels
associated with preliminary EL 2 are the same as the current ENERGY
STAR levels, AHAM sought to clarify that DOE should not assume that the
current ENERGY STAR penetration values would represent the percentage
of models or shipments that can meet EL 2 when tested under appendix J.
(Id.)
Regarding DOE's method to evaluate average performance among market
clusters, AHAM commented that since DOE did not provide critical
calculation and evaluation metrics for its results, AHAM cannot
properly assess this approach or test the method's accuracy using
AHAM's data. (AHAM, No. 40 at p. 16)
AHAM commented that the models it tested represent approximately
half of total 2020 shipments, and that its test results bring into
question the accuracy to DOE's data. (AHAM, No. 53 at pp. 10-11) AHAM
recommended that DOE carefully evaluate AHAM's dataset and integrate it
with its own data in order to update its analysis. (Id.)
ASAP et al. commented that they support DOE's approach to use the
market cluster approach outlined in EPCA to develop efficiency levels.
(ASAP et al., No. 37 at p. 1)
The CA IOUs expressed concern that for the top-loading compact
product class, the IMEF versus EER and IWF versus WER translations
indicate opposite trends compared to the other three product classes,
showing a negative relationship between IMEF and EER and a positive
relationship between IWF and WER. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 3)
Following publication of the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis,
DOE published the April 2022 NODA, which presented the results of
additional testing conducted in furtherance of the development of the
translations between the current test procedure and the proposed new
test procedure. 87 FR 21816. The improved translation equations
addressed the concerns expressed by commenters regarding the
translations presented in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis. The
following section summarizes the translation approach presented in the
April 2022 NODA.
b. NODA Approach
In the April 2022 NODA, DOE published updated translation equations
that were developed using data points from the 44 units it tested to
both appendix J2 and appendix J. In a separate spreadsheet accompanying
the April 2022 NODA and available in the rulemaking docket, DOE also
published the underlying test results for each RCW model in its test
sample. 87 FR 21816, 21817. The April 2022 NODA summarized analyses of
RMC and water fill control system (``WFCS'') type, which DOE
tentatively determined have a significant impact on these translation
equations. Id.
To account for the impacts of RMC, DOE developed values for
``adjusted'' EER based on an ``adjusted'' RMC, which is equivalent to
the RMC value measured under appendix J2 plus 4 percentage points. Id.
To account for the difference in efficiency level correlation between
clothes washers with automatic and manual WFCS, DOE presented an
alternate set of translation equations that separate top-loading
portable RCWs (which use manual WFCS) from top-loading stationary RCWs
(which provide either automatic WFCS or both manual and automatic
WFCSs). 87 FR 21816, 21820.
The following sections summarize the adjusted RMC approach
presented in the April 2022 NODA. As discussed previously, RMC is a
significant contributor to both the IMEF and EER metrics. The approach
presented in the April 2022 NODA provides the foundation for the
approach used for this NOPR, as discussed further in section IV.C.5.c
of this document.
i. Adjusted RMC
The following paragraphs explain the difference in RMC measurement
methodology between appendix J2 and appendix J. This difference in
methodology underlies DOE's careful consideration of RMC in developing
the metric translation equations.
[[Page 13556]]
As discussed, the RMC is a measure of the amount of water remaining
in the clothing load after completion of the clothes washer cycle. The
RMC value is used to calculate the total per-cycle energy consumption
for removal of moisture from the clothes washer test load in a clothes
dryer to an assumed final moisture content, i.e., the ``drying
energy,'' which is one of the factors contained within both the IMEF
and EER metrics. Lower values of RMC result in less drying energy and
thus represent more-efficient performance.
Section 3.8.2 of appendix J2 requires that the RMC be calculated
based on a test run with the maximum load size on the Cold Wash/Cold
Rinse (``Cold/Cold'') temperature selection. Section 3.8.4 of appendix
J2 requires that for clothes washers that have multiple spin settings
\49\ available within the energy test cycle that result in different
RMC values, the maximum and minimum extremes of the available spin
settings must be tested with the maximum load size on the Cold/Cold
temperature selection.\50\ In this case, the final RMC is the weighted
average of the maximum and minimum spin settings, with the maximum spin
setting weighted at 75 percent and the minimum spin setting weighted at
25 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ The term ``spin settings'' refers to spin times or spin
speeds. The maximum spin setting results in a lower (better) RMC.
\50\ On clothes washers that provide a Warm Rinse option,
appendix J2 requires that RMC be measured on both Cold Rinse and
Warm Rinse, with the final RMC calculated as a weighted average
using TUFs of 73 percent for Cold Rinse and 27 percent for Warm
Rinse. DOE has observed very few RCW models on the market that offer
Warm Rinse. For simplicity throughout this discussion, DOE
references the testing requirements for clothes washers that offer
Cold Rinse only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, appendix J requires measuring RMC on each of the
energy test cycles (i.e., each load size and each wash/rinse
temperature combination included for testing) using the default spin
setting. On some clothes washers, the default spin setting is not the
maximum spin setting. In section 4.3 of appendix J, the final RMC is
calculated by weighting the individual RMC measurements using the same
temperature and load size weighting factors that apply to the water and
energy measurements.
As discussed in the April 2022 NODA, multiple factors can affect
the RMC of a particular cycle, including the spin speed and the
duration of the spin portion of the wash cycle. 87 FR 21816, 21818. The
size of the load can also affect RMC--generally, larger load sizes
result in lower (better) RMC values, whereas smaller load sizes result
in higher (worse) RMC values. Id. These factors result in different
measured RMC values for appendix J and appendix J2, specifically
because under appendix J, RMC is measured across a wider range of
cycles (compared to only the Cold/Cold cycle in appendix J2) and
because the appendix J load sizes are smaller than the appendix J2
maximum load size (on which the appendix J2 RMC measurement is based).
Id.
In the interest of improving the translation equations as presented
in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE conducted an in-depth
analysis of the differences in RMC between the appendix J2 and proposed
appendix J test procedures. Id. For each unit that DOE tested, DOE
examined the cycle-by-cycle test results to determine the key driver
behind the difference in RMC when testing to appendix J as compared to
appendix J2. Id. Based on this analysis, DOE identified three
categories of spin implementations that result in differences between
the appendix J RMC value and the appendix J2 RMC value, described as
follows.
The first type, referred to as ``consistent spin''
throughout the remainder of this NOPR, is illustrative of units in
which the characteristics of the spin cycle (e.g., spin speed, spin
time) are consistent across temperature selections. On these units, RMC
values measured on Warm/Cold, Hot/Cold, and Extra Hot/Cold cycles are
substantially similar to the RMC value measured on the Cold/Cold
cycle.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ DOE notes that the ``consistent spin'' designation is not
meant to exclude clothes washers that offer multiple spin speed
settings on the Normal cycle. Rather, the term ``consistent'' refers
to a particular spin speed setting demonstrating substantially
similar performance regardless of which wash/rinse temperature is
selected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second type, referred to as ``Cold/Cold optimized
spin'' throughout the remainder of this NOPR, is illustrative of units
in which the spin cycle is optimized on the Cold/Cold setting with
maximum load size, corresponding to the one cycle combination for which
RMC is measured under appendix J2. On these units, the spin portion of
the cycle is significantly faster or longer on either the Cold/Cold
setting, when using a maximum load size, or both as compared to the
other temperature settings or load sizes that are tested as part of the
energy test cycle.
The third type, referred to as ``non-default maximum
spin'' throughout the remainder of this NOPR, is illustrative of units
in which the maximum spin speed setting (which is tested under appendix
J2) is not the default spin speed setting on the Normal cycle. On these
units, the default spin speed setting tested under appendix J would
provide a lower-speed spin or a shorter spin portion of the cycle. Id.
For clothes washers with ``consistent spin,'' the only source of
difference between the measured RMC values under appendix J and
appendix J2 is the use of smaller load sizes for appendix J. Id. The
observed difference in RMC between the two test procedures is
relatively consistent among models from different manufacturers of RCWs
with this characteristic, as discussed further in this section. Id.
For clothes washers with ``Cold/Cold optimized spin'' the
difference between the measured RMC values under appendix J and
appendix J2 is due to a combination of both the smaller load sizes for
appendix J and the different spin behavior on the temperature settings
other than Cold/Cold. Id. The observed difference in RMC between the
two test procedures varies significantly among models from different
manufacturers of RCWs with ``Cold/Cold optimized spin,'' depending on
the degree to which the Cold/Cold RMC differs from the RMC on all other
tested cycles. Id.
For clothes washers with ``non-default maximum spin,'' the
difference between the measured RMC values under appendix J and
appendix J2 is due to a combination of both the smaller load sizes for
appendix J and the different spin behavior on the maximum and default
spin settings. Id. Similar to units with ``Cold/Cold optimized spin,''
the observed difference in RMC between the two test procedures varies
significantly among models from different manufacturers of RCWs with
``non-default maximum spin,'' depending on the degree to which the
maximum spin setting differs from the default spin setting. Id.
As discussed, the RMC value is the most significant contributor to
both the IMEF metric measured by appendix J2 and the EER metric
measured by appendix J. Id. Because of the more significant variation
in RMC between the two test procedures for ``Cold/Cold optimized spin''
and ``non-default maximum spin'' units, the correlation between IMEF
and EER for these units is less strong (i.e., lower ``R-squared''
values for the best-fit line) than for ``consistent spin'' units. Id.
at 87 FR 21819.
To investigate strategies for defining translation equations with a
stronger correlation between IMEF and EER, DOE developed a second set
of EER values based on an ``adjusted'' RMC value (substituted for the
measured RMC value) that assumes a ``consistent spin'' characteristic
for each unit in the
[[Page 13557]]
test sample. Id. Under this approach, only the change in load size
would be assumed to impact the RMC values measured under appendix J as
compared to appendix J2. Id. DOE's test data indicated that the smaller
load sizes under appendix J result in an increase in RMC of 4
percentage points compared to the RMC values measured under appendix J2
using the maximum load size. Id. Therefore, for this approach, DOE
calculated an ``adjusted RMC'' for each unit as the tested RMC value
under appendix J2 plus 4 percentage points. Id. DOE substituted this
adjusted RMC for the RMC value in the drying energy equation within the
EER calculation. Id. As demonstrated in the second set of ``adjusted''
translation plots, this approach produced translation equations with
significantly higher R-squared values, indicating a stronger
correlation between IMEF and EER. Id.
Comments submitted by a manufacturer in response to the September
2021 NOPR suggested that, were DOE to amend standards based on appendix
J as proposed, manufacturers that currently use ``Cold/Cold optimized
spin'' or ``non-default maximum spin''--which yield lower (i.e.,
better) RMC values on the Cold/Cold temperature setting compared to RMC
values obtained using the other temperature settings for RCWs with
``Cold/Cold optimized spin,'' and on the maximum spin setting for RCWs
with ``non-default maximum spin''--would likely implement similar
strategies to decrease the RMC across all cycles required for testing
under appendix J. (EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011, Whirlpool, No. 26 at p. 8-9).
Specifically, for ``Cold/Cold optimized spin'' units, manufacturers
would likely increase the spin speeds or spin durations across all
temperature settings to match the spin behavior of the Cold/Cold
temperature setting. For ``non-default maximum spin'' units,
manufacturers would likely make the maximum spin speed the default spin
setting to provide the lowest possible (i.e., best possible) RMC
measurement under appendix J.
In response to stakeholder questions, DOE published a supplemental
data report providing additional details as to how it calculated an
average increase in RMC of 4 percentage points due to the smaller load
sizes defined in appendix J.\52\ DOE investigated two separate methods
for determining the impact of test load size on RMC. Both methods
yielded nearly identical results, as described in the following
paragraphs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0048.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Method 1, DOE compared the final corrected RMC values obtained
under both test procedures for only those units that DOE designated as
having a ``consistent spin'' spin implementation. As described, units
designated as ``consistent spin'' demonstrate key characteristics of
the spin cycle (e.g., spin speed, spin time) that are consistent across
temperature selections; as such, DOE expects that for these units, the
difference between the two final RMC values is due primarily to the
difference in load sizes between the two test procedures. Among all the
``consistent spin'' units in the test sample, appendix J yielded a
final RMC value 3.7 percentage points higher than appendix J2, on
average.
For Method 2, DOE measured and compared the cycle-specific
corrected RMC values for only the following specific Cold/Cold cycles:
the appendix J2 Cold/Cold cycle with a maximum load size and default
spin settings; the appendix J Cold/Cold cycle with a large load size
and default spin settings; and the appendix J Cold/Cold cycle with a
small load size and default spin settings. These three cycles differ
only in load size, such that the differences between the RMC values are
due primarily to the difference in load sizes.
DOE first calculated the average RMC value of these two appendix J
cycles (consistent with the equivalent load weighting factors for the
large and small load sizes defined by appendix J) and compared the
resulting value to the RMC value for this appendix J2 cycle. Among all
the units in the test sample, this approach indicated that the average
of the large and small load sizes under appendix J yielded a final RMC
value 3.8 percentage points higher than the maximum load size under
appendix J2, on average.
In summary, the results from both Method 1 and Method 2 suggest
that the smaller load sizes under appendix J result in an increase in
RMC of approximately 4 percentage points, on average, compared to the
RMC values measured under appendix J2 using the maximum load size.
In the April 2022 NODA, DOE requested comment on whether, if DOE
were to establish amended RCW standards based on appendix J as
proposed, manufacturers that currently use the ``Cold/Cold optimized
spin'' strategy for their RCWs would modify the spin behavior across
all temperature settings to match the spin behavior of the Cold/Cold
temperature setting; and whether manufacturers that currently use the
``non-default maximum spin'' strategy for their RCWs would design the
maximum spin speed to be the default spin setting. DOE further
requested comment on the impact of such changes to the energy and water
use, other aspects of consumer-relevant performance, and life-cycle
cost of RCWs. 87 FR 21816.
The CA IOUs commented that all three of the spin strategies
identified by DOE are currently on the market, and that identification
of these three types of RMC strategies implemented in products
currently on the market shows the value that appendix J will provide,
in contrast to products optimized for the appendix J2 test rather than
what the CA IOUs characterized as ``real-world'' operation. (CA IOUs,
No. 52 at pp. 1-2)
According to ComEd and NEEA, NEEA's testing of 12 clothes washers
representing more than 20 percent of sales from May 2018 to April 2019
confirms DOE's three spin implementation types for stationary RCWs;
therefore, ComEd and NEEA encouraged DOE to continue to use these spin
profiles. (ComEd and NEEA, No. 50 at p. 3)
ComEd and NEEA commented that they agree with DOE's assumption that
manufacturers will likely maintain a similar measured efficiency of
RCWs with the transition to appendix J, and they support DOE's
assumption that manufacturers will modify RCWs to spin consistently
across all cycles tested, enabling a comparable RMC and drying energy
under appendix J. (ComEd and NEEA, No. 50 at pp. 2-4) According to
ComEd and NEEA, most RCWs have a delicate wash program that consumers
can use for textiles that may not be able to withstand higher spin
speeds or longer spin durations, such that ComEd and NEEA do not expect
changes to RMC as a result of appendix J to impact RCW utility. (Id.)
For these reasons, ComEd and NEEA supported DOE's approach to
developing the adjusted appendix J efficiency values proposed in the
April 2022 NODA and encouraged DOE to employ the adjusted appendix J
efficiency values to develop future candidate standards levels for RCW.
(Id.)
ASAP et al. expressed support for DOE's April 2022 NODA approach to
develop a more robust translation of RCW energy and water usage metrics
from the current appendix J2 to the new appendix J test procedure.
(ASAP et al., No. 51 at pp. 1-2) Specifically, ASAP et al. expressed
support for the approach of developing translations and resulting ELs
based on adjusted RMC given the significant impact of RMC on overall
[[Page 13558]]
energy usage and resulting efficiency ratings. (Id.) ASAP et al.
commented that given Whirlpool's comments suggesting that manufacturers
with RCWs optimized for the appendix J2 spin settings would likely re-
program these units to perform better when tested under new appendix J,
ASAP et al. find it reasonable to assume that manufacturers would
modify RCW spin settings if DOE were to establish amended standards
based on the new appendix J. (Id.)
AHAM commented in response to the September 2021 Preliminary
Analysis that DOE's proposed changes to the load sizes in new appendix
J would lead to an increase in RMC. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 9-10) AHAM
noted that accordingly, manufacturers would need to increase spin speed
and spin times to compensate for this change so that they continue to
comply with future energy conservation standards. (Id.)
In response to the April 2022 NODA, AHAM presented data that
examined the corrected RMC of units with ``consistent spin,'' including
units that were tested by both AHAM and DOE. (AHAM, No. 53 at pp. 8-10)
AHAM's data presented RMC for each unit as tested to appendix J2 and
appendix J, and the difference between those values for each unit.
(Id.) AHAM noted that when only considering units tested by AHAM, the
average difference in RMC is 5.9 percent,\53\ as opposed to the 3.7
percent average RMC difference calculated when only using the units in
DOE's test sample from the April 2022 NODA. (Id.) AHAM also noted that
when the AHAM and DOE datasets are combined, the average RMC difference
is 4.7 percent. (Id.) AHAM commented that the difference in averages
show that average RMC difference is subject to changes in sample
content and size. (Id.) AHAM also commented that the range of RMC
differences is wide. (Id.) AHAM noted that DOE's sample ranges from -
1.6 to 11.3 percent difference, AHAM's sample ranges from -1.0 percent
to 16.4 percent difference, and the combined sample has a range of -1.6
to 16.4 percent difference. (Id.) AHAM further commented that the
models were well-distributed throughout the range and that the end
points of this range are not outliers. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ DOE uses the term ``percent'' in this context to refer to
RMC percentage points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM commented that due to the wide range of differences in RMC
between appendix J2 and appendix J testing among units in AHAM's and
DOE's test samples, in AHAM's opinion, the average is not
representative of the range of differences in the data. (AHAM, No. 53
at p. 10) AHAM also added that the average difference in RMC is highly
susceptible to change depending on which and how many units are
included in the dataset, which demonstrates that the average is not a
reliable value for determining an ``adder'' to account for design
optimization to the new test procedure. (Id.) AHAM commented that
without a proven translation between appendix J2 and appendix J, DOE
has no reliable means to estimate energy savings from its incremental
efficiency levels until it can conduct testing or receive test data to
assist in re-establishing the baseline. (Id.)
AHAM commented that without a finalized test procedure to consider
during the majority of the April 2022 NODA comment period and during
the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis comment period, it was
impossible to evaluate the percentage that would be appropriate for RMC
adjustment, when the test procedure could change from DOE's proposal.
(AHAM, No. 53 at p. 12) AHAM commented that even if an RMC adjustment
is an appropriate approach for developing a translation between
appendix J2 and appendix J, it does not change the overall concerns
AHAM has with appendix J. (Id.) AHAM recommended that, now that DOE has
finalized the test procedure, DOE should collect data to determine
whether a translation equation or adjustment factor are possible and,
if not, collect data to reestablish the baseline. (Id.)
AHAM further commented that without a proven translation between
appendix J2 and appendix J, DOE has no reliable means to estimate
energy savings from its incremental efficiency levels until it can
conduct testing or receive test data to assist in re-establishing the
baseline. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 10) AHAM also commented that DOE needs to
further investigate the impact of the change from capacity-based
efficiency metrics to load-size based efficiency metrics. (Id.)
In response to AHAM's comment regarding the specific value of the
``adjusted'' RMC adder determined in the April 2022 NODA, DOE has
closely reviewed AHAM's RMC data to understand the reason for the
larger average difference between the test procedures than was observed
in DOE's data. DOE also closely re-examined its own data, as presented
in appendix 5A of the NOPR TSD. The following paragraphs summarize
DOE's key conclusions from this analysis.
DOE notes that in both datasets, any differences above 10 percent
appear to be outliers, as evidenced by a large gap in data points
between 6 percent and 11 percent (whereas the data points less than 6
percent are fairly evenly distributed around the mean of 4 percent).
DOE re-evaluated the unit in its test sample with an RMC difference
of 11.1 percent. Upon closer examination, DOE determined that this unit
was incorrectly characterized in the April 2022 NODA as having a
``consistent spin'' spin implementation. Upon closer examination of the
time series power data for each cycle, this unit exhibits ``Cold/Cold
optimized spin'' behavior and therefore should be excluded from
consideration for the purpose of determining an RMC adjustment factor
based on load size differences alone. Although DOE does not have access
to the time series power data underlying AHAM's data submission, DOE's
determination that the outlier unit in DOE's test sample was
incorrectly categorized suggests that the outlier units in AHAM's
sample may also be incorrectly categorized as having ``consistent
spin'' spin implementation. As discussed, given the large gap in data
points between 6 percent and 11 percent, and given DOE's determination
that it had incorrectly categorized its unit at 11 percent, DOE
tentatively determines that the outlier data points above 11 percent
very likely do not represent units with ``consistent spin'' spin
implementation and therefore should be excluded from the analysis to
determine an RMC adjustment factor based on load size differences
alone.
Excluding such data points, DOE notes that the revised mean of
DOE's dataset would be 3.4 percent. Excluding the values 12.1, 15.8,
and 16.3 from AHAM's dataset, the revised mean would be 3.7 percent.
Considering both datasets together, the revised mean of the joint
dataset would be 3.5 percent.
Based on this analysis, DOE tentatively determines that a 4-
percentage-point adder (rounded to the nearest whole number) provides a
representative estimate of the change in RMC between the two test
procedures due to only the change in load size. In this NOPR, DOE
maintains use of the 4-percentage-point adder to calculate ``adjusted
RMC'' for the purposes of developing translation equations.
ii. NODA Translation Equations
In the April 2022 NODA, DOE presented several versions of the
translation equations that DOE could consider using to define potential
higher efficiency levels based on the new EER and WER metrics. In
particular, for the top-loading standard-size product class, DOE
presented potential translations based on data points for all
[[Page 13559]]
configurations as well as separate translations specific to stationary
units with automatic WFCS and portable units with manual WFCS.
In response to the April 2022 NODA, AHAM presented data showing the
R-squared values for the translation equations developed using DOE's
data from the April 2022 NODA and using AHAM's data. (AHAM, No. 53 at
p. 11) AHAM commented that the R-squared value for ``top-loading,
standard, all configurations'' is very low, and that there is not a
meaningful improvement using the adjusted RMC approach using DOE's data
alone, or the combined AHAM and DOE dataset. (Id.)
AHAM commented that it understands that DOE's 4-percent adjustment
in RMC was developed only to account for changes in tested spin speeds
between appendix J2 and appendix J. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 11) However,
AHAM noted that there could be other design changes manufacturers would
employ to account for the new test procedure. (Id.) AHAM added that DOE
indicated that it did not consider other potential design changes.
(Id.) AHAM added that it is inappropriate for a test procedure to drive
design changes in and of itself. (Id.)
AHAM commented that it does not believe at this time that the
translation equation can adequately address all models or changes in
the test procedure to serve as a replacement for reestablishing the
baseline through test data. (Id.) AHAM recommended that should DOE
pursue a translation equation despite AHAM's comments that doing so is
not supported by available data, DOE should consider design changes
other than spin speed because spin speeds are not the only thing
manufacturers will need to change in product design due to the new test
procedure. (Id.)
DOE acknowledged in the April 2022 NODA that for the top-loading
standard-size product class, each of the separate translation equations
has a stronger correlation (i.e., higher R-squared value) than the
single translation equation in which top-loading portable and top-
loading stationary products are combined. 87 FR 21816, 21820. DOE notes
that the combined dataset for the top-loading standard-size sample
contained 12 stationary units (representing 71 percent of the sample)
and 5 portable units (representing 29 percent of the sample). Shipment
data submitted by AHAM indicates that top-loading portable clothes
washers represent approximately 1 percent of the top-loading market.
This indicates that the portable configuration was significantly over-
sampled within the combined dataset.
For this NOPR, DOE proposes to use datapoints representing only
stationary units to develop the translation equations for the top-
loading standard-size product class, on the basis that these units'
characteristics are significantly more representative of the market
than the portable configuration. Appendix 5A of the NOPR TSD provides
further details and discussion of the development of the translation
equations for this NOPR.
c. NOPR Approach
For this NOPR, DOE used the ``adjusted EER'' approach presented in
the April 2022 NODA to define the translation between the appendix J2
and appendix J metrics for this NOPR. Additionally, as discussed
further in appendix 5A of the NOPR TSD, DOE used AHAM's dataset to
confirm the accuracy and appropriateness of these translation
equations. Table IV.27 through Table IV.30 show the efficiency level
translations considered in this NOPR based on the updated efficiency
metric translations presented in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
Table IV.27--Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact (<1.6 ft\3\) Efficiency Level Translations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level IMEF (ft\3\/kWh/ IWF (gal/cycle/ EER (lb/kWh/ WER (lb/gal/
EL description cycle) ft\3\) cycle) cycle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline............. Current DOE 1.15 12.0 3.79 0.29
standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.28--Top-Loading, Standard-Size (>=1.6 ft\3\) Efficiency Level Translations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level IMEF (ft\3\/kWh/ IWF (gal/cycle/ EER (lb/kWh/ WER (lb/gal/
EL description cycle) ft\3\) cycle) cycle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline............. Current DOE 1.57 6.5 3.50 0.38
standard.
1.................... Gap fill......... 1.82 5.4 3.89 0.47
2.................... ENERGY STAR v. 2.06 4.3 4.27 0.57
8.1.
3.................... 2015-2017 CEE 2.38 3.7 4.78 0.63
Tier 1.
4.................... Maximum available 2.76 3.2 5.37 0.67
(2016/2017
ENERGY STAR Most
Efficient).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.29--Front-Loading, Compact (<3.0 ft\3\) Efficiency Level Translations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level IMEF (ft\3\/kWh/ IWF (gal/cycle/ EER (lb/kWh/ WER (lb/gal/
EL description cycle) ft\3\) cycle) cycle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline............. Current DOE 1.84 4.7 4.41 0.53
standard for
front-loading,
standard-size
(>=1.6 ft\3\).
1.................... ENERGY STAR v. 2.07 4.2 4.80 0.62
8.1 level for
units <=2.5
ft\3\.
2.................... 2023 ENERGY STAR 2.20 3.7 5.02 0.71
Most Efficient
for units <=2.5
ft\3\.
3.................... Gap fill......... 2.50 3.5 5.53 0.75
4.................... Maximum available 2.76 3.2 5.97 0.80
(ENERGY STAR v.
8.1 level for
units >2.5
ft\3\).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 13560]]
Table IV.30--Front-Loading, Standard-Size (>=3.0 ft\3\) Efficiency Level Translations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency Level IMEF (ft\3\/kWh/ IWF (gal/cycle/ EER (lb/kWh/ WER (lb/gal/
EL Description cycle) ft\3\) cycle) cycle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline............. ENERGY STAR v. 2.38 3.7 5.02 0.64
7.0.
1.................... Gap fill......... 2.60 3.5 5.31 0.69
2.................... ENERGY STAR v. 2.76 3.2 5.52 0.77
8.1.
3.................... 2023 ENERGY STAR 2.92 3.2 5.73 0.77
Most Efficient.
4.................... Maximum available 3.10 2.9 5.97 0.85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Alternative Approaches
For this NOPR, DOE analyzed the efficiency levels determined by the
dataset, translation equations, and baseline definition approach
previously presented in section IV.C.5.c. However, DOE is also
considering alternate approaches for each of these components (i.e.,
the dataset to use, the method of defining translation equations, and
the method for defining baseline) as well as any combination thereof,
as described in the following sections.
i. Joint DOE-AHAM Dataset
As discussed, AHAM has shared RCW test data with DOE, which DOE
used to confirm the accuracy and appropriateness of the NOPR
translation equations. As discussed in appendix 5A of the NOPR TSD, DOE
considered developing alternate translation equations using the joint
dataset containing both DOE and AHAM test data. However, neither the
DOE dataset nor the AHAM dataset identifies the individual model
numbers of each unit in the sample; therefore, DOE cannot ascertain
whether the joint dataset double-counts any individual models. For this
reason, DOE has tentatively determined to not use translation equations
based on the joint dataset in this NOPR. Rather, DOE has overlayed the
AHAM data onto the translation equations developed using DOE's dataset
in order to confirm that the AHAM and DOE datasets exhibit consistent
trends, as discussed further in appendix 5A of the NOPR TSD.
DOE seeks comment on its tentative determination to use the DOE
dataset as the basis for the translation equations rather than use the
joint DOE-AHAM dataset.
ii. Merging Compact and Standard-Size Translation Equations
The CA IOUs suggested that DOE eliminate the standard-size and
compact product classes when developing both the ``best-fit line
method'' and the ``average performance and market cluster method''. (CA
IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 2-3) The CA IOUs stated that segmenting product
classes into standard-size and compact arbitrarily separates products
at a discrete product capacity and assumes that the relationship of
IMEF to EER and IWF to WER is impacted by assignment to compact and
standard-size categories. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that while
product classes can be useful for categorization, this categorization
should not be confused for statistically justifiable clusters when
conducting a translation analysis. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that,
although it may be appropriate to segment the data by product classes
or a subset of unique performance attributes (such as top-loading
versus front-loading), these performance attributes should be
demonstrated with supporting analysis. (Id.) The CA IOUs suggested that
a statistical clustering analysis such as k-means clustering could be
used to show that the relationship between appendix J2 and appendix J
metrics has fundamental differences that impact performance. (Id.) The
CA IOUs commented that the separate categorization between compact and
standard-size clothes washers assumes performance is impacted by
product class alone, and that a k-means clustering would confirm if
these four categories were statistically justified. (Id.) The CA IOUs
stated that the relationship between appendix J2 and appendix J metrics
could instead operate on a continuum based on capacity. (Id.) The CA
IOUs commented that they believe that product performance is impacted
by capacity, which exists along a continuum in alignment with the
product performance relationship to capacity. (Id.) The CA IOUs also
commented that they believe the relationship between the appendix J2
and appendix J metrics should be controlled along that same continuum
of capacity, and requested that DOE provide the measured EERs and WERs
of products tested to appendix J so that this hypothesis can be tested.
(Id.) The CA IOUs commented that combining data between compact and
standard-size product classes will improve model fits to be better than
the models presented in the September 2021 Preliminary TSD. (Id.) The
CA IOUS also commented that combining data will address the lack of
tested appendix J data in the top-loading compact product class. (Id.)
DOE evaluated the CA IOUs' suggestion to develop only two sets of
translation equations (i.e., one per axis of loading) rather than four
(i.e., one per product class). Appendix 5A of the NOPR TSD presents the
detailed results of this analysis.
DOE notes that automatic top-loading ultra-compact and automatic
top-loading standard-size clothes washers have significantly different
operational characteristics (beyond just a difference in capacity),
such that DOE does not expect that there should be a consistent
correlation between appendix J2 and appendix J performance across the
two product classes. For example, DOE has observed that the top-loading
ultra-compact units on the market offer only two wash temperatures
(warm and cold), and as such, hot water heating energy makes up a
significantly lower fraction of total energy compared to top-loading
standard-size units.\54\ Furthermore, although AHAM did not provide
shipment data for the top-loading ultra-compact product class, DOE
expects that because these represent niche products, this product class
likely represents less than 1 percent of total sales. If DOE were to
combine the 2 top-loading ultra-compact points with the 12 data points
for top-loading standard-size units, the ultra-compact class would be
significantly oversampled (e.g., 14 percent of the data versus less
than 1 percent of sales). For these reasons, DOE is not proposing to
use translation equations for top-loading product classes based on a
single dataset that combines top-loading ultra-compact units with top-
loading standard-size units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ As shown in the energy breakdown tables in chapter 7 of the
NOPR TSD, hot water heating energy represents 5 percent of the total
energy for the top-loading ultra-compact product class. Whereas, for
the baseline efficiency level in the top-loading standard-size
product class, hot water heating energy represents 16 percent of
total energy use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, for the front-loading product classes, if DOE were to
combine its 13 front-loading compact points with
[[Page 13561]]
its 12 front-loading standard-size points, the compact class would be
significantly oversampled (e.g., 52 percent of the data versus 6
percent of shipments, based on AHAM data). For this reason, DOE is not
proposing to use translation equations for front-loading product
classes based on a single dataset that combines front-loading compact-
size units with front-loading standard-size units.
DOE seeks comment on its tentative determination not to merge the
compact and standard-size translations, but to instead develop separate
translations for each product class.
iii. ``Unadjusted'' Baseline Approach
The CA IOUs commented that DOE should base its translation analysis
on currently available cycle settings and performance and not employ
the proposed 4-percentage-point adjustment. (CA IOUs, No. 52 at pp. 1-
2) The CA IOUs added that using the performance of currently available
products more accurately reflects real-world energy and water
efficiencies. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that based on manufacturer
input identified by DOE, the CA IOUs understand DOE's consideration
that manufacturers may simply implement strategies similar to Cold/Cold
optimized spin and non-default maximum spin to decrease RMC. (Id.) The
CA IOUs stated that while some manufacturers may take this approach,
this presumption should not be used as part of the baseline translation
for all products. (Id.) The CA IOUs further commented that improving
the RMC of different cycle settings (e.g., operating small loads at
higher spin speeds or software adjustments to optimize RMC for
different wash/rinse temperatures) should be treated as a low-cost
technology option for efficiency level development, and that DOE's
proposal of applying a 4-percentage point adjustment to the tested RMC
of appendix J2 (the RMC of appendix J plus the difference in RMC for
the smaller loads tested under appendix J2) only accounts for the
natural difference in load size centrifugal force using the same spin
speed and duration, effectively removes small load RMC improvements as
a technology option. (Id.) The CA IOUs noted that this adjustment does
improve the R-squared, the coefficient of determination for the
translation correlation, but at the expense of accurately representing
the differences between appendix J and appendix J2, which is what
appendix J is partly designed to capture. (Id.) The CA IOUs added that
while a higher R-squared translation correlation is preferable, the CA
IOUs stated it should not be achieved at the expense of removing
product-to-product variation that represents the real-world operation
of available products. (Id.)
ComEd and NEEA supported DOE's efforts to develop a more robust
translation from appendix J2 to appendix J and DOE's general approach
and methodology. (ComEd and NEEA, No. 50 at p. 2) However, ComEd and
NEEA commented that NEEA estimates there will be 0.3 quads of newly
realized real-world site energy savings achieved with this test
procedure update that were counted earlier (by assuming a lower RMC
across all cycles even though RMC was only tested on one cycle setting)
but uncaptured in practice, and that this substantial energy savings is
twice the site energy savings DOE calculated for EL 1 in the September
2021 Preliminary TSD. (Id.) ComEd and NEEA stated that this discrepancy
validates DOE's continued efforts to move forward with the translation
analysis using appendix J. (Id.)
ComEd and NEEA recommended that DOE not justify costs associated
with the translation of spin implementations from appendix J2 to
appendix J for three key reasons. (ComEd and NEEA, No. 50 at p. 4)
First, for the most common RCW spin implementation (``consistent
spin''), there is zero incremental cost to obtain the adjusted appendix
J EER value because no design changes are needed to retain spin
performance. (Id.) Second, for RCWs with ``cold-cold optimized'' spin
and ``non-default maximum'' spin implementations, the incremental cost
to achieve the adjusted appendix J EER value is nearly zero. (Id.)
Third, these costs were already accounted for in the May 2012 Final
Rule in the case of RCWs with increased spin time over the appliance
lifetime whose manufacturers choose to upgrade to more durable
components. (Id.)
In response to the CA IOUs' comments, DOE is also considering an
alternate approach to the translation of IMEF to EER in which DOE would
define the baseline efficiency level based on a translation between
appendix J2 and appendix J metrics without consideration of any changes
to spin implementations as a result of adopting the appendix J test
procedure. EL 1, in contrast, would be represented by the baseline
level presented in this NOPR (i.e., reflecting the 4 percent ``adjusted
RMC'' approach). As suggested by the CA IOUs, this approach would allow
for a more explicit consideration of savings that are likely to occur
solely as a result of the switching from appendix J2 to appendix J, as
opposed to those savings already being reflected at baseline level.
Appendix 5A of the NOPR TSD details the specific efficiency levels that
could be defined for each front-loading product class using this
approach.
In response to ComEd and NEEA's comment that DOE should not include
the costs associated with changes to spin implementation as a result of
the change in test procedure, DOE notes that all costs incurred by
manufacturers in response to this NOPR have been included in this NOPR
analysis. While there may be zero incremental manufacturing cost to
changing spin implementation, such changes would incur product
conversion costs, as discussed further in section IV.J.2.c of this
document. With regard to the assertion that these costs were already
accounted for in the May 2012 Final Rule, the standards enacted by the
May 2012 Final Rule were based on a different test procedure (i.e.,
appendix J2) than the test procedure proposed as a basis for the
amended standards in this NOPR (i.e., appendix J). To the extent that
appendix J requires manufacturers to change designs of products as they
currently exist in the market, such changes are justifiable in
considering in this analysis, irrespective of the costs that may have
been incurred previously by manufacturers as a result of product
investments required to comply with the standards enacted by the May
2012 Final Rule.
DOE seeks comment on whether it should consider defining an
``unadjusted'' baseline efficiency level based on a translation between
appendix J2 and appendix J metrics without consideration of any changes
to spin implementations as a result of adopting the appendix J test
procedure.
D. Markups Analysis
The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g.,
manufacturer markup, retailer markups, distributor markups, contractor
markups) in the distribution chain and sales taxes to convert the MPC
estimates derived in the engineering analysis to consumer prices, which
are then used in the LCC and PBP analysis. At each step in the
distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product to
cover business costs and profit margin.
To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit
margin, DOE applies a multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC.
The resulting manufacturer selling price (``MSP'') is the price at
which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. DOE developed
an average manufacturer markup by examining the annual
[[Page 13562]]
Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'') 10-K reports filed by
publicly traded manufacturers primarily engaged in appliance
manufacturing and whose combined product range includes RCWs.\55\ See
chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for additional detail on the manufacturer
markup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Electronic Data
Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system. Available at
www.sec.gov/edgar/search/ (last accessed July 1, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For RCWs, the main parties in the post-manufacturer distribution
chain are retailers/distributors and consumers. DOE developed baseline
and incremental markups for each of these. Baseline markups are applied
to the price of products with baseline efficiency, while incremental
markups are applied to the difference in price between baseline and
higher-efficiency models (the incremental cost increase). The
incremental markup is typically less than the baseline markup and is
designed to maintain similar per-unit operating costs before and after
amended standards.\56\ DOE relied on economic data from the U.S. Census
Bureau to estimate average baseline and incremental markups.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Because the projected price of standards-compliant products
is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the
same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would
result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an outcome is
possible, DOE maintains that in markets that are reasonably
competitive it is unlikely that standards would lead to a
sustainable increase in profitability in the long run.
\57\ US Census Bureau, Annual Wholesale Trade Survey. 2017.
Available at www.census.gov/awts (last accessed May 2, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE's development of
markups for RCWs.
E. Energy and Water Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy and water use analysis is to determine
the annual energy and water consumption of RCWs at different
efficiencies in representative U.S. single-family homes, multi-family
residences, and mobile homes, and to assess the energy savings
potential of increased RCW efficiency. The energy and water use
analysis estimates the range of energy and water use of RCWs in the
field (i.e., as they are actually used by consumers). The energy and
water use analysis provides the basis for other analyses DOE performed,
particularly assessments of the energy and water savings and the
savings in consumer operating costs that could result from adoption of
amended or new standards.
To establish a reasonable range of energy and water consumption in
the field for RCWs, DOE primarily used data from 2015 RECS.\58\ RECS is
a national sample survey of housing units that collects statistical
information on the consumption of and expenditures for energy in
housing units along with data on energy-related characteristics of the
housing units and occupants. The 2015 RECS collected data on 5,686
housing units and was constructed by EIA to be a national
representation of the household population in the United States.\59\
DOE's assumptions for establishing an RCW sample included the following
considerations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 2015 Public
Use Data Files, 2015. Available at www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recspubuse15/pubuse15.html (last accessed May 12, 2022).
\59\ RECS 2015 is the most recent edition of RECS available at
the time of this NOPR analysis. For the final rule analysis, DOE
plans to use the microdata of the 2020 RECS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The household had a clothes washer.
Clothes washer use was greater than zero.
DOE divided the sample of households into five sub-samples to
characterize the product category being analyzed: standard-size or
compact or semi-automatic, top-loading or front-loading RCWs. For
compact and semi-automatic clothes washers, DOE developed a sub-sample
consisting of households from multifamily buildings, manufactured
homes, and single-family homes with less than 1,000 square feet and no
garage or basement, since DOE reasoned that such products are most
likely to be found in these housing types.
The energy and water use analysis requires DOE to establish a range
of total annual usage or annual number of cycles in order to estimate
annual energy and water consumption by a clothes washer unit. DOE
estimated the number of clothes washer cycles per year for each sample
household using data given by RECS 2015 on the number of laundry loads
washed (clothes washer cycles) per week.
For each sample household, DOE estimated the field-based annual
energy and water use of the clothes washer by multiplying the annual
number of clothes washer cycles for each household by the per-cycle
energy and water use values established by the engineering analysis
(using the DOE test procedure) for each considered efficiency level.
Per-cycle clothes washer energy use is calculated in the test procedure
as the sum of per-cycle machine energy use associated with the clothes
washer (including the energy used to heat water and remove moisture
from clothing),\60\ and combined low-power mode energy use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ The per-cycle energy consumption associated with a given
clothes washer has three components: energy used for heating water,
operating the machine, and drying the clothes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Number of Annual Cycles
The average annual energy and water consumption reflects an average
annual weighted usage of 238 cycles per year (233 for top-loading
clothes washers and 254 for front-loading clothes washers). This
average usage is obtained from 2015 RECS.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ DOE acknowledges that the value of 238 average annual
cycles used in the Energy and Water Use Analysis differs from the
value of 234 annual cycles used in appendix J. As discussed above,
the value of 238 was determined while excluding RECS households that
do not use their clothes washer (i.e., households with clothes
washer use equal to 0 cycles per week) because these households'
clothes washers would not contribute to the nation's total energy
and water use. By comparison, the value of 234 used in appendix J
did not exclude such households, because the test procedure is
designed to represent the average household energy and water usage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren et al. recommended that DOE not use the number of annual
clothes washer cycles predicted by the RECS methodology because it
relies on participant recollection and is therefore subject to recall
bias. They stated that a single RECS respondent may not accurately
count cycles of other household members, leading to underestimates.
(Ameren et al., No. 42 at pp. 16-17)
RECS asks ``In a typical week, about how many times is your clothes
washer used?'' A response does not require recollection of behavior in
the distant past. DOE acknowledges that recall bias is in general an
issue in surveys where consumers are asked about their past behavior,
but DOE does not believe that RECS households would significantly
underestimate the number of washer cycles.
Ameren et al. encouraged DOE to increase the annual number of
clothes washer cycles in its analysis and/or conduct its own field
study to determine more accurately the average annual number of clothes
washer cycles given that the RECS estimate is significantly lower than
the annual number of cycles calculated in NEEA's RBSA Laundry study
published in 2014 (``2014 Laundry Study'').\62\ (Ameren et al., No. 42
at pp. 17-18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Hannas, B. and Gilman, L. 2014. RBSA Laundry Study (Report
# E14-287). Portland, OR: Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. p.
38. 20 November. Retrieved from neea.org/resources/rbsa-laundry-study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE reviewed the 2014 Laundry Study. Because the Study collected
field metering data from 45 homes across three States, with more than
70 percent
[[Page 13563]]
of selected homes located in Washington State, it is not a
representative sample of all U.S. households that use a clothes washer.
The 2015 RECS is a nationally representative sample of U.S. households
with more than 5,600 households with a clothes washer. For the final
rule analysis, DOE plans to use the microdata of the 2020 RECS, which
was released in July 2022 and contains a nationally representative
sample of 18,500 occupied U.S. households.
2. Rebound Effect
In calculating energy consumption of RCWs, DOE considered whether
it would be appropriate to include a rebound effect (also called a
take-back effect), which represents the increased energy consumption
that can result from increases in energy efficiency and the associated
reduction in operating costs. The rebound effect assumes that consumers
will increase their overall annual usage of a more efficient product,
thereby decreasing their overall annual savings.
Ameren et al. commented in support of DOE's determination that
there is no rebound effect associated with more efficient clothes
washers and agreed with DOE that consumers will not use their clothes
washers more if the efficiency increases. (Ameren et al., No. 42 at p.
20)
DOE requests comment and information on the specific efficiency
levels at which any potential rebound effects may happen, as well as
the magnitude of the effect.
Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE's energy and
water use analysis for RCWs.
3. Water Heating Energy Use
Per-cycle water heating energy consumption is one of the four
energy components in the EER metric. Appendix J includes water-heating
energy equations that estimate the energy required by the household
water heater to heat the hot water used by the clothes washer. In
section 4.1.2 of appendix J, the water heating energy consumption is
calculated by multiplying the measured volume of hot water by a
constant fixed temperature rise of 65 [deg]F and by the specific heat
of water. No efficiency or loss factor is included in this calculation,
which implies an electric water heater efficiency of 100 percent.
Ameren et al. presented data from 3 studies that contradict DOE's
assertion that 78 percent efficiency is typical for gas water heaters.
Based on these 3 studies, Ameren et al. concluded that both market and
field data analysis reveal that typical gas water heater efficiency
ranges from 62 to 70 percent. (Ameren et al., No. 42 at pp. 14-16) ASAP
et al. commented that they believe DOE's assumption of 100 percent
efficiency for electric water heaters and 78 percent efficiency for gas
water heaters is likely significantly overstating the efficiencies of
water heaters in the field. ASAP et al. commented that based on
shipment data from the last water heater rulemaking and current models
in DOE's CCD, the shipment-weighted efficiencies for new water heaters
are about 92 percent for electric water heaters and 64 percent for gas
water heaters. (ASAP et al., No. 37 at pp. 2-3)
In the 2019 preliminary analysis for consumer water heaters, DOE
calculated the energy use of water heaters using a simplified energy
equation, the water heater analysis model (WHAM). WHAM accounts for a
range of operating conditions and energy efficiency characteristics of
water heaters. To describe energy efficiency characteristics of water
heaters, WHAM uses three parameters that also are used in the DOE test
procedure: recovery efficiency, standby heat-loss coefficient, and
rated input power. The September 2021 Preliminary TSD states that DOE
used a recovery efficiency of 78 percent for gas water heaters, not
0.78 Energy Factor for the calculation of hot water energy savings. The
hot water energy savings are almost directly proportional to the
recovery efficiency, and the NOPR analysis uses the most recent data
reported for the 2022 consumer water heater rulemaking.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ DOE, 2022-03 Preliminary Analysis Technical Support
Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and
Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Consumer Water Heaters, March
2022. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0019-0018. Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0019-0018 (last accessed June 21, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASAP et al. recommended that DOE clarify the hot water temperature
rise estimate used in the hot water energy usage calculations and
suggested that believe a value lower than 75 [deg]F (e.g., 67.5 [deg]F)
would more accurately reflect hot water energy usage. (ASAP et al., No.
37 at p. 5)
For this NOPR analysis, DOE revised hot water temperature rise from
75 [deg]F to 65 [deg]F based on the updates in the RCW test procedure.
87 FR 33316, 33326-33327.
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts
on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for
RCWs. The effect of new or amended energy conservation standards on
individual consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and
an increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following two metrics to
measure consumer impacts:
The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or
product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed
cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales
tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy
and water use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating
costs, DOE discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and
sums them over the lifetime of the product.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it
takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for
the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.
For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC
relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the
estimated efficiency distribution of RCWs in the absence of amended
energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for a given
efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline product.
For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE
calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of
residential housing units. As stated previously, DOE developed
household samples from the 2015 RECS. For each sample household, DOE
determined the energy and water consumption for the RCWs and the
appropriate energy and water prices. By developing a representative
sample of households, the analysis captured the variability in energy
and water consumption and energy and water prices associated with the
use of RCWs.
Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost
of the product--which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, retailer and
distributor markups, and sales taxes--and installation costs. Inputs to
the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy and water
consumption, energy and water prices and price projections, repair and
maintenance costs, product lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE created
distributions of values for product lifetime, discount rates, and sales
taxes, with probabilities attached to each
[[Page 13564]]
value, to account for their uncertainty and variability.
The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC relies on a Monte
Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the
analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input values from
the probability distributions and RCW user samples. For this
rulemaking, the Monte Carlo approach is implemented in MS Excel
together with the Crystal Ball\TM\ add-on.\64\ The model calculated the
LCC for products at each efficiency level for 10,000 housing units per
simulation run. The analytical results include a distribution of 10,000
data points showing the range of LCC savings for a given efficiency
level relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. In
performing an iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation for a given
consumer, product efficiency is chosen based on its probability. If the
chosen product efficiency is greater than or equal to the efficiency of
the standard level under consideration, the LCC calculation reveals
that a consumer is not impacted by the standard level. By accounting
for consumers who already purchase more-efficient products, DOE avoids
overstating the potential benefits from increasing product efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Crystal Ball\TM\ is commercially available software tool to
facilitate the creation of these types of models by generating
probability distributions and summarizing results within Excel,
available at www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/crystalball/overview/ (last accessed July 6, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for consumers of RCWs as if each
were to purchase a new product in the expected year of required
compliance with amended standards. Amended standards would apply to
RCWs manufactured 3 years after the date on which any amended standard
is published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(A)(i)) At this time, DOE estimates
publication of a final rule in 2023. Therefore, for purposes of its
analysis, DOE used 2027 as the first year of compliance with any
amended standards for RCWs.
Table IV.31 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow
provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of
all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8
of the NOPR TSD and its appendices.
Table IV.31--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis
*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Source/method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Cost...................... Derived by multiplying MPCs by
manufacturer and retailer markups
and sales tax, as appropriate. Used
historical data to derive a price
scaling index to project product
costs.
Installation Costs................ Baseline installation cost
determined with data from RS Means
Residential Cost Data 2021. Assumed
no change with efficiency level.
Annual Energy and Water Use....... Per cycle energy and water use
multiplied by the cycles per year.
Average number of cycles based on
field data.
Variability: Based on the 2015 RECS.
Energy and Water Prices........... Electricity: Based on EIA's Form 861
data for 2021.
Variability: Regional energy prices
determined for 9 Census Divisions.
Water: Based on 2020 AWWA/Raftelis
Survey.
Variability: Regional water prices
determined for 4 Census Regions.
Energy and water Price Trends..... Energy: Forecasted using AEO 2022
price forecasts.
Water: Forecasted using BLS historic
water price index information.
Repair and Maintenance Costs...... Repair costs vary by product class
and vary between ENERGY STAR and
non-ENERGY START washers.
Product Lifetime.................. Average: 13.7 years.
Discount Rates.................... Approach involves identifying all
possible debt or asset classes that
might be used to purchase the
considered appliances, or might be
affected indirectly. Primary data
source was the Federal Reserve
Board's Survey of Consumer
Finances.
Compliance Date................... 2027.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Not used for PBP calculation. References for the data sources
mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the
table or in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.
Ameren et al. encouraged DOE to calculate and consider the return
on investment for each efficiency level in its analysis to add
additional insight for stakeholders and decision-makers. Ameren et al.
commented that efficiency improvements to an appliance can be
considered capital investments, with ``returns'' being the money saved
from utility bill reductions. (Ameren et al., No. 42 at pp. 18-19)
DOE acknowledges that return on investment is a metric that can be
useful in evaluating investments in energy efficiency. However, the
measures that DOE has historically used to evaluate the economic
impacts of standards on consumers--LCC savings and PBP--are more
closely related to the language in EPCA that requires DOE to consider
the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of
the covered product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in
the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses
of, the covered product that are likely to result from a standard. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) Therefore, DOE finds it reasonable to
continue to use those measures.
AHAM commented that DOE's use of ``Net Cost'' for impacted
households is incomplete and misleading. AHAM suggested that the ``Net
Cost'' should be calculated only among the affected households. (AHAM,
No. 40 at p. 21)
DOE maintains that showing the share of all consumers who would
experience a net LCC cost is useful information, as EPCA requires DOE
to consider the impact of standards on ``consumers,'' not only those
who would be affected by a standard.
1. Consumer Product Cost
To calculate consumer product costs, DOE multiplied the MPCs
developed in the engineering analysis by the markups described in
section IV.C.6 of this document (along with sales taxes). DOE used
different markups for baseline products and higher-efficiency products,
because DOE applies an incremental markup to the increase in MSP
associated with higher-efficiency products.
Economic literature and historical data suggest that the real costs
of many products may trend downward over
[[Page 13565]]
time according to ``learning'' or ``experience'' curves. Experience
curve analysis implicitly includes factors such as efficiencies in
labor, capital investment, automation, materials prices, distribution,
and economies of scale at an industry-wide level.\65\ To derive the
learning rate parameter for RCWs, DOE obtained historical Producer
Price Index (``PPI'') data for ``household laundry equipment'' between
1948 and 2016 and ``major household appliance: primary products''
between 2016 and 2019 from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (``BLS'') to
form a time series price index representing household laundry equipment
from 1948 to 2021.\66\ These two PPI series are the most current and
disaggregated price index that includes RCWs, and DOE assumes that the
price trend estimated from the household laundry equipment PPI is
representative of that for RCWs. Inflation-adjusted price indices were
calculated by dividing the PPI series by the gross domestic product
index from Bureau of Economic Analysis for the same years. The
estimated learning rate (defined as the fractional reduction in price
expected from each doubling of cumulative production) is 14.4 1.7 percent. See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for further details
on this topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Taylor, M. and Fujita, K.S. Accounting for Technological
Change in Regulatory Impact Analyses: The Learning Curve Technique.
LBNL-6195E. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.
April 2013. Available at escholarship.org/uc/item/3c8709p4#page-1.
\66\ Household laundry equipment PPI (PCU3352203352204) is
available till May 2016, and major household appliance: primary
products (PCU335220335220P) is available starting from 2016. See
more information at: www.bls.gov/ppi/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren et al. encouraged DOE to continue to apply a learning rate
for product prices in its lifecycle cost and payback period analyses
and encourages DOE to model as if RCW sales occurred before 1947, as
this could produce a better fit to the model used and be more
representative of the learning rate for the RCW industry. (Ameren et
al., No. 42 at p. 19)
The fit started in 1948 because that is the start year of the
household laundry product PPI. In order to derive the corresponding
cumulative productions, DOE performed a trend analysis to extrapolate
shipments prior to AHAM historical data and determined the shipments
were at a very low level and thus started the cumulative production
accounting in 1948. DOE will explore alternative approaches for
shipment extrapolation in the final rule analysis to better account for
shipments prior to 1948 and improve the model fit.
AHAM commented that equipment prices at EL 1 and EL 2 in the
September 2021 Preliminary Analysis were underestimated and suggested
that DOE use actual retail price differences between a baseline and
higher efficiency level instead of taking the traditional approach of
converting manufacturer production costs to consumer retail prices.
(AHAM, No. 40 at p. 21)
The actual retail price differences between a baseline and higher
efficiency level may include the price for other features in addition
to engineering designs relating to efficiency, and also reflects
economies of scale in production, as well as marketing strategies and
profit margins of manufacturers and retailers. DOE maintains that its
traditional approach, which has been subject to peer review, is better
able to identify the incremental costs that are only connected to
higher efficiency. Furthermore, for this NOPR analysis, DOE revised the
engineering costs of top-loading standard-size clothes washers, and the
estimated equipment price difference between the baseline level and the
ENERGY STAR level is now $163.50, before sales tax, which closely
aligns with the retail price difference (i.e., $160 before sales tax)
presented by AHAM.
2. Installation Cost
Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous
materials and parts needed to install the product. DOE used data from
2021 RSMeans Residential Cost Data to estimate the baseline
installation cost for RCWs.\67\ DOE found no evidence that installation
costs would be impacted with increased efficiency levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ RS Means Company Inc., RS Means Residential Cost Data
(2021). Available at https://rsmeans.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Annual Energy and Water Consumption
For each sampled household, DOE determined the energy and water
consumption for an RCW at different efficiency levels using the
approach described previously in section IV.E of this document.
4. Energy and Water Prices
a. Energy Prices
Because marginal electricity and gas prices more accurately
captures the incremental savings associated with a change in energy use
from higher efficiency, it provides a better representation of
incremental change in consumer costs than average electricity and gas
prices. Therefore, DOE applied average electricity and gas prices for
the energy use of the product purchased in the no-new-standards case,
and marginal electricity and gas prices for the incremental change in
energy use associated with the other efficiency levels considered.
DOE derived electricity prices in 2021 using data from EEI Typical
Bills and Average Rates reports for summer and winter 2021.\68\ Based
upon comprehensive, industry-wide surveys, this semi-annual report
presents typical monthly electric bills and average kilowatt-hour costs
to the customer as charged by investor-owned utilities. For the
residential sector, DOE calculated electricity prices using the
methodology described in Coughlin and Beraki (2018).\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Edison Electric Institute. Typical Bills and Average Rates
Report. Winter 2021, Summer 2021. Available at: www.eei.org/resourcesandmedia/products/Pages/Products.aspx.
\69\ Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki.2018. Residential Electricity
Prices: A Review of Data Sources and Estimation Methods. Lawrence
Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-2001169.
Available at ees.lbl.gov/publications/residential-electricity-prices-review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE obtained data for calculating regional prices of natural gas
from the EIA publication, Natural Gas Navigator.\70\ This publication
presents monthly volumes of natural gas deliveries and average prices
by state for residential, commercial, and industrial customers. DOE
used the complete annual data for 2020 to calculate an average annual
price for each census division. Residential natural gas prices were
adjusted by applying seasonal marginal price factors to reflect a
change in a consumer's bill associated with a change in energy
consumed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration. Natural Gas Navigator 2020. Available at
www.eia.gov/naturalgas/data.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EIA provides historical monthly natural gas consumption and
expenditures by state. This data was used to determine 10-year average
marginal price factors for the RECS 2015 census divisions, which are
then used to convert average monthly natural gas prices into marginal
monthly natural gas prices. DOE interpreted the slope of the regression
line (consumption vs. expenditures) for each State as the marginal
natural gas price factor for that State.
DOE assigned average prices to each household in the LCC sample
based on its location and its baseline electricity and gas consumption.
For sampled households who were assigned a product efficiency greater
than or equal to the considered level for a standard in the no-new-
standards case, DOE
[[Page 13566]]
assigned marginal prices to each household based on its location and
the decremented electricity and gas consumption. In the LCC sample,
households could be assigned to one of nine census divisions. See
chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for details.
To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the
average and marginal regional energy prices by the projection of annual
average price changes for each of the nine census divisions from the
Reference case in AEO2022, which has an end year of 2050.\71\ To
estimate price trends after 2050, the 2046-2050 average was used for
all years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2022 with Projections to 2050.
Washington, DC. Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/ (last
accessed June 14, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Water and Wastewater Prices
DOE obtained residential water and wastewater price data from the
Water and Wastewater Rate Survey conducted by Raftelis Financial
Consultants and the American Water Works Association.\72\ The survey
covers approximately 194 water utilities and 140 wastewater utilities
analyzing each industry (water and wastewater) separately. For each
water or wastewater utility, DOE calculated the average price per unit
volume by dividing the total volumetric cost by the volume delivered.
DOE also calculated the marginal price by dividing the incremental cost
by the increased volume charged at each consumption level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. 2020 RFC/AWWA Water
and Wastewater Rate Survey. 2021. Charlotte, NC, Kansas City, MO,
and Pasadena, CA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The samples that DOE obtained of the water and wastewater utilities
is too small to calculate regional prices for all U.S. Census
divisions. Therefore, DOE calculated regional costs for water and
wastewater service at the Census region level (Northeast, South,
Midwest, and West) by weighting each State in a region by its
population.
For this NOPR analysis, DOE also developed water prices for
consumers who rely on private well water systems for their water needs
rather than relying on the public supply system. DOE considered several
factors when developing consumer prices for water supplied by private
wells. Initial costs to install a well include well siting; well
drilling; pump purchase and installation; water testing; and sometimes
a water treatment system. Ongoing costs include pump maintenance; pump
fuel to lift water to the surface and to the point of use or storage;
plus, any required maintenance of the treatment system (water-softening
chemicals, filters, etc.). To determine the current percentage of the
U.S. population served by private wells, DOE used historical American
Housing Survey (``AHS'') data from 1970 to 2019 to develop a projection
for 2027, the effective year of potential new standards for RCWs.\73\
DOE then weighted public utility water and wastewater prices and
private well prices for each census region and derived weighted-average
regional and national water price for residential consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ The U.S. Census Bureau. The American Housing Survey. Years
1970-2019. Available at www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs.html
(last accessed May 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate the future trend for water and wastewater prices, DOE
used data on the historic trend in the national water price index (U.S.
city average) from 1988 through 2021 provided by the Labor Department's
BLS.\74\ DOE extrapolated the future trend based on the linear growth
from 1988 to 2021. DOE used the extrapolated trend to forecast prices
through 2050. To estimate price trend after 2050, DOE used a constant
value derived from the average values from 2046 through 2050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ U.S. Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Consumer Price Indexes, Item: Water and sewerage maintenance, Series
Id: CUSR0000SEHG01, U.S. city average, 2021. Washington, DC.
Available at www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM commented that DOE's water prices should include rural well
and septic tank users. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 29-31)
As described above, for this NOPR analysis, DOE developed water
prices for rural well and septic tank users. DOE then weighted public
utility water and wastewater prices and private well prices for each
census region and derived weighted-average regional and national water
price for residential consumers.
Chapter 8 and Appendix 8E of the NOPR TSD provides further details
on the methodology and sources DOE used to develop consumer water
prices.
5. Repair and Maintenance Costs
Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing product
components that have failed in an appliance; maintenance costs are
associated with maintaining the operation of the product.
For RCWs, DOE determined repair cost associated with loading type
and clothes washer capacity commonly found on an appliance repair
website.\75\ DOE estimated the average repair cost for an RCW is about
$225, ranging from $115 to $275. For maintenance cost, DOE conducted
literature review of maintenance cost available from a variety of
sources, including online resources. DOE estimated the annual
maintenance cost for an RCW is approximately $25, including costs of
clothes washer cleaners and of running clothes washer cleaning cycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Fixr, How Much Does It Cost to Repair a Washing Machine?
Available at www.fixr.com/costs/washing-machine-repair#washing-machine-repair-cost-by-type-of-repair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typically, small incremental increases in product efficiency
produce no, or only minor, changes in repair and maintenance costs
compared to baseline efficiency products. For this NOPR analysis, DOE
estimated that for repair costs, there is a cost difference between an
ENERGY STAR and non-ENERGY STAR clothes washer of approximately $44 for
a front-loading and $32 for a top-loading clothes washer, based on
information aggregated from confidential manufacturer interviews. For
maintenance costs, DOE assumed that there is no change with efficiency
level for RCWs.
DOE requests comment and information on frequency of cleaning
cycles run per number of cycles used to clean clothes and associated
data as compared to the recommendations in the manufacturer's use and
care manuals.
6. Product Lifetime
Product lifetime is the age at which an appliance is retired from
service. Appliance magazine, a trade publication, provides estimates of
the low, high, and average years of an appliance's lifetime.\76\ The
estimates, which are based on first-owner use of the product, represent
the judgment of Appliance staff based on input obtained from various
sources. The average lifetime estimate from Appliance magazine is 11
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Appliance Magazine. A Portrait of the U.S. Appliance
Industry: Market Share, Life Expectancy & Replacement Market, and
Saturation Levels. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine estimates for RCW lifetime, DOE conducted an analysis
of standard-capacity RCW lifetime in the field based on a combination
of shipments data and data on the ages of the clothes washer products
reported in the household stock from RECS conducted in 2001, 2005,
2009, and 2015 data.\77\ DOE also used the U.S. Census's biennial AHS
from 1974-2019, which surveys all housing, noting the
[[Page 13567]]
presence of a range of appliances.\78\ As described in chapter 8 of the
NOPR TSD, the analysis yielded an estimate of mean age for standard-
capacity RCWs of approximately 13.7 years. It also yielded a survival
function that DOE incorporated as a probability distribution in its LCC
analysis. Because the RECS data does not indicate whether the clothes
washer has a top-loading or front-loading configuration, DOE was not
able to derive separate lifetime estimates for these two loading types.
DOE did not receive any data or analysis to support separate lifetime
for the different product classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information
Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey (``RECS''),
Multiple Years (1990, 1993, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2009, and 2015).
Available at www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/.
\78\ U.S. Census Bureau: Housing and Household Economic
Statistics Division, American Housing Survey, Multiple Years (1974,
1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1989,
1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011,
2013, 2015, 2017, and 2019). Available at www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment and information on RCW lifetime.
See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for further details on the method and
sources DOE used to develop product lifetime.
7. Discount Rates
In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate
to RCWs to estimate the present value of future operating cost savings.
DOE estimated a distribution of discount rates for RCWs based on the
opportunity cost of consumer funds.
DOE applies weighted average discount rates calculated from
consumer debt and asset data, rather than marginal or implicit discount
rates.\79\ The LCC analysis estimates net present value over the
lifetime of the product, so the appropriate discount rate will reflect
the general opportunity cost of household funds, taking this time scale
into account. Given the long time horizon modeled in the LCC analysis,
the application of a marginal interest rate associated with an initial
source of funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the method of purchase,
consumers are expected to continue to rebalance their debt and asset
holdings over the LCC analysis period, based on the restrictions
consumers face in their debt payment requirements and the relative size
of the interest rates available on debts and assets. DOE estimates the
aggregate impact of this rebalancing using the historical distribution
of debts and assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ The implicit discount rate is inferred from a consumer
purchase decision between two otherwise identical goods with
different first cost and operating cost. It is the interest rate
that equates the increment of first cost to the difference in net
present value of lifetime operating cost, incorporating the
influence of several factors: transaction costs; risk premiums and
response to uncertainty; time preferences; interest rates at which a
consumer is able to borrow or lend. The implicit discount rate is
not appropriate for the LCC analysis because it reflects a range of
factors that influence consumer purchase decisions, rather than the
opportunity cost of the funds that are used in purchases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE
identified all relevant household debt or asset classes in order to
approximate a consumer's opportunity cost of funds related to appliance
energy cost savings. It estimated the average percentage shares of the
various types of debt and equity by household income group using data
from the Federal Reserve Board's triennial Survey of Consumer Finances
(``SCF'') starting in 1995 and ending in 2019.\80\ Using the SCF and
other sources, DOE developed a distribution of rates for each type of
debt and asset by income group to represent the rates that may apply in
the year in which amended standards would take effect. DOE assigned
each sample household a specific discount rate drawn from one of the
distributions. The average rate across all types of household debt and
equity and income groups, weighted by the shares of each type, is 4.3
percent. See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for further details on the
development of consumer discount rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ The Federal Reserve Board, Survey of Consumer Finances
(1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019).
Available at: www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scfindex.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM and GEA suggested that DOE develop a more reasonable interest
rate distribution for the low-income group that is closer to a credit
card rate for this group. (AHAM, No. 40 at p. 27; GEA, No. 38 at p. 2)
DOE maintains that the interest rate associated with the specific
source of funds (e.g., credit card) used to purchase a clothes washer
(i.e., the marginal rate) is not the appropriate metric to measure the
discount rate as defined for the LCC analysis. The marginal interest
rate alone would only be the relevant discount rate if the consumer
were restricted from re-balancing their debt and asset holdings (by
redistributing debts and assets based on the relative interest rates
available) over the entire time period modeled in the LCC analysis. The
LCC is not analyzing a marginal decision; rather, it estimates net
present value over the lifetime of the product, therefore the discount
rate needs to reflect the opportunity cost of both the money flowing in
(through operating cost savings) and out (through upfront cost
expenditures) of the net present value calculation. In the context of
the LCC analysis, the consumer is not only discounting based on their
opportunity cost of money spent today, they are also discounting the
stream of future benefits. A consumer might pay for an appliance with
cash, thereby forgoing investment of those funds into one of the
interest earning assets to which they might have access. Alternatively,
a consumer might pay for the initial purchase by going into debt,
subject to the cost of capital at the interest rate relevant for that
purchase. However, a consumer will also receive a stream of future
benefits in terms of annual operating cost savings that they could
either put towards paying off that or other debts, or towards assets,
depending on the restrictions they face in their debt payment
requirements and the relative size of the interest rates on their debts
and assets. All of these interest rates are relevant in the context of
the LCC analysis, as they all reflect direct costs of borrowing, or
opportunity costs of money either now or in the future. Additionally,
while a clothes washer itself is not a readily tradable commodity, the
money used to purchase it and the annual operating cost savings
accruing to it over time flow from and to a household's pool of debt
and assets, including mortgages, mutual funds, money market accounts,
etc. Therefore, the weighted-average interest rate on debts and assets
provides a reasonable estimate for a household's opportunity cost (and
discount rate) relevant to future costs and savings. DOE maintains that
the best proxy for this re-optimization of debt and asset holdings over
the lifetime of the LCC analysis is to assume that the distribution of
debts and assets in the future will be proportional to the distribution
of debts and assets historically. Given the long time horizon modeled
in the LCC, the application of a marginal rate alone would be
inaccurate. DOE's methodology for deriving residential discount rates
is in line with the weighted-average cost of capital used to estimate
commercial discount rates. For these reasons, DOE is maintaining its
existing approach to discount rates.
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be
affected by a potential energy conservation standard at a particular
efficiency level, DOE's LCC analysis considered the projected
distribution (market shares) of product efficiencies under the no-new-
standards case (i.e., the case without amended or new energy
conservation standards).
To estimate the energy efficiency distribution of top-loading
standard-size, front-loading compact and
[[Page 13568]]
standard-size RCWs for 2027, DOE used shipments-weighted energy
efficiency ratio (``SWEER'') for 2020 as a starting point, based on the
information provided by AHAM. (AHAM, No. 54 at pp. 2-3) To project the
trend in efficiency, DOE considered recent trends in DOE's RCW CCD and
the potential effect of labeling programs such as ENERGY STAR on RCWs.
DOE estimated an annual efficiency improvement of 0.4 and 0.1 percent
for top-loading standard-size and front-loading (compact and standard-
size) clothes washers, respectively. For semi-automatic clothes
washers, DOE used the CCD database to develop a product efficiency
distribution under the no-new-standards case.
The estimated market shares for the no-new-standards case for RCWs
are shown in Table IV.32 and Table IV.33. See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD
for further information on the derivation of the efficiency
distributions.
Table IV.32--No-New-Standards Case Market Share in 2027: Semi-Automatic and Top-Loading Residential Clothes
Washers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semi-automatic Top-loading, ultra-compact Top-loading, standard-size
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level EER (lb/ WER (lb/ EER (lb/ WER (lb/ EER (lb/ WER (lb/
kWh/ gal/ Share kWh/ gal/ Share kWh/ gal/ Share
cycle) cycle) (%) cycle) cycle) (%) cycle) cycle) (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.............. 1.60 0.17 21.0 3.79 0.29 100 3.50 0.38 61.0
1..................... 2.12 0.27 71.0 ........ ........ ........ 3.89 0.47 5.9
2..................... 2.51 0.36 8.0 ........ ........ ........ 4.27 0.57 27.4
3..................... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 4.78 0.63 4.7
4..................... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 5.37 0.67 1.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.33--No-New-Standards Case Market Share in 2027: Front-Loading Residential Clothes Washers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Front-loading, compact Front-loading, standard-size
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level EER (lb/kWh/ WER (lb/gal/ EER (lb/kWh/ WER (lb/gal/
cycle) cycle) Share (%) cycle) cycle) Share (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.................................... 4.41 0.53 0.0 5.02 0.64 2.0
1........................................... 4.80 0.62 38.7 5.31 0.69 5.6
2........................................... 5.02 0.71 45.8 5.52 0.77 44.1
3........................................... 5.53 0.75 14.5 5.73 0.77 40.1
4........................................... 5.97 0.80 1.0 5.97 0.85 8.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The LCC Monte Carlo simulations draw from the efficiency
distributions and randomly assign an efficiency to the RCW purchased by
each sample household in the no-new-standards case. The resulting
percent shares within the sample match the market shares in the
efficiency distributions.
AHAM objected to DOE's use of random assignment of RECS households
to baseline and higher efficiency levels, which assumes that consumers
are agnostic to energy costs. AHAM stated that it is very unlikely that
consumers with very high potential LCC savings would not have already
decided to purchase a more efficient washer (i.e., in the no-new-
standards case), and DOE's assumption that these consumers are
indifferent to operating costs appears contrary to common sense and
experience in the retail field. AHAM stated that the most appropriate
solution is to have a much more robust consumer choice theory. (AHAM,
No. 40 at pp. 18-20)
While DOE acknowledges that economic factors may play a role when
consumers decide on what type of clothes washer to install, assignment
of clothes washer efficiency for a given installation based solely on
economic measures such as life-cycle cost or simple payback period most
likely would not fully and accurately reflect actual real-world
installations. There are a number of market failures discussed in the
economics literature that illustrate how purchasing decisions with
respect to energy efficiency are unlikely to be perfectly correlated
with energy use, as described further down. DOE maintains that the
method of assignment is a reasonable approach and one that simulates
behavior in the clothes washer market, where market failures result in
purchasing decisions not being perfectly aligned with economic
interests, more realistically than relying only on apparent cost-
effectiveness criteria derived from the information in RECS. DOE
further emphasizes that its approach does not assume that all
purchasers of clothes washers make economically irrational decisions
(i.e., the lack of a correlation is not the same as a negative
correlation). By using this approach, DOE acknowledges the uncertainty
inherent in the data and minimizes any bias in the analysis by using
random assignment, as opposed to assuming certain market conditions
that are unsupported given the available evidence.
First, consumers are motivated by more than simple financial trade-
offs. There are consumers who are willing to pay a premium for more
energy-efficient products because they are environmentally
conscious.\81\ There are also several behavioral factors that can
influence the purchasing decisions of complicated multi-attribute
products, such as clothes washers. For example, consumers (or decision
makers in an organization) are highly influenced by choice
architecture, defined as the framing of the decision, the surrounding
circumstances of the purchase, the alternatives available, and how they
are presented for any given choice scenario.\82\ The same consumer or
decision maker may make different choices depending on the
characteristics of the decision context (e.g., the timing of the
purchase, competing demands for funds), which have nothing to do with
the characteristics of the alternatives themselves or their prices.
Consumers or decision makers also face a variety of other behavioral
phenomena including
[[Page 13569]]
loss aversion, sensitivity to information salience, and other forms of
bounded rationality. Richard Thaler, who won the Nobel Prize in
Economics in 2017 for his contributions to behavioral economics, and
Cass Sunstein point out that these behavioral factors are strongest
when the decisions are complex and infrequent, when feedback on the
decision is muted and slow, and when there is a high degree of
information asymmetry.\83\ These characteristics describe almost all
purchasing situations of appliances and equipment, including RCWs. The
installation of a new or replacement clothes washer is done very
infrequently, as evidenced by the mean lifetime of 13.7 years.
Additionally, it would take at least a few months for any impacts on
operating costs to be fully apparent. Further, if the purchaser of the
clothes washer is not the entity paying the energy costs (e.g., a
tenant), there may be little to no feedback on the purchase.
Additionally, there are systematic market failures that are likely to
contribute further complexity to how products are chosen by consumers,
as explained in the following paragraphs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Ward, D.O., Clark, C.D., Jensen, K.L., Yen, S.T., &
Russell, C.S. (2011): ``Factors influencing willingness-to pay for
the ENERGY STAR[supreg] label,'' Energy Policy, 39(3), 1450-1458.
Available at www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421510009171 (last accessed Feb. 15, 2022).
\82\ Ward, D.O., Clark, C.D., Jensen, K.L., Yen, S.T., &
Russell, C.S. (2011): ``Factors influencing willingness-to pay for
the ENERGY STAR[supreg] label,'' Energy Policy, 39(3), 1450-1458.
Available at www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421510009171) (last accessed Feb. 15, 2022).
\83\ Thaler, R.H., and Sunstein, C.R. (2008). Nudge: Improving
Decisions on Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first of these market failures is the split-incentive or
principal-agent problem. The principal-agent problem is a market
failure that results when the consumer that purchases the equipment
does not internalize all of the costs associated with operating the
equipment. Instead, the user of the product, who has no control over
the purchase decision, pays the operating costs. There is a high
likelihood of split-incentive problems in the case of rental properties
where the landlord makes the choice of what clothes washer to install,
whereas the renter is responsible for paying energy bills. In addition
to the split-incentive or principal-agent problem, there are other
market failures that are likely to affect the choice of clothes washer
efficiency made by consumers. Lucas Davis and Gilbert Metcalf \84\
conducted an experiment demonstrating that the nature of the
information available to consumers from EnergyGuide labels posted on
air conditioning equipment results in an inefficient allocation of
energy efficiency across households with different usage levels. Their
findings indicate that households are likely to make decisions
regarding the efficiency of the climate control equipment of their
homes that are not economically optimal relative to how they utilize
the equipment (i.e., their decision is based on imperfect information
and, therefore, is not necessarily optimal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Davis, L.W., and G.E. Metcalf (2016): ``Does better
information lead to better choices? Evidence from energy-efficiency
labels,'' Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource
Economists, 3(3), 589-625. (Available at: www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/686252) (Last accessed Feb. 15, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In part because of the way information is presented, and in part
because of the way consumers process information, there is also a
market failure consisting of a systematic bias in the perception of
equipment energy usage, which can affect consumer choices.
These market failures affect a sizeable share of the consumer
population. A study by Houde \85\ indicates that there is a significant
subset of consumers that appear to purchase appliances without taking
into account their energy efficiency and operating costs at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Houde, S. (2018): ``How Consumers Respond to Environmental
Certification and the Value of Energy Information,'' The RAND
Journal of Economics, 49 (2), 453-477 Available at
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1756-2171.12231 (Last
accessed Feb. 15, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The existence of market failures in the residential sector is well
supported by the economics literature and by a number of case studies.
If DOE developed an efficiency distribution that assigned clothes
washer efficiency in the no-new-standards case solely according to
energy and water use or economic considerations such as life-cycle cost
or payback period, the resulting distribution of efficiencies within
the household sample would not reflect any of the market failures or
behavioral factors above. DOE thus concludes such a distribution would
not be representative of the clothes washer market. Further, even if a
specific household is not subject to the market failures above, the
purchasing decision of clothes washer efficiency can be highly complex
and influenced by several factors not captured by the information
available in the RECS samples. These factors can lead to household
owners choosing a clothes washer efficiency that deviates from the
efficiency predicted using only energy and water use or economic
considerations (as calculated using the information from RECS 2015).
However, DOE intends to investigate this issue further, and it welcomes
suggestions as to how it might improve its assignment of clothes washer
efficiency in its analyses.
9. Payback Period Analysis
The payback period is the amount of time (expressed in years) it
takes the consumer to recover the additional installed cost of more-
efficient products, compared to baseline products, through energy cost
savings. Payback periods that exceed the life of the product mean that
the increased total installed cost is not recovered in reduced
operating expenses.
The inputs to the PBP calculation for each efficiency level are the
change in total installed cost of the product and the change in the
first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline. DOE
refers to this as a ``simple PBP'' because it does not consider changes
over time in operating cost savings. The PBP calculation uses the same
inputs as the LCC analysis when deriving first-year operating costs.
As noted previously, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that
a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the
additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with
an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the
value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard,
as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered efficiency level, DOE
determined the value of the first year's energy savings by calculating
the energy savings in accordance with the applicable DOE test
procedure, and multiplying those savings by the average energy price
projection for the year in which compliance with the amended standards
would be required.
10. Other Issues
Fraas cited a case study of DOE's 2001 RCW standards.\86\ Fraas
stated that this case study identified several issues that would result
in lower cost saving estimates than projected in DOE's ex ante
analyses. These included: (1) reduced product reliability and life; (2)
additional operation and maintenance costs; and (3) overstatement of
clothes washer usage relative to DOE's ex ante analysis. Fraas added
that the case study illustrated the sensitivity of DOE's life cycle
analysis to different usage and product life assumptions and showed
that DOE could have improved its analysis by developing distributions
for key components of its analysis. Finally, Fraas urged DOE to conduct
a retrospective analysis of its existing standards as part of the
rulemaking process, including collection of extensive data on usage,
reliability, and life, to provide a basis for assessing
[[Page 13570]]
prospective energy conservation standards. (Fraas, No. 35 at pp. 1-2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ The final rule establishing these standards was published
on January 12, 2001. 66 FR 3313.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has reviewed Fraas & Miller 2020 and identified several
fundamental misunderstandings in the paper with respect to the 2001 RCW
rulemaking and standard (with compliance dates of 2004 and 2007).
Specifically, the paper takes as a premise that the standards finalized
in 2001 forced consumers to adopt front-loading clothes washers. This
is fundamentally incorrect. DOE established separate product classes
and standards for front-loading and top-loading clothes washers. While
the 2001 standard set the same efficiency level for both of these
classes, DOE noted in the final rule that there were both top- and
front-loading clothes washers in the market at all of the efficiency
levels prescribed in the final rule and that all efficiency levels were
technologically feasible for both top- and front-loading clothes
washers. (January 12, 2021; 66 FR 3314, 3318.) Therefore, manufacturers
were able to choose how to invest in meeting standards across top-
loading and front-loading models. Top-loading clothes washers continue
to be available for purchase today and consumers may choose them if
they wish. While there have been changes to top-loading clothes washer
market share over time, today they have a market share greater than
70%.
With regard to reduced product reliability, the paper attempts to
establish a causal link between regulation and litigation that they
claim is evidence of reduced product reliability. However, all
litigation evidence presented in the paper would apply to both baseline
(pre-standards) and more efficient front-loading clothes washers, and
there is no causal connection to regulation. The paper ignores past and
parallel trends in litigation in the market for both the same products,
and other, similar products. Additionally, there is no counter-factual
argument.
With regard to reduced product life, the paper questions the
estimates used in DOE's lifetime analyses, but compares lifetime
estimates spanning 23 years. DOE's lifetime estimates are always based
on the best available data at the time, and were reviewed by
stakeholders before publishing the final rule. In the follow-up
rulemaking, culminating in the May 2012 Final Rule, DOE performed a
statistical analysis of historical shipments data and RECS 2005, which
resulted in a lifetime estimate consistent with DOE's prior lifetime
estimate. 10 CFR 430.32. This lifetime methodology is peer-reviewed.
The argument with respect to additional operation and maintenance
costs also ignores product class differentiation. Baseline front-
loading units would have the same considerations, and therefore the
incremental repair rate and operation and maintenance costs of higher
efficiency units are the relevant parameters for DOE's analyses; these
are typically negligible.
With respect to the possible overstatement of clothes washer usage
relative to DOE's ex ante analysis, DOE again notes that its
assumptions are based on the latest available data at the time of the
rulemaking, particularly RECS. For the 2012 rulemaking, the average
number of loads per year in the analysis decreased, in line with RECS
2005 results compared to RECS 1993.\87\ Consumer behavior can indeed
evolve over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Department of Energy--Energy Information Administration,
Residential Energy Consumption Survey, 1993 and 2005. Available at
www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the point that DOE could have improved its analysis by
developing distributions for key components of its analysis, DOE notes
that in the current rulemaking, lifetime, usage, energy consumption,
and discount rates, among other things, are all characterized by
distributions.
With respect to the recommendation to conduct a retrospective
analysis as part of this rulemaking, DOE acknowledges that parameters
such as lifetime and product usage can change over time. In this
rulemaking, DOE uses the best available data to develop new estimates
of such parameters. To the extent that the estimates have changed over
time, this is not evidence that DOE could have made a better assumption
in the previous rulemakings, as it was relying on the best available
data at that time, and the difference between estimates in two years
would not be sufficient to make adjustments to estimates in future
years.
For all of the previous reasons, DOE is not making any methodology
changes to its analyses, but it updated inputs based on data
availability including repair and maintenance costs, energy and water
usage, product lifetime, and product efficiency distribution.
G. Shipments Analysis
DOE uses projections of annual product shipments to calculate the
national impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on
energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows.\88\ The shipments
model takes an accounting approach, tracking market shares of each
product class and the vintage of units in the stock. Stock accounting
uses product shipments as inputs to estimate the age distribution of
in-service product stocks for all years. The age distribution of in-
service product stocks is a key input to calculations of both the NES
and NPV, because operating costs for any year depend on the age
distribution of the stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as a proxy for
national sales, as aggregate data on sales are lacking. In general
one would expect a close correspondence between shipments and sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To project RCW shipments under the no-new-standards case, DOE
utilized historical shipments data from AHAM. DOE estimated RCW
shipments by projecting shipments into two market segments: (1)
replacement of existing RCWs; (2) new housings.
To project RCW replacement shipments, DOE developed retirement
functions from RCW lifetime estimates and applied them to the existing
products in the housing stock, which are tracked by vintage. To
estimate shipments to new housings, DOE used projections of new housing
starts coupled with RCWs' saturation data. In other words, to project
the shipments for new housings for any given year, DOE multiplied the
housing projections by the estimated saturation of RCWs for new housing
units. For new housing completions and mobile home placements, DOE used
recorded data through 2020,\89\ and adopted the projections from
AEO2022 for 2021-2050. DOE used the data contained in the 2015 RECS to
characterize ownership of RCWs in households across various housing
types, including multi-family housing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ U.S. Census. Characteristics of New Housing. Available at
www.census.gov/construction/chars/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE then aggregated the above two market segments for any given
year during the analysis period (2027-2056) and divided total RCW
shipments into its five product classes. For this NOPR, DOE estimated
the market share between top-loading and front-loading clothes washers
would remain at the current level based on the historical shipments
data by washer loading type (2004-2021) provided by AHAM. (AHAM, No.
40, at p. 11) DOE estimated market share for top-loading and front-
loading clothes washers would remain at 75 percent and 25 percent,
respectively. DOE then disaggregated top-loading clothes washer market
share into three product classes (i.e., semi-automatic, ultra-compact,
and standard-size) and front-loading into two product classes (i.e.,
compact and standard-size). In addition, DOE assumed annual growth rate
for semi-automatic and top-loading ultra-compact clothes washers
[[Page 13571]]
would be at 0.2 percent. Table IV.34 shows the estimated market share
and shipments for each product class.
Table IV.34--Market Share and Shipments by Product Class in 2027
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market share Shipments
Product class (%) (million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semi-Automatic.......................... 1.6 0.16
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact.............. 0.5 0.05
Top-Loading, Standard-Size.............. 72.9 7.54
Front-Loading, Compact.................. 1.6 0.16
Front-Loading, Standard-Size............ 23.4 2.42
-------------------------------
Total............................... 100 10.35
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on the approach and inputs used to develop no-new
standards case shipments projection and market share for each product
class.
To project RCW shipments under a standards-case, DOE used a price
elasticity parameter, which relates the incremental total installed
cost to total RCW shipments, and an efficiency elasticity parameter,
which relates the change in the operating cost to RCW shipments. Both
types of elasticity relate changes in demand to changes in the
corresponding characteristic (price or efficiency). A regression
analysis estimated these terms separately from each other and found
that the price elasticity of demand for several appliances is on
average -0.45.\90\ Thus, for example, a price increase of 10 percent
would result in a shipments decrease of 4.5 percent, all other factors
held constant. The same regression analysis found that the efficiency
elasticity is estimated to be on average 0.2 (i.e., a 10-percent
efficiency improvement, equivalent to a 10-percent decrease in
operating costs, would result in a shipments increase of 2 percent, all
else being equal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ Fujita, S., Estimating Price Elasticity using Market-Level
Appliance Data. LBNL-188289 (August 2015). Available at: eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/lbnl-188289.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE assumed when market impact occurs, i.e., when shipments drop
under a standards-case, the affected consumers would repair their
product rather than replace it. Under this method, DOE does not assume
that consumers completely forgo the use of the product. The model
instead assumes about the length of time that the life of the product
is extended. This market impact is thus effectively applied to the
repair or replacement decision. The second-hand market for used
appliances is a potential alternative to consumers purchasing a new
unit or repairing a broken unit. An increase in the purchases of older,
less-efficient second-hand units due to a price increase resulting from
a more stringent standard could potentially decrease projected energy
savings. DOE assumed that purchases on the second-hand market would not
change significantly due to the proposed standard level and did not
include their impact on product shipments.
DOE requests data on the market size and typical selling price of
units sold through the second-hand market for residential clothes
washers.
ASAP et al. encouraged DOE to more thoroughly model market shifts
under standards implementations. ASAP et al. commented that in the
September 2021 Preliminary TSD, DOE's logistic regression model that
captured the relationship between the market share of front- and top-
loading clothes washers, their prices, and their energy usage indicates
that the front-loading market share is negatively correlated with top-
loading price and energy usage. ASAP et al. therefore commented that
the model predicts that the front-loading market share will decrease if
higher standards are implemented for both top- and front-loading
clothes washers. However, ASAP et al. noted that the estimated average
price difference between front-loading and top-loading clothes washers
is $323 at the baseline versus only $186 at EL 4. ASAP et al. stated
that it is plausible that increasing standards could move the market
towards, rather than away from, front-loading clothes washers. ASAP et
al. therefore suggested that DOE should analyze how estimated first
costs for each product class may affect market share projections. (ASAP
et al., No. 37 at pp. 4-5)
The consumer choice model developed under the September 2021
Preliminary Analysis lacked historical retail pricing, sales data, and
clothes washer energy use data necessary for DOE to project market
share between front-loading and top-loading RCWs, directly using their
first cost and sales data as suggested by ASAP et al. DOE explored a
method, but the regression statistic results indicate a low R-squared,
which means the predicted model would not fit with the historical
market share data. Recent historical shipments data presented by AHAM
(AHAM, No. 40, at p. 11) indicate that the proportion of front-loading
clothes washers compared to total clothes washer shipments appears to
have leveled off. Therefore, for this NOPR analysis, DOE used a frozen
scenario for market shifting (e.g., no market shifting) under the
standards case.
For details on the shipments analysis, see chapter 9 of the NOPR
TSD.
H. National Impact Analysis
The NIA assesses the national energy savings (NES), national water
savings (NWS), and the NPV from a national perspective of total
consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result from new or
amended standards at specific efficiency levels. (``Consumer'' in this
context refers to consumers of the product being regulated.) DOE
calculates the NES, NWS, and NPV for the potential standard levels
considered based on projections of annual product shipments, along with
the annual energy and water consumption and total installed cost data
from the energy and water use and LCC analyses. For the present
analysis, DOE projected the energy and water savings, operating cost
savings, product costs, and NPV of consumer benefits over the lifetime
of RCWs sold from 2027 through 2056.
DOE evaluates the impacts of amended standards by comparing a case
without such standards with standards-case projections. The no-new-
standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs for each
product class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation
standards. For this projection, DOE considers historical trends in
efficiency and various forces that are likely to affect the mix of
efficiencies over time. DOE compares the no-new-standards case with
projections characterizing the market for each product class if DOE
adopted
[[Page 13572]]
amended standards at specific energy efficiency levels (i.e., the TSLs
or standards cases) for that class. For the standards cases, DOE
considers how a given standard would likely affect the market shares of
products with efficiencies greater than the standard.
DOE uses a spreadsheet model to calculate the energy and water
savings and the national consumer costs and savings from each TSL.
Interested parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input
quantities within the spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet model uses
typical values (as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs.
Table IV.35 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA
analysis for the NOPR. Discussion of these inputs and methods follows
the table. See chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD for further details.
Table IV.35--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact
Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments......................... Annual shipments from shipments
model.
Compliance Date of Standard....... 2027.
Efficiency Trends................. No-new-standards case: Annual
shipments-weighted efficiency
improvement of 0.4 percent for top-
loading standard-size and 0.1
percent for both front-loading
compact and standard-size clothes
washers.
Standards cases: ``Roll up''
equipment to meet potential
efficiency level.
Annual Energy and Water Annual weighted-average values are a
Consumption per Unit. function of energy and water use at
each TSL.
Total Installed Cost per Unit..... Annual weighted-average values are a
function of cost at each TSL.
Incorporates projection of future
product prices based on historical
data.
Annual Energy and Water Cost per Annual weighted-average values as a
Unit. function of the annual energy and
water consumption per unit and
energy and water prices.
Repair and Maintenance Cost per Annual values change between non-
Unit. ENERGY STAR and ENERGY STAR
efficiency levels.
Energy and Water Price Trends..... AEO2022 projections (to 2050) and
constant value based on average
between 2046-2050 thereafter.
Historical PPI extrapolated
projection (to 2050) and constant
value based on average between 2046-
2050 thereafter.
Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC A time-series conversion factor
Conversion. based on AEO2022.
Discount Rate..................... 3 percent and 7 percent.
Present Year...................... 2022.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Product Efficiency Trends
A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency
projected for the no-new-standards case and each of the standards
cases. Section IV.F.8 of this document describes how DOE developed an
energy efficiency distribution for the no-new-standards case (which
yields a shipment-weighted average efficiency) for each of the
considered product classes for the year of anticipated compliance with
an amended standard. To project the trend in efficiency absent amended
standards for RCWs over the entire shipments projection period, DOE
considered recent trends in DOE's CCD data and the potential effect of
programs such as ENERGY STAR. As discussed in section IV.F.8 of this
document, DOE estimated an annual efficiency improvement of 0.4 and 0.1
percent for top-loading standard-size and front-loading (compact and
standard-size) clothes washers, respectively.
For the standards cases, DOE used a ``roll-up'' scenario to
establish the shipment-weighted efficiency for the year that standards
are assumed to become effective (2027). In this scenario, the market
shares of products in the no-new-standards case that do not meet the
standard under consideration would ``roll up'' to meet the new standard
level, and the market share of products above the standard would remain
unchanged.
2. National Energy and Water Savings
The national energy and water savings analysis involves a
comparison of national energy and water consumption of the considered
products between each potential standards case (or TSL) and the case
with no amended energy conservation standards. DOE calculated the
national energy and water consumption by multiplying the number of
units (stock) of each product (by vintage or age) by the unit energy
and water consumption (also by vintage). DOE calculated annual NES and
NWS based on the difference in national energy and water consumption
for the no-new standards case and for each higher efficiency standard
case. DOE estimated energy consumption and savings based on site energy
and converted the electricity consumption and savings to primary energy
(i.e., the energy consumed by power plants to generate site
electricity) using annual conversion factors derived from AEO2022.
Cumulative energy and water savings are the sum of the NES and NWS for
each year over the timeframe of the analysis.
Use of higher-efficiency products is sometimes associated with a
direct rebound effect, which refers to an increase in utilization of
the product due to the increase in efficiency. As described in section
IV.E.2, DOE did not find any data on the rebound effect specific to
RCWs and did not apply a rebound effect.
In 2011, in response to the recommendations of a committee on
``Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy
Efficiency Standards'' appointed by the NAS, DOE announced its
intention to use FFC measures of energy use and greenhouse gas and
other emissions in the national impact analyses and emissions analyses
included in future energy conservation standards rulemakings. 76 FR
51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the approaches discussed in the
August 18, 2011 notice, DOE published a statement of amended policy in
which DOE explained its determination that EIA's National Energy
Modeling System (``NEMS'') is the most appropriate tool for its FFC
analysis and its intention to use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701
(Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public domain, multi-sector, partial
equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector \91\ that EIA uses to
[[Page 13573]]
prepare its Annual Energy Outlook. The FFC factors incorporate losses
in production and delivery in the case of natural gas (including
fugitive emissions) and additional energy used to produce and deliver
the various fuels used by power plants. The approach used for deriving
FFC measures of energy use and emissions is described in appendix 10B
and 13A of the NOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy
Modeling System: An Overview 2009, DOE/EIA-0581(2009), October 2009.
Available at www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/nems/documentation/archive/pdf/0581(2009).pdf. (last accessed June 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Net Present Value Analysis
The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits
experienced by consumers are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total
annual operating costs (energy and water costs and repair and
maintenance costs), and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present
value of costs and savings. DOE calculates net savings each year as the
difference between the no-new-standards case and each standards case in
terms of total savings in operating costs versus total increases in
installed costs. DOE calculates operating cost savings over the
lifetime of each product shipped during the projection period.
As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this document, DOE developed RCW
price trends based on historical PPI data. DOE applied the same trends
to project prices for each product class at each considered efficiency
level. By 2056, which is the end date of the projection period, the
average RCW price is projected to drop 14.4 percent relative to 2021.
DOE's projection of product prices is described in appendix 10C of the
NOPR TSD.
To evaluate the effect of uncertainty regarding the price trend
estimates, DOE investigated the impact of different product price
projections on the consumer NPV for the considered TSLs for RCWs. In
addition to the default price trend, DOE considered two product price
sensitivity cases: (1) a high price decline case based on PPI data for
the period 1980-2021 and (2) a low price decline case based on PPI data
for the period 1948-1979. The derivation of these price trends and the
results of these sensitivity cases are described in appendix 10C of the
NOPR TSD.
The energy and water cost savings are calculated using the
estimated energy and water savings in each year and the projected price
of the appropriate form of energy and water. To estimate energy prices
in future years, DOE multiplied the average regional energy prices by
the projection of annual national-average residential energy price
changes in the Reference case from AEO2022, which has an end year of
2050. To estimate price trends after 2050, the 2046-2050 average was
used for all years. To estimate water prices in future years, DOE
multiplied the average national water prices by the projection of
annual national-average residential water price changes in the
extrapolated future water price trend, which is based on the historical
water price index from 1988 to 2021. To estimate price trends after
2050, DOE used a constant value derived from the average values from
2046 through 2050. As part of the NIA, DOE also analyzed scenarios that
used inputs from variants of the AEO2022 Reference case that have lower
and higher economic growth. Those cases have lower and higher energy
price trends compared to the Reference case. NIA results based on these
cases are presented in appendix 10C of the NOPR TSD.
In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this
NOPR, DOE estimated the NPV of consumer benefits using both a 3-percent
and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE uses these discount rates in
accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory
analysis.\92\ The discount rates for the determination of NPV are in
contrast to the discount rates used in the LCC analysis, which are
designed to reflect a consumer's perspective. The 7-percent real value
is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to private
capital in the U.S. economy. The 3-percent real value represents the
``social rate of time preference,'' which is the rate at which society
discounts future consumption flows to their present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ United States Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-
4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed
June 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended energy
conservation standards on consumers, DOE evaluates the impact on
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be disproportionately
affected by a new or amended national standard. The purpose of a
subgroup analysis is to determine the extent of any such
disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates impacts on particular subgroups
of consumers by analyzing the LCC impacts and PBP for those particular
consumers from alternative standard levels. For this NOPR, DOE analyzed
the impacts of the considered standard levels on two subgroups: (1)
low-income households and (2) senior-only households. The analysis used
subsets of the 2015 RECS sample composed of households that meet the
criteria for the two subgroups. DOE used the LCC and PBP spreadsheet
model to estimate the impacts of the considered efficiency levels on
these subgroups. The sections below discuss the individual subgroups,
and additional details are found in chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD.
1. Low-Income Households
Low-income households are significantly more likely to be renters
or to live in subsidized housing units, compared to households that are
not low-income. In these cases, the landlord purchases the equipment
and may pay the energy bill as well.
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE consider adjustments to its
consumer subgroup analysis by creating a low-income renter subgroup.
The CA IOUs commented that it is more likely that the incremental
clothes washer purchase costs to the average low-income household would
be paid by a landlord and passed along to the low-income household
across multiple months, such that the benefits of lower energy and
water costs would offset the incremental cost increases of higher
efficiency products. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 1-2)
NYSERDA recommended that DOE conduct additional analysis on the
implications to renters as part of its low-income consumer subgroup
assessment. NYSERDA noted that within low-income households, there are
important distinctions between renters and owners, and renters often
bearing the operational costs of energy and water with limited input on
the choice of products. (NYSERDA, No. 36 at p. 2)
For this NOPR analysis, DOE divided low-income households into
three sub-subgroups: (1) renters who pay energy bill; (2) renters who
do not pay energy bill; and (3) homeowners. The 2015 RECS includes data
on whether a household pays for the energy bill, allowing DOE to
categorize households in the analysis narrowly,\93\ excluding any costs
or benefits that are accrued by either a landlord or subsidized housing
agency. This allows DOE to determine whether low-income households are
disproportionately affected by an amended energy conservation standard
in a more accurate manner. Table IV.36 shows the distribution of low-
income
[[Page 13574]]
household clothes washer users with respect to whether they rent or own
and whether they pay the energy bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ The energy bill includes fuel type of electricity, natural
gas, or propane consumed by a household.
Table IV--36 Characterization of Low-Income Households in the Sample for Clothes Washers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of low-income sample
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Semi-automatic, Impact of higher Impact of first cost
Type of household * Top-loading, Front-loading, top-loading, Front-loading, efficiency on energy increase
standard- size standard- size Ultra-compact compact (%) bill
(%) (%) (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Renters (Pay for Energy Bill) **..... 37 28 50 41 Full/Partial savings... None.***
Renters (Do Not Pay for Energy Bill) 5 4 11 14 None................... None.***
**.
Owners............................... 58 69 39 46 Full/Partial savings... Full.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* RECS 2015 lists three categories: (1) Owned or being bought by someone in your household (here classified as ``Owners'' in this table); (2) Rented
(here classified as ``Renters'' in this table); (3) Occupied without payment of rent (also classified as ``Renters'' in this table). Renters include
occupants in subsidized housing including public housing, subsidized housing in private properties, and other households that do not pay rent. RECS
2015 does not distinguish homes in subsidized or public housing.
** RECS 2015 lists four categories for each of the fuels used by a household: (1) Household is responsible for paying for all used in this home; (2) All
used in this home is included in the rent or condo fee; (3) Some is paid by the household, some is included in the rent or condo fee; and 4) Paid for
some other way. ``Do Not Pay for Energy Bill'' includes only category (2). Partial energy bill savings would occur in cases of category (3).
*** Low-income renters typically do not purchase a clothes washer. Therefore, it is unclear if the renters would be asked to pay the full or partial of
the total installed cost. As a result, DOE estimated there would be no impact of first cost increase for low-income renters and occupants in public
housing and other households that do not pay rent.
AHAM commented that increased efficiency standards would eliminate
the lowest priced top-loading RCWs, which would have a
disproportionate, negative impact on low-income households. AHAM added
that, while low-income consumers would receive payback over time due to
savings on utility bills, these consumers are unlikely to have the
extra funds to pay for a more efficient, but more expensive RCW. (AHAM,
No. 40 at pp. 12-13)
Whirlpool expressed concern about the impacts of amended standards
on low-income consumers and believe that amended standards for clothes
washers could have potentially devastating impacts on racial and
economic equity. Whirlpool commented that any increase to purchase cost
driven by amended standards may be difficult or impossible for many
low-income households to accept and may further widen the equity gap
rather than help close it. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at pp. 16-17)
As described in section V.B.1 of this document, the percent of low-
income RCW consumers experiencing a net cost at the proposed standard
level (TSL 4) is smaller (13 percent for top-loading standard-size
washers) than in the full LCC sample (25 percent for top-loading
standard-size washers). The main reason is that a high portion of low-
income household renters would not have to pay the total cost of a
higher-efficiency washer because renters do not select nor pay for the
clothes washer itself (CA IOUs, No.43 at pp. 1-2).
2. Senior-Only Households
Annual clothes washer usage for senior-only households is
significantly less than the full household sample because the household
size for senior-only families is typically either one or two people. A
household size equal to or larger than three members accounts for only
8 percent of senior-only households. Therefore, as described in section
V.B.1 of this document, the percentage of senior-only RCW consumers
experiencing a net cost at the TSL 4 is greater (35 percent for top-
loading standard-size washers) than in the full LCC sample (25 percent
for top-loading standard-size washers). The simple payback period for
senior-only households at TSL 4 is 2 years longer than in the full LCC
sample.
For households who would be negatively impacted by amended energy
conservation standards, a potential rebate program to reduce the total
installed costs would be effective in lowering the percentage of
consumers with a net cost and reducing simple payback period. DOE is
aware of 80 rebate programs currently available for residential clothes
washers meeting ENERGY STAR requirements initiated by 63 organizations
in various States as described in chapter 17 of the NOPR TSD.\94\ DOE
is seeking comment about how amended energy conservation standards may
impact the low-income and senior-only consumer economics being
presented and considered in this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ As of June, 2022, 80 rebate programs were available for
residential clothes washers meeting ENERGY STAR requirements:
www.energystar.gov/rebate-finder?scrollTo=363.6363525390625&sort_by=utility&sort_direction=asc&page_number=0&lastpage=0&zip_code_filter=&search_text=&product_clean_filter=Clothes+Washers&product_clean_isopen=0&product_types=Select+a+Product+Category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is seeking comment about definable subpopulations in addition
to low-income and senior-only households and the associated data
required to differentiate how such subpopulation use clothes washers.
Chapter 11 in the NOPR TSD describes the consumer subgroup
analysis.
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
DOE performed an MIA to estimate the financial impacts of amended
energy conservation standards on manufacturers of RCWs and to estimate
the potential impacts of such standards on direct employment and
manufacturing capacity. The MIA has both quantitative and qualitative
aspects and includes analyses of projected industry cash flows, the
INPV, investments in research and development (``R&D'') and
manufacturing capital, and domestic manufacturing employment.
Additionally, the MIA seeks to determine how amended energy
conservation standards might affect manufacturing employment, capacity,
and competition, as well as how standards contribute to overall
regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA serves to identify any
disproportionate
[[Page 13575]]
impacts on manufacturer subgroups, including small business
manufacturers.
The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government
Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), an industry cash flow model with
inputs specific to this rulemaking. The key GRIM inputs include data on
the industry cost structure, unit production costs, product shipments,
manufacturer markups, and investments in R&D and manufacturing capital
required to produce compliant products. The key GRIM outputs are the
INPV, which is the sum of industry annual cash flows over the analysis
period, discounted using the industry-weighted average cost of capital,
and the impact to domestic manufacturing employment. The model uses
standard accounting principles to estimate the impacts of more-
stringent energy conservation standards on a given industry by
comparing changes in INPV and domestic manufacturing employment between
a no-new-standards case and the various standards cases (i.e., TSLs).
To capture the uncertainty relating to manufacturer pricing strategies
following amended standards, the GRIM estimates a range of possible
impacts under different scenarios.
The qualitative part of the MIA addresses manufacturer
characteristics and market trends. Specifically, the MIA considers such
factors as a potential standard's impact on manufacturing capacity,
competition within the industry, the cumulative impact of other DOE and
non-DOE regulations, and impacts on manufacturer subgroups. The
complete MIA is outlined in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
DOE conducted the MIA for this rulemaking in three phases. In Phase
1 of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of the RCW manufacturing industry
based on the market and technology assessment and publicly-available
information. This included a top-down analysis of RCW manufacturers
that DOE used to derive preliminary financial inputs for the GRIM
(e.g., revenues; materials, labor, overhead, and depreciation expenses;
selling, general, and administrative expenses (``SG&A''); and R&D
expenses). DOE also used public sources of information to further
calibrate its initial characterization of the RCW manufacturing
industry, including company filings of Form 10-Ks from the SEC,\95\
corporate annual reports, the U.S. Census Bureau's Annual Survey of
Manufactures (``ASM''),\96\ and reports from Dun & Bradstreet.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Electronic Data
Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system. Available at:
www.sec.gov/edgar/search/ (Last accessed July 1, 2022).
\96\ U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of Manufactures.
``Summary Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries in the U.S
(2020).'' Available at: www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/econ/asm/2018-2020-asm.html (Last accessed July 15, 2022).
\97\ The Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers login is available at:
app.dnbhoovers.com (Last accessed July 15, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared a framework industry cash-flow
analysis to quantify the potential impacts of amended energy
conservation standards. The GRIM uses several factors to determine a
series of annual cash flows starting with the announcement of the
standard and extending over a 30-year period following the compliance
date of the standard. These factors include annual expected revenues,
costs of sales, SG&A and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital expenditures.
In general, energy conservation standards can affect manufacturer cash
flow in three distinct ways: (1) creating a need for increased
investment, (2) raising production costs per unit, and (3) altering
revenue due to higher per-unit prices and changes in sales volumes.
In addition, during Phase 2, DOE developed interview guides to
distribute to manufacturers of RCWs in order to develop other key GRIM
inputs, including product and capital conversion costs, and to gather
additional information on the anticipated effects of energy
conservation standards on revenues, direct employment, capital assets,
industry competitiveness, and subgroup impacts.
In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE conducted structured, detailed
interviews with representative manufacturers. During these interviews,
DOE discussed engineering, manufacturing, procurement, and financial
topics to validate assumptions used in the GRIM and to identify key
issues or concerns. See section IV.J.3 of this document for a
description of the key issues raised by manufacturers during the
interviews. As part of Phase 3, DOE also evaluated subgroups of
manufacturers that may be disproportionately impacted by amended
standards or that may not be accurately represented by the average cost
assumptions used to develop the industry cash flow analysis. Such
manufacturer subgroups may include small business manufacturers, low-
volume manufacturers (``LVMs''), niche players, and/or manufacturers
exhibiting a cost structure that largely differs from the industry
average. DOE identified one subgroup for a separate impact analysis:
small business manufacturers. The small business subgroup is discussed
in section VI.B of this document, ``Review under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act'' and in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flow due to
amended standards that result in a higher or lower industry value. The
GRIM uses a standard, annual discounted cash-flow analysis that
incorporates manufacturer costs, manufacturer markups, shipments, and
industry financial information as inputs. The GRIM models changes in
costs, distribution of shipments, investments, and manufacturer margins
that could result from an amended energy conservation standard. The
GRIM spreadsheet uses the inputs to arrive at a series of annual cash
flows, beginning in 2022 (the base year of the analysis) and continuing
to 2056. DOE calculated INPVs by summing the stream of annual
discounted cash flows during this period. For manufacturers of RCWs,
DOE used a real discount rate of 9.3 percent, which was derived from
industry financials and then modified according to feedback received
during manufacturer interviews.
The GRIM calculates cash flows using standard accounting principles
and compares changes in INPV between the no-new-standards case and each
standards case. The difference in INPV between the no-new-standards
case and a standards case represents the financial impact of the
amended energy conservation standard on manufacturers. As discussed
previously, DOE developed critical GRIM inputs using a number of
sources, including publicly available data, results of the engineering
analysis and shipments analysis, and information gathered from industry
stakeholders during the course of manufacturer interviews. The GRIM
results are presented in section V.B.2 of this document. Additional
details about the GRIM, the discount rate, and other financial
parameters can be found in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
Manufacturing more efficient products is typically more expensive
than manufacturing baseline products due to the use of more complex
components, which are typically more costly than baseline components.
The changes in the MPCs of covered products can affect the revenues,
gross margins, and cash flow of the industry.
[[Page 13576]]
DOE conducted this analysis using the physical teardown approach. The
resulting bill of materials provides the basis for the MPC estimates.
In this proposed rulemaking, DOE relies on an efficiency-level
approach, supplemented with the design-option approach for certain
``gap fill'' efficiency levels. The efficiency-level approach is
appropriate for RCWs, given the availability of certification data to
determine the market distribution of existing products and to identify
efficiency level ``clusters'' that already exist on the market. For a
complete description of the MPCs, see chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD or
section IV.C of this document.
b. Shipments Projections
The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total unit
shipment projections and the distribution of those shipments by
efficiency level. Changes in sales volumes and efficiency mix over time
can significantly affect manufacturer finances. For this analysis, the
GRIM uses the NIA's annual shipment projections derived from the
shipments analysis from 2022 (the base year) to 2056 (the end year of
the analysis period). See chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD for additional
details or section IV.G of this document.
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
Amended energy conservation standards could cause manufacturers to
incur conversion costs to bring their production facilities and
equipment designs into compliance. DOE evaluated the level of
conversion-related expenditures that would be needed to comply with
each considered efficiency level in each product class. For the MIA,
DOE classified these conversion costs into two major groups: (1)
capital conversion costs; and (2) product conversion costs. Capital
conversion costs are investments in property, plant, and equipment
necessary to adapt or change existing production facilities such that
new compliant product designs can be fabricated and assembled. Product
conversion costs are investments in research, development, testing,
marketing, and other non-capitalized costs necessary to make product
designs comply with amended energy conservation standards.
DOE relied on information derived from manufacturer interviews, the
engineering analysis, and product teardowns to evaluate the level of
capital and product conversion costs manufacturers would likely incur
at the various TSLs. During interviews, DOE asked manufacturers to
estimate the capital conversion costs (e.g., changes in production
processes, equipment, and tooling) to meet the various efficiency
levels. DOE also asked manufacturers to estimate the redesign effort,
engineering resources, and marketing expenses required at various
efficiency levels to quantify the product conversion costs. Based on
manufacturer feedback, DOE also estimated ``re-flooring'' costs
associated with replacing obsolete display models in big-box stores
(e.g., Lowe's, Home Depot, Best Buy) due to higher standards. Some
manufacturers stated that with a new product release, big-box retailers
discount outdated display models, and manufacturers share any losses
associated with discounting the retail price. The estimated re-flooring
costs for each efficiency level were incorporated into the product
conversion cost estimates, as DOE modeled the re-flooring costs as a
marketing expense. DOE also estimated industry costs associated with
re-rating basic models in accordance with Appendix J, as detailed in
the June 2022 TP Final Rule. 87 FR 33316. Manufacturer data was
aggregated to better reflect the industry as a whole and to protect
confidential information. DOE then scaled up the aggregate capital and
product conversion cost feedback from interviews to estimate total
industry conversion costs.
DOE acknowledges that manufacturers may follow different design
paths to reach the various efficiency levels analyzed. An individual
manufacturer's investments depend on a range of factors, including the
company's current product offerings and product platforms, existing
production facilities and infrastructure, and make vs. buy decisions
for components. DOE's conversion cost methodology incorporated feedback
from all manufacturers that took part in interviews and extrapolated
industry values. While industry average values may not represent any
single manufacturer, DOE's modeling provides reasonable estimates of
industry-level investments.
DOE assumes all conversion-related investments occur between the
year of publication of the final rule and the year by which
manufacturers must comply with the new standard. The conversion cost
figures used in the GRIM can be found in section V.B.2 of this
document. For additional information on the estimated capital and
product conversion costs, see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios
MSPs include direct manufacturing production costs (i.e., labor,
materials, and overhead estimated in DOE's MPCs) and all non-production
costs (i.e., SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with profit. To calculate
the MSPs in the GRIM, DOE applied manufacturer markups to the MPCs
estimated in the engineering analysis for each product class and
efficiency level. Modifying the manufacturer markups in the standards
case yields different sets of impacts on manufacturers. For the MIA,
DOE modeled two standards-case scenarios to represent uncertainty
regarding the potential impacts on prices and profitability for
manufacturers following the implementation of amended energy
conservation standards: (1) a preservation of gross margin percentage
scenario; and (2) a preservation of operating profit scenario. These
scenarios lead to different markup values that, when applied to the
MPCs, result in varying revenue and cash flow impacts.
Under the preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, DOE
applied a single uniform ``gross margin percentage'' across all
efficiency levels, which assumes that manufacturers would be able to
maintain the same amount of profit as a percentage of revenues at all
efficiency levels within a product class. As manufacturer production
costs increase with efficiency, this scenario implies that the per-unit
dollar profit will increase. DOE assumed a gross margin percentage of
18 percent for all product classes.\98\ Manufacturers tend to believe
it is optimistic to assume that they would be able to maintain the same
gross margin percentage as their production costs increase,
particularly for minimally efficient products. Therefore, this scenario
represents a high bound of industry profitability under an amended
energy conservation standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ The gross margin percentage of 18 percent is based on a
manufacturer markup of 1.22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the preservation of operating profit scenario, as the cost of
production goes up under a standards case, manufacturers are generally
required to reduce their manufacturer markups to a level that maintains
base-case operating profit. DOE implemented this scenario in the GRIM
by lowering the manufacturer markups at each TSL to yield approximately
the same earnings before interest and taxes in the standards case as in
the no-new-standards case in the year after the expected compliance
date of the amended standards. The implicit assumption behind this
scenario is that the industry can only maintain its operating profit in
absolute dollars after the standard takes effect.
[[Page 13577]]
A comparison of industry financial impacts under the two scenarios
is presented in section V.B.2.a of this document.
3. Manufacturer Interviews
DOE interviewed manufacturers representing approximately 82 percent
of domestic RCW industry shipments. Participants included domestic-
based and foreign-based original equipment manufacturers (``OEMs'')
with a range of different product offerings and market shares.
In interviews, DOE asked manufacturers to describe their major
concerns regarding potential increases in energy conservation standards
for RCWs. The following section highlights manufacturer concerns that
helped inform the projected potential impacts of an amended standard on
the industry. Manufacturer interviews are conducted under non-
disclosure agreements (``NDAs''), so DOE does not document these
discussions in the same way that it does public comments in the comment
summaries and DOE's responses throughout the rest of this document.
a. Product Classes
In interviews, manufacturers had differing views on the appropriate
RCW product class structure. Generally, manufacturers specializing in
standard-size front-loading clothes washers recommended that DOE
combine product classes and remove the product class delineation based
on load configuration. These manufacturers emphasized that front-
loading clothes washers are more efficient than top-loading
counterparts. These manufacturers noted that even energy-conscious
consumers often just look for the ENERGY STAR certification and are
unaware of the energy usage differences between top-loading and front-
loading models.
Several manufacturers recommended an array of updates to the
product class structure as it relates to the classification of
standard-size versus compact-size products. Some manufacturers
suggested differentiating product classes based on cabinet width
instead of tub capacity. These manufacturers noted that consumers often
purchase compact front-loading RCWs due to size constraints at the
installation location. Other manufacturers encouraged DOE to align the
capacity cutoff for top-loading compact clothes washers with the
capacity cutoff for front-loading compact clothes washers analyzed in
the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis (i.e., 3.0 ft\3\). 86 FR 53886.
Some manufacturers suggested splitting up the standard-size product
classes by varying cabinet-size (or capacity) thresholds. One
manufacturer noted that entry-level products are typically on the
smaller side, with capacities under 4.0 ft\3\. These smaller standard-
size products are often less expensive than larger capacity RCW models.
Additionally, the technology options may vary based on capacity. For
example, this manufacturer asserted that larger capacity models can
better handle increased spin speeds and have an inherent advantage for
efficiency ratings due to the larger weighted-average load-size
compared to smaller capacity models.
b. Ability To Serve Certain Consumer Segments
In interviews, manufacturers emphasized that consumer preferences
vary and as a result, there are a range of RCW models available that
appeal to different consumer segments. Currently, manufacturers balance
achieving energy and water efficiency metrics with other
considerations, such as cycle time, noise levels, fabric care, cleaning
performance, and upfront cost. Multiple manufacturers expressed
concerns about their ability to meet some consumer requirements under
amended standards. For instance, several manufacturers stated that they
would need to increase cycle times at certain efficiencies to recover
cleaning performance at reduced water levels. These manufacturers noted
that consumers often expect wash cycle times to align with dryer cycle
times. Other manufacturers expressed concerns about diminished fabric
care and heightened noise under levels that require notably faster spin
speeds. Some manufacturers stated that it would require significant
engineering time and capital investment to develop a range of platforms
that meet more stringent energy standards as well as a range of
consumer performance requirements. A few manufacturers recommended DOE
explore instituting a cleaning performance metric, like the concept
proposed for dishwashers in a NOPR published on December 22, 2021. 86
FR 72738.
Some manufacturers stated that a large segment of
``traditionalist'' consumers prefer ``traditional'' top-loading RCWs
with specific characteristics and the manufacturers asserted that more
stringent standards would threaten the viability of these
``traditional'' top-loading clothes washers that met requirements of
this consumer segment. These manufacturers described ``traditionalist''
consumers as preferring top-loading clothes washers with agitators,
visible water levels, and flexible (i.e., manual) fill options.
Specifically, manufacturers stated that an agitator design would not be
feasible at or above the current ENERGY STAR level (EL 2). Some
manufacturers asserted, based on their product research and reported
shifts in consumer demand for agitator washers, that some
``traditionalist'' consumers would be dissatisfied with top-loading
designs that lacked the agitator and instead used a wash plate. One
manufacturer noted that they recently introduced RCWs with agitators
due to consumer preferences for such features.
Several manufacturers also noted that amending standards would
raise the cost of baseline RCWs, which would disproportionately impact
low-income consumers since they typically purchase entry-level,
``traditional'' top-loading clothes washers. These manufacturers raised
concerns about their future ability to offer low-cost RCWs and serve
the low-income consumer market under amended standards.
c. Supply Chain Constraints
In interviews, some manufacturers expressed concerns about
potential supply chain constraints. Those manufacturers noted concerns
about the ongoing supply constraints for microprocessors and
electronics. Any shift towards direct drive motors would require that
industry source more advanced microprocessors, which are already
difficult to secure. Some manufacturers were also uncertain about
industry's ability to source enough direct drive motors--particularly
for standard-size top-loading clothes washers--to meet market demand at
and above the current ENERGY STAR level (EL 2). Manufacturers asserted
that if these supply constraints continue through the end of the
conversion period, industry could face production capacity constraints.
4. Discussion of MIA Comments
In response to the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, AHAM urged
DOE to consider alternative approaches to cumulative regulatory burden.
AHAM encouraged DOE to incorporate the financial results of the
cumulative regulatory burden analysis into the MIA, stating that this
could be done by adding the combined cost of complying with multiple
regulations into the product conversion costs in the GRIM. (AHAM, No.
40 at p. 7) AHAM noted other regulations impact RCW manufacturers such
as consumer clothes dryers, commercial clothes washers,
[[Page 13578]]
consumer refrigerator/freezers, miscellaneous refrigeration products,
cooking products, dishwashers, room air conditioners, dehumidifiers,
and portable air conditioners rulemakings. (AHAM, No. 40 at p. 8)
Additionally, AHAM requested that DOE include the cost of monitoring
test procedure and energy conservation standard rulemakings in its
rulemaking analyses. (Id.)
If DOE were to combine the conversion costs from multiple
regulations, as requested, it would be appropriate to match the
combined conversion costs against combined revenues of the regulated
products. DOE is concerned that combined results would make it more
difficult to discern the direct impact of the amended standard on
covered manufacturers, particularly for rulemakings where there is only
partial overlap of manufacturers. Conversion costs would be spread over
a larger revenue base and result in less severe INPV impacts, when
evaluated on a percent change basis.
To consider to costs of monitoring test procedure and energy
conservation standard rulemakings, DOE requests AHAM provide the costs
of monitoring, which would be independent from the conversion costs
required to adapt product designs and manufacturing facilities to an
amended standard, for DOE to determine whether these costs would
materially affect the analysis. In particular, a summary of the job
titles and annual hours per job title at a prototypical company would
allow DOE to construct a detailed analysis of AHAM's monitoring costs.
AHAM requested DOE plan its rulemaking process such that the
compliance dates for residential clothes washers and clothes dryers are
identical or very nearly identical. AHAM further explained that this
would allow manufacturers to design these products simultaneously to
meet amended standards and so that there is less confusion for
manufacturers, retailers, and consumers as products would need to be
re-floored leading up to and on the compliance date of any amended
energy conservation standards. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 7-8) Whirlpool also
stated that if DOE decides to amend standards for both clothes washers
and clothes dryers, then compliance dates should be aligned to allow
for manufacturers to invest in clothes washers and clothes dryers as a
pair, which prevents unnecessary cost, confusion, and burden for
manufacturers and retailers. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 20) Whirlpool
added that it believes DOE has the statutory authority to align these
compliance dates. (Id.)
Pursuant to a consent decree entered on September 20, 2022, DOE has
agreed to sign and post on DOE's publicly accessible website a
rulemaking document for RCWs and consumer clothes dryers by February
29, 2024, that, when effective, would be DOE's final agency action for
standards for these products.\99\ As such, DOE expects that, if these
two rulemakings result in amended energy conservations standards, the
compliance dates would be similar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al. v Granholm,
et al., No. 1:20-cv-09127 (S.D.N.Y.), and State of New York, et al.
v Granholm, et al. No. 1:20-cv-09362 (S.D.NY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool stated that more stringent standards would
disproportionately harm the company due to its broad lineup of RCWs
that includes broad offerings at entry-level price points. Whirlpool
noted that the company would need to devote a high level of engineering
resources to incorporate design options such as stainless-steel wash
baskets, wash plates, direct drive motors, and product structural
changes. Whirlpool added that moving from traditional agitators to
high-efficiency agitators or wash plates would lead to increased costs
associated with redesigning models and retooling factories. In
contrast, Whirlpool emphasized that many competitors would not need to
make additional investments to meet amended standards since they cater
to a more targeted consumer segment. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 18)
DOE uses the GRIM, as described in section IV.J.2, to determine the
quantitative impacts on the RCW industry as a whole. Impacts on
individual manufacturers may vary from industry averages due to a wide
range of company-specific factors including, but not limited to,
differences in efficiency of current product offerings, production
volumes, and legacy investments in manufacturing plants. DOE recognizes
that the industry impacts do not apply evenly across manufacturers.
However, as many of the GRIM inputs (e.g., industry financials) account
for U.S. market share weights, the GRIM is most reflective of large
manufacturers, like Whirlpool. Additionally, DOE's modeling
incorporates estimate conversion costs associated with the product
changes, such as stainless-steel wash baskets, wash plates, direct
drive motors, and product structural enhancements, identified by
Whirlpool.
Whirlpool expressed concern that direct drive and BPM motors are
more expensive than PSC motors. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 6) DOE
incorporates the higher cost of direct drive and BPM motors in its
engineering analysis, as discussed in section IV.C.4 of this document.
Whirlpool noted concerns about being able to secure an adequate
domestic supply of direct drive motors, if DOE amends standard, since
direct drive motors typically come from foreign suppliers. (Whirlpool,
No. 39 at p. 6) Samsung commented that direct drive motors have matured
over the years and have become highly cost competitive. (Samsung, No.
41 at pp. 2-3) More stringent standards would likely necessitate
adoption of more efficient technologies, such as direct drive motors.
DOE notes that amended standards, if adopted, could provide regulatory
certainty for manufacturers and suppliers to establish additional
capacity in the supply chain.
DOE seeks comment on the availability of direct drive motors in
quantities required by industry if DOE were to adopt amended standards.
K. Emissions Analysis
The emissions analysis consists of two components. The first
component estimates the effect of potential energy conservation
standards on power sector and site (where applicable) combustion
emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg.
The second component estimates the impacts of potential standards on
emissions of two additional greenhouse gases, CH4 and
N2O, as well as the reductions to emissions of other gases
due to ``upstream'' activities in the fuel production chain. These
upstream activities comprise extraction, processing, and transporting
fuels to the site of combustion.
The analysis of electric power sector emissions of CO2,
NOX, SO2, and Hg uses emissions factors intended
to represent the marginal impacts of the change in electricity
consumption associated with amended or new standards. The methodology
is based on results published for the AEO, including a set of side
cases that implement a variety of efficiency-related policies. The
methodology is described in appendix 13A in the NOPR TSD. The analysis
presented in this notice uses projections from AEO2022. Power sector
emissions of CH4 and N2O from fuel combustion are
estimated using Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories
published by the EPA.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ Available at www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-04/documents/emission-factors_apr2021.pdf (last accessed June 12,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The on-site operation of RCWs requires combustion of fossil fuels
and results in emissions of CO2, NOX,
SO2
[[Page 13579]]
CH4, and N2O where these products are used. Site
emissions of these gases were estimated using Emission Factors for
Greenhouse Gas Inventories and, for NOX and SO2
emissions intensity factors from an EPA publication.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. External Combustion
Sources. In Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. AP-42.
Fifth Edition. Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. Chapter
1. Available at www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ (Last accessed
June 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FFC upstream emissions, which include emissions from fuel
combustion during extraction, processing, and transportation of fuels,
and ``fugitive'' emissions (direct leakage to the atmosphere) of
CH4 and CO2, are estimated based on the
methodology described in chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD.
The emissions intensity factors are expressed in terms of physical
units per MWh or MMBtu of site energy savings. For power sector
emissions, specific emissions intensity factors are calculated by
sector and end use. Total emissions reductions are estimated using the
energy savings calculated in the national impact analysis.
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
DOE's no-new-standards case for the electric power sector reflects
the AEO, which incorporates the projected impacts of existing air
quality regulations on emissions. AEO2022 generally represents current
legislation and environmental regulations, including recent government
actions, that were in place at the time of preparation of AEO2022,
including the emissions control programs discussed in the following
paragraphs.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ For further information, see the Assumptions to AEO2022
report that sets forth the major assumptions used to generate the
projections in the Annual Energy Outlook. Available at www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/ (Last accessed June 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units
(``EGUs'') are subject to nationwide and regional emissions cap-and-
trade programs. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions
cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous States and
the District of Columbia (D.C.). (42 U.S.C. 7651 et seq.)
SO2 emissions from numerous States in the eastern half of
the United States are also limited under the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (``CSAPR''). 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). CSAPR requires these
States to reduce certain emissions, including annual SO2
emissions, and went into effect as of January 1, 2015.\103\ AEO2022
incorporates implementation of CSAPR, including the update to the CSAPR
ozone season program emission budgets and target dates issued in 2016.
81 FR 74504 (Oct. 26, 2016). Compliance with CSAPR is flexible among
EGUs and is enforced through the use of tradable emissions allowances.
Under existing EPA regulations, any excess SO2 emissions
allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand caused by the
adoption of an efficiency standard could be used to permit offsetting
increases in SO2 emissions by another regulated EGU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ CSAPR requires states to address annual emissions of
SO2 and NOX, precursors to the formation of
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution, in order to
address the interstate transport of pollution with respect to the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (``NAAQS''). CSAPR also requires certain states to address
the ozone season (May-September) emissions of NOX, a
precursor to the formation of ozone pollution, in order to address
the interstate transport of ozone pollution with respect to the 1997
ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). EPA subsequently issued a
supplemental rule that included an additional five states in the
CSAPR ozone season program; 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011)
(Supplemental Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, beginning in 2016, SO2 emissions began to fall
as a result of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (``MATS'') for
power plants. 77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). In the MATS final rule, EPA
established a standard for hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for acid
gas hazardous air pollutants (``HAP''), and also established a standard
for SO2 (a non-HAP acid gas) as an alternative equivalent
surrogate standard for acid gas HAP. The same controls are used to
reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; thus, SO2 emissions are
being reduced as a result of the control technologies installed on
coal-fired power plants to comply with the MATS requirements for acid
gas. In order to continue operating, coal power plants must have either
flue gas desulfurization or dry sorbent injection systems installed.
Both technologies, which are used to reduce acid gas emissions, also
reduce SO2 emissions. Because of the emissions reductions
under the MATS, it is unlikely that excess SO2 emissions
allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand would be needed
or used to permit offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by
another regulated EGU. Therefore, energy conservation standards that
decrease electricity generation would generally reduce SO2
emissions. DOE estimated SO2 emissions reduction using
emissions factors based on AEO2022.
CSAPR also established limits on NOX emissions for
numerous States in the eastern half of the United States. Energy
conservation standards would have little effect on NOX
emissions in those States covered by CSAPR emissions limits if excess
NOX emissions allowances resulting from the lower
electricity demand could be used to permit offsetting increases in
NOX emissions from other EGUs. In such case, NOX
emissions would remain near the limit even if electricity generation
goes down. A different case could possibly result, depending on the
configuration of the power sector in the different regions and the need
for allowances, such that NOX emissions might not remain at
the limit in the case of lower electricity demand. In this case, energy
conservation standards might reduce NOX emissions in covered
States. Despite this possibility, DOE has chosen to be conservative in
its analysis and has maintained the assumption that standards will not
reduce NOX emissions in States covered by CSAPR. Energy
conservation standards would be expected to reduce NOX
emissions in the States not covered by CSAPR. DOE used AEO2022 data to
derive NOX emissions factors for the group of States not
covered by CSAPR.
The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not
include emissions caps and, as such, DOE's energy conservation
standards would be expected to slightly reduce Hg emissions. DOE
estimated mercury emissions reduction using emissions factors based on
AEO2022, which incorporates the MATS.
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
As part of the development of this proposed rule, for the purpose
of complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866, DOE
considered the estimated monetary benefits from the reduced emissions
of CO2, CH4, N2O, NOX, and
SO2 that are expected to result from each of the TSLs
considered. In order to make this calculation analogous to the
calculation of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE considered the reduced
emissions expected to result over the lifetime of products shipped in
the projection period for each TSL. This section summarizes the basis
for the values used for monetizing the emissions benefits and presents
the values considered in this NOPR.
On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-
30087) granted the Federal government's emergency motion for stay
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued
in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of
the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in
effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that
injunction
[[Page 13580]]
or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary
injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from ``adopting,
employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim estimates
of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the
Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on
February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach
prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits where
appropriate and permissible under law. DOE requests comment on how to
address the climate benefits and other non-monetized effects of the
proposal.
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
DOE estimates the monetized benefits of the reductions in emissions
of CO2, CH4, and N2O by using a
measure of the social cost (``SC'') of each pollutant (e.g., SC-
CO2). These estimates represent the monetary value of the
net harm to society associated with a marginal increase in emissions of
these pollutants in a given year, or the benefit of avoiding that
increase. These estimates are intended to include (but are not limited
to) climate-change-related changes in net agricultural productivity,
human health, property damages from increased flood risk, disruption of
energy systems, risk of conflict, environmental migration, and the
value of ecosystem services.
DOE exercises its own judgment in presenting monetized climate
benefits as recommended by applicable Executive orders, and DOE would
reach the same conclusion presented in this proposed rulemaking in the
absence of the social cost of greenhouse gases. That is, the social
costs of greenhouse gases, whether measured using the February 2021
Interim Estimates presented by the Interagency Working Group on the
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases or by another means, did not affect the
rule ultimately proposed by DOE.
DOE estimated the global social benefits of CO2,
CH4, and N2O reductions (i.e., SC-GHGs) using the
estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of
Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive
Order 13990, published in February 2021 by the IWG (``February 2021 SC-
GHG TSD''). The SC-GHGs is the monetary value of the net harm to
society associated with a marginal increase in emissions in a given
year, or the benefit of avoiding that increase. In principle, SC-GHGs
includes the value of all climate change impacts, including (but not
limited to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health
effects, property damage from increased flood risk and natural
disasters, disruption of energy systems, risk of conflict,
environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem services. The SC-
GHGs therefore, reflects the societal value of reducing emissions of
the gas in question by one metric ton. The SC-GHGs is the theoretically
appropriate value to use in conducting benefit-cost analyses of
policies that affect CO2, N2O and CH4
emissions. As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the
February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees that the interim SC-GHG estimates
represent the most appropriate estimate of the SC-GHG until revised
estimates have been developed reflecting the latest, peer-reviewed
science.
The SC-GHGs estimates presented here were developed over many
years, using transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, the best
science available at the time of that process, and with input from the
public. Specifically, in 2009, the IWG, which included DOE and other
executive branch agencies and offices, was established to ensure that
agencies were using the best available science and to promote
consistency in the social cost of carbon (i.e., SC-CO2)
values used across agencies. The IWG published SC-CO2
estimates in 2010 that were developed from an ensemble of three widely
cited integrated assessment models (``IAMs'') that estimate global
climate damages using highly aggregated representations of climate
processes and the global economy combined into a single modeling
framework. The three IAMs were run using a common set of input
assumptions in each model for future population, economic, and
CO2 emissions growth, as well as equilibrium climate
sensitivity--a measure of the globally averaged temperature response to
increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations. These estimates
were updated in 2013 based on new versions of each IAM. In August 2016,
the IWG published estimates of the social cost of methane (i.e., SC-
CH4) and nitrous oxide (i.e., SC-N2O) using
methodologies that are consistent with the methodology underlying the
SC-CO2 estimates. The modeling approach that extends the IWG
SC-CO2 methodology to non-CO2 GHGs has undergone
multiple stages of peer review. The SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates were developed by Marten et al.\104\ and
underwent a standard double-blind peer review process prior to journal
publication. In 2015, as part of the response to public comments
received to a 2013 solicitation for comments on the SC-CO2
estimates, the IWG announced a National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine review of the SC-CO2 estimates to
offer advice on how to approach future updates to ensure that the
estimates continue to reflect the best available science and
methodologies. In January 2017, the National Academies released their
final report, Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the
Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, and recommended specific criteria for
future updates to the SC-CO2 estimates, a modeling framework
to satisfy the specified criteria, and both near-term updates and
longer-term research needs pertaining to various components of the
estimation process (National Academies, 2017).\105\ Shortly thereafter,
in March 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13783, which
disbanded the IWG, withdrew the previous TSDs, and directed agencies to
ensure SC-CO2 estimates used in regulatory analyses are
consistent with the guidance contained in OMB's Circular A-4,
``including with respect to the consideration of domestic versus
international impacts and the consideration of appropriate discount
rates'' (E.O. 13783, Section 5(c)). Benefit-cost analyses following
E.O. 13783 used SC-GHG estimates that attempted to focus on the U.S.-
specific share of climate change damages as estimated by the models and
were calculated using two discount rates recommended by Circular A-4, 3
percent and 7 percent. All other methodological decisions and model
versions used in SC-GHG calculations remained the same as those used by
the IWG in 2010 and 2013, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ Marten, A.L., E.A. Kopits, C.W. Griffiths, S.C. Newbold,
and A. Wolverton. Incremental CH4 and N2O
mitigation benefits consistent with the U.S. Government's SC-
CO2 estimates. Climate Policy. 2015. 15(2): pp. 272-298.
\105\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of
Carbon Dioxide. 2017. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990,
which re-established the IWG and directed it to ensure that the U.S.
Government's estimates of the social cost of carbon and other
greenhouse gases reflect the best available science and the
recommendations of the National Academies (2017). The IWG was tasked
with first reviewing the SC-GHG
[[Page 13581]]
estimates currently used in Federal analyses and publishing interim
estimates within 30 days of the E.O. that reflect the full impact of
GHG emissions, including by taking global damages into account. The
interim SC-GHG estimates published in February 2021 are used here to
estimate the climate benefits for this proposed rulemaking. The E.O.
instructs the IWG to undertake a fuller update of the SC-GHG estimates
by January 2022 that takes into consideration the advice of the
National Academies (2017) and other recent scientific literature. The
February 2021 SC-GHG TSD provides a complete discussion of the IWG's
initial review conducted under E.O. 13990. In particular, the IWG found
that the SC-GHG estimates used under E.O. 13783 fail to reflect the
full impact of GHG emissions in multiple ways.
First, the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates used under E.O.
13783 fail to fully capture many climate impacts that affect the
welfare of U.S. citizens and residents, and those impacts are better
reflected by global measures of the SC-GHG. Examples of omitted effects
from the E.O. 13783 estimates include direct effects on U.S. citizens,
assets, and investments located abroad, supply chains, U.S. military
assets and interests abroad, and tourism, and spillover pathways such
as economic and political destabilization and global migration that can
lead to adverse impacts on U.S. national security, public health, and
humanitarian concerns. In addition, assessing the benefits of U.S. GHG
mitigation activities requires consideration of how those actions may
affect mitigation activities by other countries, as those international
mitigation actions will provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and
residents by mitigating climate impacts that affect U.S. citizens and
residents. A wide range of scientific and economic experts have
emphasized the issue of reciprocity as support for considering global
damages of GHG emissions. If the United States does not consider
impacts on other countries, it is difficult to convince other countries
to consider the impacts of their emissions on the United States. The
only way to achieve an efficient allocation of resources for emissions
reduction on a global basis--and so benefit the U.S. and its citizens--
is for all countries to base their policies on global estimates of
damages. As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the
February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with this assessment and,
therefore, in this proposed rule DOE centers attention on a global
measure of SC-GHG. This approach is the same as that taken in DOE
regulatory analyses from 2012 through 2016. A robust estimate of
climate damages that accrue only to U.S. citizens and residents does
not currently exist in the literature. As explained in the February
2021 SC-GHG TSD, existing estimates are both incomplete and an
underestimate of total damages that accrue to the citizens and
residents of the U.S. because they do not fully capture the regional
interactions and spillovers discussed above, nor do they include all of
the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate
change recognized in the climate change literature. As noted in the
February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the IWG will continue to review developments
in the literature, including more robust methodologies for estimating a
U.S.-specific SC-GHG value, and explore ways to better inform the
public of the full range of carbon impacts. As a member of the IWG, DOE
will continue to follow developments in the literature pertaining to
this issue.
Second, the IWG found that the use of the social rate of return on
capital (7 percent under current OMB Circular A-4 guidance) to discount
the future benefits of reducing GHG emissions inappropriately
underestimates the impacts of climate change for the purposes of
estimating the SC-GHG. Consistent with the findings of the National
Academies (2017) and the economic literature, the IWG continued to
conclude that the consumption rate of interest is the theoretically
appropriate discount rate in an intergenerational context,\106\ and
recommended that discount rate uncertainty and relevant aspects of
intergenerational ethical considerations be accounted for in selecting
future discount rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. Social
Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order
12866. 2010. United States Government. (Last accessed April 15,
2022.) www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/scc_tsd_2010.pdf; Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of
Carbon. Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory
Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. 2013. (Last accessed
April 15, 2022.) www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/11/26/2013-28242/technical-support-document-technical-update-of-the-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulatory-impact; Interagency Working Group on
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government. Technical
Support Document: Technical Update on the Social Cost of Carbon for
Regulatory Impact Analysis-Under Executive Order 12866. August 2016.
(Last accessed January 18, 2022.) www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf; Interagency Working
Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government.
Addendum to Technical Support Document on Social Cost of Carbon for
Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866: Application
of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of Methane and the
Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide. August 2016. (Last accessed January
18, 2022.) www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/addendum_to_sc-ghg_tsd_august_2016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the damage estimates developed for use in the SC-GHG
are estimated in consumption-equivalent terms, and so an application of
OMB Circular A-4's guidance for regulatory analysis would then use the
consumption discount rate to calculate the SC-GHG. DOE agrees with this
assessment and will continue to follow developments in the literature
pertaining to this issue. DOE also notes that while OMB Circular A-4,
as published in 2003, recommends using 3- and 7-percent discount rates
as ``default'' values, Circular A-4 also reminds agencies that
``different regulations may call for different emphases in the
analysis, depending on the nature and complexity of the regulatory
issues and the sensitivity of the benefit and cost estimates to the key
assumptions.'' On discounting, Circular A-4 recognizes that ``special
ethical considerations arise when comparing benefits and costs across
generations,'' and Circular A-4 acknowledges that analyses may
appropriately ``discount future costs and consumption benefits [. . .]
at a lower rate than for intragenerational analysis.'' In the 2015
Response to Comments on the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact
Analysis, OMB, DOE, and the other IWG members recognized that
``Circular A-4 is a living document'' and ``the use of 7 percent is not
considered appropriate for intergenerational discounting. There is wide
support for this view in the academic literature, and it is recognized
in Circular A-4 itself.'' Thus, DOE concludes that a 7-percent discount
rate is not appropriate to apply to value the social cost of greenhouse
gases in the analysis presented in this analysis.
To calculate the present and annualized values of climate benefits,
DOE uses the same discount rate as the rate used to discount the value
of damages from future GHG emissions, for internal consistency. That
approach to discounting follows the same approach that the February
2021 SC-GHG TSD recommends ``to ensure internal consistency--i.e.,
future damages from climate change using the SC-GHG at 2.5 percent
should be discounted to the base year of the analysis using the same
2.5 percent rate.'' DOE has also consulted the National Academies' 2017
[[Page 13582]]
recommendations on how SC-GHG estimates can ``be combined in RIAs with
other cost and benefits estimates that may use different discount
rates.'' The National Academies reviewed several options, including
``presenting all discount rate combinations of other costs and benefits
with [SC-GHG] estimates.''
As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the February
2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with the above assessment and will continue
to follow developments in the literature pertaining to this issue.
While the IWG works to assess how best to incorporate the latest, peer
reviewed science to develop an updated set of SC-GHG estimates, it set
the interim estimates to be the most recent estimates developed by the
IWG prior to the group being disbanded in 2017. The estimates rely on
the same models and harmonized inputs and are calculated using a range
of discount rates. As explained in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the
IWG has recommended that agencies use to the same set of four values
drawn from the SC-GHG distributions based on three discount rates as
were used in regulatory analyses between 2010 and 2016 and were subject
to public comment. For each discount rate, the IWG combined the
distributions across models and socioeconomic emissions scenarios
(applying equal weight to each) and then selected a set of four values
recommended for use in benefit-cost analyses: an average value
resulting from the model runs for each of three discount rates (2.5
percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent), plus a fourth value, selected as
the 95th percentile of estimates based on a 3 percent discount rate.
The fourth value was included to provide information on potentially
higher-than-expected economic impacts from climate change. As explained
in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, and DOE agrees, this update reflects
the immediate need to have an operational SC-GHG for use in regulatory
benefit-cost analyses and other applications that was developed using a
transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, and the science
available at the time of that process. Those estimates were subject to
public comment in the context of dozens of proposed rulemakings as well
as in a dedicated public comment period in 2013.
There are a number of limitations and uncertainties associated with
the SC-GHG estimates. First, the current scientific and economic
understanding of discounting approaches suggests discount rates
appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of climate
change are likely to be less than 3 percent, near 2 percent or
lower.\107\ Second, the IAMs used to produce these interim estimates do
not include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic
impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature
and the science underlying their ``damage functions''--i.e., the core
parts of the IAMs that map global mean temperature changes and other
physical impacts of climate change into economic (both market and
nonmarket) damages--lags behind the most recent research. For example,
limitations include the incomplete treatment of catastrophic and non-
catastrophic impacts in the integrated assessment models, their
incomplete treatment of adaptation and technological change, the
incomplete way in which inter-regional and intersectoral linkages are
modeled, uncertainty in the extrapolation of damages to high
temperatures, and inadequate representation of the relationship between
the discount rate and uncertainty in economic growth over long time
horizons. Likewise, the socioeconomic and emissions scenarios used as
inputs to the models do not reflect new information from the last
decade of scenario generation or the full range of projections. The
modeling limitations do not all work in the same direction in terms of
their influence on the SC-CO2 estimates. However, as
discussed in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the IWG has recommended
that, taken together, the limitations suggest that the interim SC-GHG
estimates used in this proposed rule likely underestimate the damages
from GHG emissions. DOE concurs with this assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse
Gases (IWG). 2021. Technical Support Document: Social Cost of
Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive
Order 13990. February. United States Government. Available at
www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/blog/2021/02/26/a-return-to-science-evidence-based-estimates-of-the-benefits-of-reducing-climate-pollution/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's derivations of the SC-CO2, SC-N2O, and
SC-CH4 values used for this NOPR are discussed in the
following sections, and the results of DOE's analyses estimating the
benefits of the reductions in emissions of these pollutants are
presented in section V.B.6 of this document.
a. Social Cost of Carbon
The SC-CO2 values used for this NOPR were based on the
values presented for IWG's February 2021 SC-GHG TSD. Table IV.37 shows
the updated sets of SC-CO2 estimates from the IWG's February
2021 SC-GHG TSD in 5-year increments from 2020 to 2050. The full set of
annual values that DOE used is presented in appendix 14A of the NOPR
TSD. For purposes of capturing the uncertainties involved in regulatory
impact analysis, DOE has determined it is appropriate include all four
sets of SC-CO2 values, as recommended by the IWG.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ For example, the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD discusses how
the understanding of discounting approaches suggests that discount
rates appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of
climate change may be lower than 3 percent.
Table IV.37--Annual SC-CO2 Values From 2021 Interagency Update, 2020-2050 (2020$ per Metric Ton CO2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistic
---------------------------------------------------------------
5% 3% 2.5% 3%
Year ---------------------------------------------------------------
95th
Average Average Average percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020............................................ 14 51 76 152
2025............................................ 17 56 83 169
2030............................................ 19 62 89 187
2035............................................ 22 67 96 206
2040............................................ 25 73 103 225
2045............................................ 28 79 110 242
2050............................................ 32 85 116 260
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 13583]]
For 2051 to 2070, DOE used SC-CO2 estimates published by
EPA, adjusted to 2020$.\109\ These estimates are based on methods,
assumptions, and parameters identical to the 2020-2050 estimates
published by the IWG. DOE expects additional climate benefits to accrue
for any longer-life RCWs after 2070, but a lack of available SC-
CO2 estimates for emissions years beyond 2070 prevents DOE
from monetizing these potential benefits in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ See EPA, Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty
Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards: Regulatory Impact Analysis,
Washington, DC, December 2021. Available at: www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-12/420r21028.pdf (last accessed January 13,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions reduction estimated for
each year by the SC-CO2 value for that year in each of the
four cases. DOE adjusted the values to 2021$ using the implicit price
deflator for gross domestic product (``GDP'') from the Bureau of
Economic Analysis. To calculate a present value of the stream of
monetary values, DOE discounted the values in each of the four cases
using the specific discount rate that had been used to obtain the SC-
CO2 values in each case.
AHAM cautioned against DOE using the social cost of carbon and
other monetization of emissions reductions benefits in its analysis of
the factors EPCA requires DOE to balance to determine the appropriate
standard. AHAM stated that while it may be acceptable for DOE to
continue its current practice of examining the social cost of carbon
and monetization of other emissions reductions benefits as
informational so long as the underlying interagency analysis is
transparent and vigorous, the monetization analysis should not impact
the TSLs DOE selects as a new or amended standard. (AHAM, No. 40 at p.
32)
As stated in section III.F.1.f of this document, DOE maintains that
environmental and public health benefits associated with the more
efficient use of energy, including those connected to global climate
change, are important to take into account when considering the need
for national energy conservation, which is one of the factors that EPCA
requires DOE to evaluate in determining whether a potential energy
conservation standard is economically justified. In addition, Executive
Order 13563, which was re-affirmed on January 21, 2021, stated that
each agency must, among other things: ``select, in choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net
benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health
and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity).''
For these reasons, DOE includes monetized emissions reductions in its
evaluation of potential standard levels. As previously stated, however,
DOE would reach the same conclusion presented in this proposed
rulemaking in the absence of the social cost of greenhouse gases.
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
The SC-CH4 and SC-N2O values used for this
NOPR were based on the values developed for the February 2021 SC-GHG
TSD. Table IV.38 shows the updated sets of SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates from the latest interagency update in 5-year
increments from 2020 to 2050. The full set of annual values used is
presented in appendix 14A of the NOPR TSD. To capture the uncertainties
involved in regulatory impact analysis, DOE has determined it is
appropriate to include all four sets of SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O values, as recommended by the IWG. DOE derived values
after 2050 using the approach described above for the SC-
CO2.
Table IV.38--Annual SC-CH4 and SC-N2O Values From 2021 Interagency Update, 2020-2050 (2020$ per Metric Ton)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC-CH4 SC-N2O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount Rate and Statistic Discount Rate and Statistic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 5% 3% 2.5% 3% 3%
---------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
95th 5% 3% 2.5% 95th
Average Average Average percentile Average Average Average percentile
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------
2020.................................... 670 1500 2000 3900 5800 18000 27000 48000
2025.................................... 800 1700 2200 4500 6800 21000 30000 54000
2030.................................... 940 2000 2500 5200 7800 23000 33000 60000
2035.................................... 1100 2200 2800 6000 9000 25000 36000 67000
2040.................................... 1300 2500 3100 6700 10000 28000 39000 74000
2045.................................... 1500 2800 3500 7500 12000 30000 42000 81000
2050.................................... 1700 3100 3800 8200 13000 33000 45000 88000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE multiplied the CH4 and N2O emissions
reduction estimated for each year by the SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates for that year in each of the cases. DOE
adjusted the values to 2021$ using the implicit price deflator for GDP
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. To calculate a present value of
the stream of monetary values, DOE discounted the values in each of the
cases using the specific discount rate that had been used to obtain the
SC-CH4 and SC-N2O estimates in each case.
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
For the NOPR, DOE estimated the monetized value of NOX
and SO2 emissions reductions from electricity generation
using the latest benefit per ton estimates for that sector from the
EPA's Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program.\110\ DOE used EPA's values
for PM2.5-related benefits associated with NOX
and SO2 and for ozone-related benefits associated with
NOX for 2025 2030, and 2040, calculated with discount rates
of 3 percent and 7 percent. DOE used linear interpolation to define
values for the years not given in the 2025 to 2040 period; for years
beyond 2040 the values are held constant. DOE derived values specific
to the sector for RCWs using a method described in appendix 14B of the
NOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing PM2.5
Precursors from 21 Sectors. www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE also estimated the monetized value of NOX and
SO2 emissions reductions from site use of natural gas in
RCWs using benefit-per-ton estimates from the EPA's Benefits Mapping
and Analysis Program. Although none of the sectors covered by EPA
refers specifically to residential and
[[Page 13584]]
commercial buildings, the sector called ``area sources'' would be a
reasonable proxy for residential and commercial buildings.\111\ The EPA
document provides high and low estimates for 2025 and 2030 at 3- and 7-
percent discount rates.\112\ DOE used the same linear interpolation and
extrapolation as it did with the values for electricity generation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ ``Area sources'' represents all emission sources for which
states do not have exact (point) locations in their emissions
inventories. Because exact locations would tend to be associated
with larger sources, ``area sources'' would be fairly representative
of small dispersed sources like homes and businesses.
\112\ ``Area sources'' are a category in the 2018 document from
EPA, but are not used in the 2021 document cited above. Available
at: www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-02/documents/sourceapportionmentbpttsd_2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE multiplied the site emissions reduction (in tons) in each year
by the associated $/ton values, and then discounted each series using
discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent as appropriate.
M. Utility Impact Analysis
The utility impact analysis estimates the changes in installed
electrical capacity and generation projected to result for each
considered TSL. The analysis is based on published output from the NEMS
associated with AEO2022. NEMS produces the AEO Reference case, as well
as a number of side cases that estimate the economy-wide impacts of
changes to energy supply and demand. For the current analysis, impacts
are quantified by comparing the levels of electricity sector
generation, installed capacity, fuel consumption and emissions in the
AEO2022 Reference case and various side cases. Details of the
methodology are provided in the appendices to chapters 13 and 15 of the
NOPR TSD.
The output of this analysis is a set of time-dependent coefficients
that capture the change in electricity generation, primary fuel
consumption, installed capacity and power sector emissions due to a
unit reduction in demand for a given end use. These coefficients are
multiplied by the stream of electricity savings calculated in the NIA
to provide estimates of selected utility impacts of potential new or
amended energy conservation standards.
N. Employment Impact Analysis
DOE considers employment impacts in the domestic economy as one
factor in selecting a proposed standard. Employment impacts from new or
amended energy conservation standards include both direct and indirect
impacts. Direct employment impacts are any changes in the number of
employees of manufacturers of the products subject to standards, their
suppliers, and related service firms. The MIA addresses those impacts.
Indirect employment impacts are changes in national employment that
occur due to the shift in expenditures and capital investment caused by
the purchase and operation of more-efficient appliances. Indirect
employment impacts from standards consist of the net jobs created or
eliminated in the national economy, other than in the manufacturing
sector being regulated, caused by (1) reduced spending by consumers on
energy, (2) reduced spending on new energy supply by the utility
industry, (3) increased consumer spending on the products to which the
new standards apply and other goods and services, and (4) the effects
of those three factors throughout the economy.
One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for
labor of such shifts in economic activity is to compare sector
employment statistics developed by the Labor Department's Bureau of
Labor Statistics (``BLS''). BLS regularly publishes its estimates of
the number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in
different sectors of the economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere
in the economy by this same economic activity. Data from BLS indicate
that expenditures in the utility sector generally create fewer jobs
(both directly and indirectly) than expenditures in other sectors of
the economy.\113\ There are many reasons for these differences,
including wage differences and the fact that the utility sector is more
capital-intensive and less labor-intensive than other sectors. Energy
conservation standards have the effect of reducing consumer utility
bills. Because reduced consumer expenditures for energy likely lead to
increased expenditures in other sectors of the economy, the general
effect of efficiency standards is to shift economic activity from a
less labor-intensive sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more labor-
intensive sectors (e.g., the retail and service sectors). Thus, the BLS
data suggest that net national employment may increase due to shifts in
economic activity resulting from energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ See U.S. Department of Commerce-Bureau of Economic
Analysis. Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional
Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II). 1997. U.S. Government
Printing Office: Washington, DC. Available at apps.bea.gov/scb/pdf/regional/perinc/meth/rims2.pdf (Last accessed June 22, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimated indirect national employment impacts for the standard
levels considered in this NOPR using an input/output model of the U.S.
economy called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies version 4
(``ImSET'').\114\ ImSET is a special-purpose version of the ``U.S.
Benchmark National Input-Output'' (``I-O'') model, which was designed
to estimate the national employment and income effects of energy-saving
technologies. The ImSET software includes a computer- based I-O model
having structural coefficients that characterize economic flows among
187 sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, and residential
building energy use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ Livingston, O.V., S.R. Bender, M.J. Scott, and R.W.
Schultz. ImSET 4.0: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies Model
Description and User Guide. 2015. Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory: Richland, WA. PNNL-24563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that ImSET is not a general equilibrium forecasting
model, and that the uncertainties involved in projecting employment
impacts, especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Because
ImSET does not incorporate price changes, the employment effects
predicted by ImSET may over-estimate actual job impacts over the long
run for this rule. Therefore, DOE used ImSET only to generate results
for near-term timeframes (2027-2031), where these uncertainties are
reduced. For more details on the employment impact analysis, see
chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD.
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses
with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for RCWs.
It addresses the TSLs examined by DOE, the projected impacts of each of
these levels if adopted as energy conservation standards for RCWs, and
the standards levels that DOE is proposing to adopt in this NOPR.
Additional details regarding DOE's analyses are contained in the NOPR
TSD supporting this document.
A. Trial Standard Levels
In general, DOE typically evaluates potential amended standards for
products and equipment by grouping individual efficiency levels for
each class into TSLs. Use of TSLs allows DOE to identify and consider
manufacturer cost interactions between the product classes, to the
extent that there are such interactions, and market cross elasticity
from consumer purchasing decisions that may change when different
standard levels are set.
In the analysis conducted for this NOPR, DOE analyzed the benefits
and burdens of five TSLs for RCWs. DOE developed TSLs that combine
efficiency
[[Page 13585]]
levels for each analyzed product class. DOE presents the results for
the TSLs in this document, while the results for all efficiency levels
that DOE analyzed are in the NOPR TSD.
Table V.1 through Table V.3 present the TSLs and the corresponding
efficiency levels that DOE has identified for potential amended energy
conservation standards for RCWs. TSL 5 represents the max-tech energy
and water efficiency for all product classes. TSL 4 represents the
ENERGY STAR Most Efficient level for the front-loading product classes,
the CEE Tier 1 level for the top-loading standard-size product class,
and a gap fill level for the semi-automatic product class. TSL 3
represents the current ENERGY STAR efficiency level for all product
classes that are eligible for the program, and a gap fill level for the
semi-automatic product class. TSL 2 represents the non-max-tech
efficiency levels providing the highest LCC savings. TSL 1 represents
EL 1 across all product classes.
Table V.1--Trial Standard Levels for Semi-Automatic, Residential Clothes Washers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semi-automatic
-----------------------------------------------
TSL Efficiency EER (lb/kWh/ WER (lb/gal/
level cycle) cycle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-4............................................................. 1 2.12 0.27
5............................................................... 2 2.51 0.36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.2--Trial Standard Levels for Top-Loading Residential Clothes Washers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-loading, ultra-compact Top-loading, standard-size
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL EER (lb/kWh/ WER (lb/gal/ Efficiency EER (lb/kWh/ WER (lb/gal/
Efficiency level cycle) cycle) level cycle) cycle)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... Baseline.......................... 3.79 0.29 1 3.89 0.47
2................................... Baseline.......................... 3.79 0.29 1 3.89 0.47
3................................... Baseline.......................... 3.79 0.29 2 4.27 0.57
4................................... Baseline.......................... 3.79 0.29 3 4.78 0.63
5................................... Baseline.......................... 3.79 0.29 4 5.37 0.67
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.3--Trial Standard Levels for Front-Loading Residential Clothes Washers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Front-loading, compact Front-loading, standard-size
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL Efficiency EER (lb/kWh/ WER (lb/gal/ Efficiency EER (lb/kWh/ WER (lb/gal/
level cycle) cycle) level cycle) cycle)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... 1 4.80 0.62 1 5.31 0.69
2....................................................... 1 4.80 0.62 2 5.52 0.77
3....................................................... 1 4.80 0.62 2 5.52 0.77
4....................................................... 2 5.02 0.71 3 5.73 0.77
5....................................................... 4 5.97 0.80 4 5.97 0.85
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While not all efficiency levels were included in the TSLs, DOE
considered all efficiency levels as part of its analysis.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ Efficiency levels that were analyzed for this NOPR are
discussed in section IV.C.1 of this document. Results by efficiency
level are presented in chapters 8, 10, and 12 of the NOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
DOE analyzed the economic impacts on RCW consumers by looking at
the effects that potential amended standards at each TSL would have on
the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined the impacts of potential standards
on selected consumer subgroups. These analyses are discussed in the
following sections.
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
In general, higher-efficiency products affect consumers in two
ways: (1) purchase price increases and (2) annual operating costs
decrease. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total
installed costs (i.e., product price plus installation costs), and
operating costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy prices, energy price
trends, repair costs, and maintenance costs). The LCC calculation also
uses product lifetime and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD
provides detailed information on the LCC and PBP analyses.
Table V.4 through Table V.13 show the LCC and PBP results for the
TSLs considered for each product class. In the first of each pair of
tables, the simple payback is measured relative to the baseline
product. In the second table, impacts are measured relative to the
efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case in the compliance
year (see section IV.F.8 of this document). Because some consumers
purchase products with higher efficiency in the no-new-standards case,
the average savings are less than the difference between the average
LCC of the baseline product and the average LCC at each TSL. The
savings refer only to consumers who are affected by a standard at a
given TSL. Those who already purchase a product with efficiency at or
above a given TSL are not affected. Consumers for whom the LCC
increases at a given TSL experience a net cost.
[[Page 13586]]
Table V.4--Average LCC and PBP Results for Semi-Automatic Residential Clothes Washers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2021$)
---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback Average
TSL Efficiency level First year's Lifetime (years) lifetime
Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.................. $553 $136 $1,532 $2,085 .............. 13.7
1-4......................... 1......................... 561 107 1,195 1,756 0.3 13.7
5........................... 2......................... 568 93 1,044 1,612 0.4 13.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
baseline product.
Table V.5--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Semi-Automatic Residential Clothes
Washers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
-------------------------------------
Percent of
TSL Efficiency level Average LCC consumers that
savings * (2021$) experience net
cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-4.................................................... 1 329 0
5...................................................... 2 219 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
Table V.6--Average LCC and PBP Results for Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact Residential Clothes Washers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2021$)
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback Average
TSL Efficiency level First year's Lifetime (years) lifetime
Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-5...................... Baseline............... $904 $85 $958 $1,862 ............... 13.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level.
Table V.7--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact Residential
Clothes Washers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
---------------------------------------
Percent of
TSL Efficiency level Average LCC consumers that
savings * (2021$) experience net
cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-5.................................. Baseline......................... $0.00 0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
Table V.8--Average LCC and PBP Results for Top-Loading, Standard-Size Residential Clothes Washers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2021$)
---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback Average
TSL Efficiency level First year's Lifetime (years) lifetime
Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.................. $706 $183 $2,080 $2,786 .............. 13.7
1, 2........................ 1......................... 795 164 1,853 2,649 4.6 13.7
3........................... 2......................... 881 157 1,779 2,660 6.8 13.7
4........................... 3......................... 891 152 1,717 2,608 5.9 13.7
5........................... 4......................... 896 149 1,682 2,578 5.5 13.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
baseline product.
[[Page 13587]]
Table V.9--Average LCC and PBP Results for Top-Loading, Standard-Size Residential Clothes Washers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
-------------------------------------
Percent of
TSL Efficiency level Average LCC consumers that
savings * (2021$) experience net
cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1, 2................................................... 1 $138 14
3...................................................... 2 115 28
4...................................................... 3 134 25
5...................................................... 4 157 23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
Table V.10--Average LCC and PBP Results for Front-Loading, Compact Residential Clothes Washers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2021$)
---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback Average
TSL Efficiency level First year's Lifetime (years) lifetime
Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.................. $809 $100 $1,119 $1,929 .............. 13.7
1-3......................... 1......................... 861 93 1,046 1,907 0.0 13.7
4........................... 2......................... 909 89 992 1,901 9.1 13.7
5........................... 4......................... 944 81 901 1,845 7.1 13.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
baseline product.
Table V.11--Average LCC and PBP Results for Front-Loading, Compact Residential Clothes Washers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
-------------------------------------
Percent of
TSL Efficiency level Average LCC consumers that
savings * (2021$) experience net
cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-3.................................................... 1 $0.0 0
4...................................................... 2 7 24
5...................................................... 4 56 29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
Table V.12--Average LCC and PBP Results for Front-Loading, Standard-Size Residential Clothes Washers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2021$)
---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback Average
TSL Efficiency level First year's Lifetime (years) lifetime
Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.................. $1,195 $146 $1,664 $2,859 .............. 13.7
1........................... 1......................... 1,213 140 1,589 2,802 2.8 13.7
2, 3........................ 2......................... 1,226 133 1,513 2,740 2.4 13.7
4........................... 3......................... 1,244 131 1,488 2,732 3.2 13.7
5........................... 4......................... 1,265 126 1,424 2,689 3.4 13.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
baseline product.
Table V.13--Average LCC and PBP Results for Front-Loading, Standard-Size Residential Clothes Washers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
-------------------------------------
Percent of
TSL Efficiency level Average LCC consumers that
savings \*\ experience net
(2021$) cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................................... 1 $57 0
2, 3................................................... 2 78 0
4...................................................... 3 19 24
[[Page 13588]]
5...................................................... 4 55 18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
In the consumer subgroup analysis, DOE estimated the impact of the
considered TSLs on low-income households and senior-only households.
Table V.14 through Table V.18 compares the average LCC savings and PBP
at each efficiency level for the consumer subgroups with similar
metrics for the entire consumer sample for each RCW product class. The
percent of low-income RCW consumers experiencing a net cost is smaller
than the full LCC sample in all cases, largely due to the proportion of
renter households. The percent of senior-only households experiencing a
net cost is higher than the full LCC sample, largely due to the lower
washer usage frequency. Chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD presents the
complete LCC and PBP results for the subgroups.
Table V.14--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Semi-Automatic
Residential Clothes Washers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-income Senior-only
households households All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 1-4......................................................... 389 265 329
TSL 5........................................................... 258 174 219
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payback Period (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 1-4......................................................... 0.1 0.4 0.3
TSL 5........................................................... 0.2 0.5 0.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 1-4......................................................... 18 21 21
TSL 5........................................................... 80 92 92
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 1-4......................................................... 0 0 0
TSL 5........................................................... 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.15--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Top-Loading, Ultra-
Compact Residential Clothes Washers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-income Senior-only
households households All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 1-5......................................................... $0 $0 $0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payback Period (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 1-5......................................................... .............. .............. ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 1-5......................................................... 0% 0% 0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 1-5......................................................... 0% 0% 0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 13589]]
Table V.16--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Top-Loading, Standard-
Size Residential Clothes Washers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-income Senior-only
households households All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 1, 2........................................................ $175 $77 $138
TSL 3........................................................... 186 37 115
TSL 4........................................................... 189 62 134
TSL 5........................................................... 214 81 157
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payback Period (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 1, 2........................................................ 2.7 6.3 4.6
TSL 3........................................................... 4.0 9.4 6.8
TSL 4........................................................... 3.5 8.1 5.9
TSL 5........................................................... 3.2 7.6 5.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 1, 2........................................................ 47 39 46
TSL 3........................................................... 45 29 39
TSL 4........................................................... 72 59 69
TSL 5........................................................... 78 66 76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 1, 2........................................................ 8 22 14
TSL 3........................................................... 15 38 28
TSL 4........................................................... 13 35 25
TSL 5........................................................... 13 33 23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.17--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Front-Loading, Compact
Residential Clothes Washers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-income Senior-only
households households All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 1-3......................................................... $0 $0 $0
TSL 4........................................................... 27 3 7
TSL 5........................................................... 73 44 56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payback Period (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 1-3......................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0
TSL 4........................................................... 6.7 9.9 9.1
TSL 5........................................................... 5.2 7.8 7.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 1-3......................................................... 0 0 0
TSL 4........................................................... 21 14 15
TSL 5........................................................... 65 67 70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 1-3......................................................... 0 0 0
TSL 4........................................................... 10 25 24
TSL 5........................................................... 14 32 29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.18--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and All Households; Front-Loading, Standard-
Size Residential Clothes Washers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-income Senior-only
households households All households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average LCC Savings (2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 1........................................................... $56 $39 $57
TSL 2, 3........................................................ 80 52 78
TSL 4........................................................... 25 8 19
[[Page 13590]]
TSL 5........................................................... 63 32 55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payback Period (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 1........................................................... 2.0 3.8 2.8
TSL 2, 3........................................................ 1.7 3.3 2.4
TSL 4........................................................... 2.3 4.3 3.2
TSL 5........................................................... 2.4 4.5 3.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers with Net Benefit (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 1........................................................... 1 2 2
TSL 2, 3........................................................ 6 7 7
TSL 4........................................................... 29 22 28
TSL 5........................................................... 65 63 74
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers with Net Cost (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 1........................................................... 0 0 0
TSL 2, 3........................................................ 1 1 0
TSL 4........................................................... 19 31 24
TSL 5........................................................... 20 29 18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
As discussed in section III.F.2 of this document, EPCA establishes
a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is
economically justified if the increased purchase cost for a product
that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the
first-year energy savings resulting from the standard. In calculating a
rebuttable presumption payback period for each of the considered TSLs,
DOE used discrete values, and, as required by EPCA, based the energy
use calculation on the DOE test procedure for RCWs. In contrast, the
PBPs presented in section V.B.1.a of this document were calculated
using distributions that reflect the range of energy use in the field.
Table V.19 presents the rebuttable-presumption payback periods for
the considered TSLs for RCWs. While DOE examined the rebuttable-
presumption criterion, it considered whether the standard levels
considered for the NOPR are economically justified through a more
detailed analysis of the economic impacts of those levels, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), that considers the full range of impacts to
the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and environment. The results of
that analysis serve as the basis for DOE to definitively evaluate the
economic justification for a potential standard level, thereby
supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of
economic justification.
Table V.19--Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Periods
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Product class -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(years)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semi-Automatic.................. 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact *.... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Top-Loading, Standard-Size...... 4.2 4.2 6.2 5.3 4.8
Front-Loading, Compact.......... 6.5 6.5 6.5 7.5 6.0
Front-Loading, Standard-Size.... 2.8 2.5 2.5 3.3 3.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The entry ``n.a.'' means not applicable because the evaluated standard is the baseline.
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of amended energy
conservation standards on manufacturers of RCWs. The following section
describes the expected impacts on manufacturers at each considered TSL.
Chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD explains the analysis in further detail. See
section V.B.1 of this document for a discussion of the potential
impacts on consumers.
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
In this section, DOE provides GRIM results from the analysis, which
examines changes in the industry that would result from a standard. The
following tables summarize the estimated financial impacts (represented
by changes in INPV) of potential amended energy conservation standards
on manufacturers of RCWs, as well as the conversion costs that DOE
estimates manufacturers of RCWs would incur at each TSL.
The impact of potential amended energy conservation standards were
analyzed under two scenarios: (1) the preservation of gross margin
percentage; and (2) the preservation of operating profit, as discussed
in section IV.J.2.d of this document. The preservation of gross margin
percentage applies a ``gross
[[Page 13591]]
margin percentage'' of 18 percent for all product classes and all
efficiency levels.\116\ This scenario assumes that a manufacturer's
per-unit dollar profit would increase as MPCs increase in the standards
cases and represents the upper-bound to industry profitability under
potential amended energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ The gross margin percentage of 18 percent is based on a
manufacturer markup of 1.22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The preservation of operating profit scenario reflects
manufacturers' concerns about their inability to maintain margins as
MPCs increase to reach more-stringent efficiency levels. In this
scenario, while manufacturers make the necessary investments required
to convert their facilities to produce compliant products, operating
profit does not change in absolute dollars and decreases as a
percentage of revenue. The preservation of operating profit scenario
results in the lower (or more severe) bound to impacts of potential
amended standards on industry.
Each of the modeled scenarios results in a unique set of cash flows
and corresponding INPV for each TSL. INPV is the sum of the discounted
cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the
analysis period (2022-2056). The ``change in INPV'' results refer to
the difference in industry value between the no-new-standards case and
standards case at each TSL. To provide perspective on the short-run
cash flow impact, DOE includes a comparison of free cash flow between
the no-new-standards case and the standards case at each TSL in the
year before amended standards would take effect. This figure provides
an understanding of the magnitude of the required conversion costs
relative to the cash flow generated by the industry in the no-new-
standards case.
Conversion costs are one-time investments for manufacturers to
bring their manufacturing facilities and product designs into
compliance with potential amended standards. As described in section
IV.J.2.c of this document, conversion cost investments occur between
the year of publication of the final rule and the year by which
manufacturers must comply with the new standard. The conversion costs
can have a significant impact on the short-term cash flow on the
industry and generally result in lower free cash flow in the period
between the publication of the final rule and the compliance date of
potential amended standards. Conversion costs are independent of the
manufacturer markup scenarios and are not presented as a range in this
analysis.
Table V.20--Manufacturer Impact Analysis Results for Residential Clothes Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-new-
Unit standards TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5
case
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV.......................... 2021$ millions.... 1,738.3 1,680.4 to 1,746.4...... 1,636.5 to 1,702.9...... 1,490.3 to 1,631.0...... 1,208.1 to 1,376.7...... 798.7 to 985.9
Change in INPV *.............. %................. .......... (3.3) to 0.5............ (5.9) to (2.0).......... (14.3) to (6.2)......... (30.5) to (20.8)........ (54.1) to (43.3)
Free Cash Flow (2026) *....... 2021$ millions.... 139.9 117.5................... 90.8.................... 13.7.................... (150.0)................. (396.7)
Change in Free Cash Flow %................. .......... (16.0).................. (35.1).................. (90.2).................. (207.3)................. (383.7)
(2026) *.
Conversion Costs.............. 2021$ millions.... .......... 56.5.................... 118.7................... 302.2................... 690.8................... 1,253.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Parentheses denote negative (-) values.
The majority of the INPV impacts are associated with standard-size
product classes because standard-size top-loading and front-loading
RCWs comprise approximately 96 percent of the total RCW domestic
shipments. More specifically, the majority of the INPV impacts are
associated with top-loading clothes washers due to the high-volume of
shipments, the high percentage of shipments at minimum efficiency, and
the likely design paths required to meet more stringent standards. Top-
loading clothes washers account for approximately 76 percent of current
standard-size RCW shipments. DOE's shipments analysis estimates
approximately 69 percent of top-loading shipments are at the baseline
efficiency level. Additionally, the engineering analysis, informed by
conversations with manufacturers indicates that the likely design path
to meet the efficiencies required at TSL 4 and TSL 5 would require
notable capital investments. In particular, standard-size top-loading
units with capacities of less than 4.7 ft\3\ would require significant
redesign associated with increasing tub capacity to meet these higher
efficiencies. In contrast, only 3 percent of current front-loading
shipments are at the baseline efficiency level and DOE's engineering
analysis suggests that increases in tub capacity would not be required
for front-loading clothes washer models to reach max-tech. Thus, as DOE
considers increasingly stringent TSLs, the standard-size top-loading
product class tends to drive industry investments and negative INPV
impacts. See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for a detailed discussion of
design paths to reach higher efficiencies.
At TSL 1, the standard represents the least stringent efficiencies
(EL 1) for all product classes. The change in INPV is expected to range
from -3.3 to 0.5 percent. At this level, free cash flow is estimated to
decrease by 16.0 percent compared to the no-new-standards case value of
$139.9 million in the year 2026, the year before the standards year.
DOE's shipments analysis estimates approximately 48 percent of current
shipments meet this level.
At TSL 1, DOE expects most manufacturers would incur limited
conversion costs to reach the efficiencies required. The conversion
costs primarily stem from changes required for top-loading standard-
size clothes washers. DOE's shipments analysis estimates approximately
31 percent of current standard-size top-loading clothes washers meet
this level (EL 1). In contrast, nearly all the front-loading standard-
size clothes washers currently meet the efficiencies required at this
level. Industry capital conversion costs include tooling updates and
costs associated with transitioning models with porcelain wash baskets
to stainless-steel wash baskets. Product conversion costs may be
necessary for product development and testing. DOE expects industry to
incur some re-flooring costs. DOE estimates capital conversion costs of
$30.1 million and product conversion costs of $26.3
[[Page 13592]]
million. Conversion costs total $56.5 million.
At TSL 1, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all RCWs is
expected to increase by 6.9 percent relative to the no-new-standards
case shipment-weighted average MPC for all RCWs in 2027. In the
preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, the slight increase
in cashflow slightly outweighs the $56.5 million in conversion costs,
causing a minor positive change in INPV at TSL 1 under this scenario.
Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the manufacturer
markup decreases in 2028, the year after the analyzed compliance year.
This reduction in the manufacturer markup and the $56.5 million in
conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a slightly negative
change in INPV at TSL 1 under the preservation of operating profit
scenario.
At TSL 2, the standard represents the non-max-tech efficiency
levels providing the highest LCC savings for all product classes. The
change in INPV is expected to range from -5.9 to -2.0 percent. At this
level, free cash flow is estimated to decrease by 35.1 percent compared
to the no-new-standards case value of $139.9 million in the year 2026,
the year before the standards year. DOE's shipments analysis estimates
approximately 47 percent of current shipments meet this level.
For standard-size front-loading clothes washers, TSL 2 corresponds
to EL 2. For the remaining product classes, TSL 2 corresponds to the
same efficiencies required at TSL 1 (EL 1). The increase in conversion
costs from the prior TSL are entirely due to the efficiency level
requirements for standard-size front-loading clothes washers. DOE's
shipments analysis estimates approximately 91 percent of current
standard-size front-loading clothes washer shipments meet or exceed TSL
2 efficiencies. Of the seven OEMs with standard-size front-loading
clothes washer models, there is one OEM that does not currently offer a
product that meets TSL 2 efficiencies. DOE assumed that this
manufacturer would redesign and re-tool to meet TSL 2 in its estimate
of conversion costs. That manufacturer accounts for the majority of the
increase in conversion costs. DOE estimates capital conversion costs of
$81.1 million and product conversion costs of $37.6 million. Conversion
costs total $118.7 million.
At TSL 2, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all RCWs is
expected to increase by 6.9 percent relative to the no-new-standards
case shipment-weighted average MPC for all RCWs in 2027. In the
preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, the slight increase
in cashflow is outweighed by the $118.7 million in conversion costs,
causing a slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 2 under this
scenario. Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the
manufacturer markup decreases in 2028, the year after the analyzed
compliance year. This reduction in the manufacturer markup and the
$118.7 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a
slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 2 under the preservation of
operating profit scenario.
At TSL 3, the standard represents the current ENERGY STAR
efficiency level for all product classes that are eligible for the
program, and a gap fill level for the semi-automatic product class. The
change in INPV is expected to range from -14.3 to -6.2 percent. At this
level, free cash flow is estimated to decrease by 90.2 percent compared
to the no-new-standards case value of $139.9 million in the year 2026,
the year before the standards year. DOE's shipments analysis estimates
approximately 45 percent of current shipments meet this level.
For standard-size top-loading clothes washers, TSL 3 corresponds to
EL 2. For the remaining product classes, the efficiencies required at
TSL 3 are the same as TSL 2. Approximately 29 percent of current
standard-size top-loading clothes washer shipments meet the
efficiencies required by TSL 3. However, most manufacturers with
standard-size top-loading models offer products at or above the
efficiencies required at this level. Of the nine OEMs with standard-
size top-loading products, six OEMs offer models that meet the
efficiencies required.
To meet TSL 3, DOE expects manufacturers would incorporate wash
plate designs, direct drive motors, and hardware features enabling spin
speed increases into standard-size top-loading RCWs. Beyond these
design options, some manufacturers may need to increase the tub
capacities of certain standard-size top-loading clothes washers (i.e.,
models with capacities of less than 4.4 ft\3\). Increasing clothes
washer capacity could require a new cabinet, tub, and drum designs,
which would necessitate costly investments in manufacturing equipment
and tooling. Product conversion costs may be necessary for designing,
prototyping, and testing new or updated platforms. Additionally, DOE
expects industry to incur more re-flooring costs compared to prior TSLs
as more display units would need to be replaced. The increase in
conversion costs at TSL 3 are entirely due to the increased stringency
for standard-size top-loading clothes washers. DOE estimates capital
conversion costs of $216.4 million and product conversion of costs of
$85.7 million. Conversion costs total $302.2 million.
At TSL 3, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all RCWs is
expected to increase by 14.1 percent relative to the no-new-standards
case shipment-weighted average MPC for all RCWs in 2027. In the
preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, the increase in
cashflow is outweighed by the $302.2 million in conversion costs,
causing a slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under this
scenario. Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the
manufacturer markup decreases in 2028, the year after the analyzed
compliance year. This reduction in the manufacturer markup and the
$302.2 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a
negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under the preservation of operating
profit scenario.
At TSL 4, the standard represents the ENERGY STAR Most Efficient
level for the front-loading product classes, the CEE Tier 1 level for
the top-loading standard-size product class, and a gap fill level for
the semi-automatic product class. The change in INPV is expected to
range from -30.5 to -20.8 percent. At this level, free cash flow is
estimated to decrease by 207.3 percent compared to the no-new-standards
case value of $139.9 million in the year 2026, the year before the
standards year. DOE's shipments analysis estimates approximately 14
percent of current shipments meet this level.
For standard-size top-loading and standard-size front-loading
clothes washers, TSL 4 corresponds to EL 3. For compact-size front-
loading clothes washers, TSL 4 corresponds to EL 2. For semi-automatic
clothes washers, TSL 4 corresponds to the same efficiency level as TSL
3 (EL 1). At this level, the increase in conversion costs is driven by
the standard-size top-loading clothes washers product class. Currently,
approximately 2 percent of standard-size top-loading shipments meet TSL
4 efficiencies. Of the nine OEMs with top-loading standard-size
products, only two offer models that meet the efficiencies required at
TSL 4. The remaining seven OEMs would need to redesign all their
existing standard-size top-loading platforms to meet this level.
To meet TSL 4, top-loading clothes washer designs would likely need
to incorporate hardware features to enable faster spin speeds. These
hardware updates may include reinforced wash baskets, more robust
suspension and
[[Page 13593]]
balancing system, and more advanced sensors. An increasing portion of
top-loading standard-size clothes washers (i.e., those models with
capacities less than 4.7 ft\3\) may need an increase in tub capacity.
Increasing clothes washer capacity could require new cabinet, tub, and
drum designs. The changes would necessitate investments in new
equipment and tooling. DOE expects industry to incur more re-flooring
costs compared to prior TSLs as more display units would need to be
replaced. DOE estimates capital conversion costs of $507.9 million and
product conversion of costs of $200.8 million. Conversion costs total
$708.6 million.
At TSL 4, the large conversion costs result in a free cash flow
dropping below zero in the years before the standards year. The
negative free cash flow calculation indicates manufacturers may need to
access cash reserves or outside capital to finance conversion efforts.
At TSL 4, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all RCWs is
expected to increase by 15.6 percent relative to the no-new-standards
case shipment-weighted average MPC for all RCWs in 2027. In the
preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, the increase in
cashflow is outweighed by the $690.8 million in conversion costs,
causing a notable change in INPV at TSL 4 under this scenario. Under
the preservation of operating profit scenario, the manufacturer markup
decreases in 2028, the year after the analyzed compliance year. This
reduction in the manufacturer markup and the $690.8 million in
conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a significant negative
change in INPV at TSL 4 under the preservation of operating profit
scenario.
At TSL 5, the standard represents the max-tech energy and water
efficiencies for all product classes. The change in INPV is expected to
range from -54.1 to -43.3 percent. At this level, free cash flow is
estimated to decrease by 383.7 percent compared to the no-new-standards
case value of $139.9 million in the year 2026, the year before the
standards year. DOE's shipments analysis estimates approximately 3
percent of current shipments meet this level.
As previously discussed, the max-tech efficiencies required for
standard-size clothes washers drive the increase in conversion costs
from the prior TSLs. Currently, less than 1 percent of standard-size
top-loading clothes washer shipments and approximately 9 percent of
standard-size front-loading clothes washer shipments meet max-tech
levels. Out of the nine standard-size top-loading OEMs, only one offers
models that meet the efficiencies required by TSL 5. Out of the seven
standard-size front-loading OEMs, only two offer models that meet the
efficiencies required by TSL 5. Max-tech would require most
manufacturers to significantly redesign their clothes washer platforms.
DOE expects most standard-size clothes washer manufacturers would need
to further increase spin speeds as compared to prior TSLs. An
increasing portion of top-loading standard-size clothes washers (i.e.,
models with capacities of less than 5.0 ft\3\) may need to increase tub
capacity to achieve the RMCs required at this level. In interviews, two
manufacturers stated that max-tech levels would require a total
renovation of existing production facilities. Some manufacturers
further stated that their product portfolio would be limited due to the
lack of differentiation possible under a max-tech standard, which would
potentially limit their ability to serve certain consumer segments and
hurt profitability. DOE expects industry would incur approximately the
same re-flooring costs as TSL 4 since few models exist at the higher
levels. At TSL 5, reaching max-tech efficiency levels is a billion-
dollar investment for industry. DOE estimates capital conversion costs
of $1,013.3 million and product conversion of costs of $240.5 million.
Conversion costs total $1,253.8 million.
At TSL 5, the large conversion costs result in a free cash flow
dropping below zero in the years before the standards year. The
negative free cash flow calculation indicates manufacturers may need to
access cash reserves or outside capital to finance conversion efforts.
At TSL 5, the shipment-weighted average MPC for all RCWs is
expected to increase by 17.1 percent relative to the no-new-standards
case shipment-weighted average MPC for all RCWs in 2027. In the
preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, the increase in
cashflow is outweighed by the $1,253.8 million in conversion costs,
causing a significant negative change in INPV at TSL 5 under this
scenario. Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the
manufacturer markup decreases in 2028, the year after the analyzed
compliance year. This reduction in the manufacturer markup and the
$1,253.8 million in conversion costs incurred by manufacturers cause a
significant negative change in INPV at TSL 5 under the preservation of
operating profit scenario.
DOE seeks comments, information, and data on the capital conversion
costs and product conversion costs estimated for each TSL.
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
To quantitatively assess the potential impacts of amended energy
conservation standards on direct employment in the RCW industry, DOE
used the GRIM to estimate the domestic labor expenditures and number of
direct employees in the no-new-standards case and in each of the
standards cases during the analysis period. DOE calculated these values
using statistical data from the 2020 ASM,\117\ BLS employee
compensation data,\118\ results of the engineering analysis, and
manufacturer interviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of Manufactures.
``Summary Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries in the U.S.
(2020).'' Available at: www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/econ/asm/2018-2020-asm.html (Last accessed July 15, 2022).
\118\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. ``Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation.'' June 16, 2022. Available at: www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf (Last accessed July 27, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor expenditures related to product manufacturing depend on the
labor intensity of the product, the sales volume, and an assumption
that wages remain fixed in real terms over time. The total labor
expenditures in each year are calculated by multiplying the total MPCs
by the labor percentage of MPCs. The total labor expenditures in the
GRIM were then converted to total production employment levels by
dividing production labor expenditures by the average fully burdened
wage multiplied by the average number of hours worked per year per
production worker. To do this, DOE relied on the ASM inputs: Production
Workers Annual Wages, Production Workers Annual Hours, Production
Workers for Pay Period, and Number of Employees. DOE also relied on the
BLS employee compensation data to determine the fully burdened wage
ratio. The fully burdened wage ratio factors in paid leave,
supplemental pay, insurance, retirement and savings, and legally
required benefits.
The number of production employees is then multiplied by the U.S.
labor percentage to convert total production employment to total
domestic production employment. The U.S. labor percentage represents
the industry fraction of domestic manufacturing production capacity for
the covered product. This value is derived from manufacturer
interviews, product database analysis, and publicly available
information. DOE estimates that 92 percent of RCWs are produced
domestically.
[[Page 13594]]
The domestic production employees estimate covers production line
workers, including line supervisors, who are directly involved in
fabricating and assembling products within the OEM facility. Workers
performing services that are closely associated with production
operations, such as materials handling tasks using forklifts, are also
included as production labor. DOE's estimates only account for
production workers who manufacture the specific products covered by
this proposed rulemaking.
Non-production workers account for the remainder of the direct
employment figure. The non-production employees estimate covers
domestic workers who are not directly involved in the production
process, such as sales, engineering, human resources, and management.
Using the amount of domestic production workers calculated previously,
non-production domestic employees are extrapolated by multiplying the
ratio of non-production workers in the industry compared to production
employees. DOE assumes that this employee distribution ratio remains
constant between the no-new-standards case and standards cases.
Using the GRIM, DOE estimates in the absence of new energy
conservation standards there would be 9,222 domestic workers for RCWs
in 2027. Table V.21 shows the range of the impacts of energy
conservation standards on U.S. manufacturing employment in the RCW
industry. The following discussion provides a qualitative evaluation of
the range of potential impacts presented in Table V.21.
Table V.21--Domestic Direct Employment Impacts for Residential Clothes Washer Manufacturers in 2027
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-new-
standards case TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Employment (Production 9,222 10,511..................... 10,504..................... 11,710.................... 11,973.................... 11,939
Workers + Non-Production Workers).
Potential Changes in Direct .............. (8,121) to 1,289........... (8,121) to 1,282........... (8,121) to 2,488.......... (8,121) to 2,751.......... (8,121) to 2,717
Employment Workers *.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE presents a range of potential direct employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative numbers.
The direct employment impacts shown in Table V.21 represent the
potential domestic employment changes that could result following the
compliance date for the RCWs covered in this proposal. The upper bound
estimate corresponds to an increase in the number of domestic workers
that results from amended energy conservation standards if
manufacturers continue to produce the same scope of covered products
within the United States after compliance takes effect. To establish a
conservative lower bound, DOE assumes all manufacturers would shift
production to foreign countries. At lower TSLs, DOE believes the
likelihood of changes in production location due to amended standards
are low due to the relatively minor production line updates required.
However, as amended standards increase in stringency and both the
complexity and cost of production facility updates increases,
manufacturers are more likely to revisit their production location
decisions. At max-tech, manufacturers representing a large portion of
the market noted concerns about the level of investment, about the
potential need to relocate production lines in order to remain
competitive, and about the conversion period of 3 years being
insufficient to make the necessary manufacturing line updates.
Additional detail on the analysis of direct employment can be found
in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. Additionally, the employment impacts
discussed in this section are independent of the employment impacts
from the broader U.S. economy, which are documented in chapter 16 of
the NOPR TSD.
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
As discussed in section V.B.2.a of this document, meeting the
efficiencies required for each TSL would require varying levels of
resources and investment. A standard level requiring notably faster
spin speeds, namely TSL 4 and TSL 5, would necessitate product redesign
to account for the increased spin speeds as well as the noise,
vibration, and fabric care concerns related to the spin speeds required
to meet these higher TSLs. These updates may include designing and
manufacturing reinforced wash baskets, instituting a more robust
suspension and balancing system, increasing the number of sensors, and
incorporating more advanced sensors. For standard-size top-loading
clothes washers, manufacturers would also need to increase tub capacity
of smaller models to meet the efficiencies required at higher TSLs.
Many manufacturers would need to invest in new tooling and equipment to
either produce entirely new wash basket lines or ramp up production of
their existing larger capacity wash baskets. Based on a review of CCD
model listings, DOE's engineering analysis indicates that tub capacity
would need to increase to 4.4 ft\3\ at TSL 3, 4.7 ft\3\ at TSL 4, and
5.0 ft\3\ at TSL 5 for the top-loading standard-size product
class.\119\ In interviews, some manufacturers expressed concerns--
particularly at max-tech--that the 3-year period between the
announcement of the final rule and the compliance date of the amended
energy conservation standard might be insufficient to update production
facilities and design, test, and manufacture the necessary number of
products to meet demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ Based on the increase in cost associated with implementing
a larger capacity tub, DOE expects that if a higher efficiency level
were possible to achieve without an increase in capacity, such
products would be available on the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the remaining TSLs (i.e., TSL 1, TSL 2, and TSL 3) most
manufacturers could likely maintain manufacturing capacity levels and
continue to meet market demand under amended energy conservation
standards.
DOE seeks comment on whether manufacturers expect manufacturing
capacity constraints due to production facility updates would limit
product availability to consumers in the timeframe of the amended
standard compliance date (2027).
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
Using average cost assumptions to develop industry cash-flow
estimates may not capture the differential impacts among subgroups of
manufacturers. Small manufacturers, niche players, or manufacturers
exhibiting a cost
[[Page 13595]]
structure that differs substantially from the industry average could be
affected disproportionately. DOE investigated small businesses as a
manufacturer subgroup that could be disproportionally impacted by
energy conservation standards and could merit additional analysis. DOE
did not identify any other adversely impacted manufacturer subgroups
for this proposed rulemaking based on the results of the industry
characterization.
DOE analyzes the impacts on small businesses in a separate analysis
in section VI.B of this document as part of the Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis. In summary, the Small Business Administration (``SBA'')
defines a ``small business'' as having 1,500 employees or less for
NAICS 335220, ``Major Household Appliance Manufacturing.'' \120\ Based
on this classification, DOE identified one domestic OEM that qualifies
as a small business. For a discussion of the impacts on the small
business manufacturer subgroup, see the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
in section VI.B of this document and chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ U.S. Small Business Administration. ``Table of Small
Business Size Standards.'' (Effective July 14, 2022). Available at:
www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards (Last accessed
August 16, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves looking at the
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the
manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one
regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the
combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have
serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers,
or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may
overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy
conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect
manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the
same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon
product lines or markets with lower expected future returns than
competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of
cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to
appliance efficiency.
For the cumulative regulatory burden analysis, DOE examines
Federal, product-specific regulations that could affect RCW
manufacturers that take effect approximately three years before or
after the 2027 compliance date.
In response to the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis,
stakeholders commented on the cumulative regulatory burden analysis.
See section IV.J.3.c for a summary of stakeholder comments and DOE's
initial responses.
Table V.22--Compliance Dates and Expected Conversion Expenses of Federal Energy Conservation Standards Affecting Residential Clothes Washer Original
Equipment Manufacturers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry
Number of OEMs Industry conversion
Federal energy conservation standard Number of OEMs affected from Approx. standards conversion costs costs/ product
* today's rule year (millions $) revenue ***
** (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portable Air Conditioners, 85 FR 1378 (January 10, 2020)........ 11 2 2025 $320.9 (2015$) 6.7
Room Air Conditioners [dagger], 87 FR 20608 (April 7, 2022)..... 8 4 2026 $22.8 (2020$) 0.5
Consumer Furnaces [dagger], 87 FR 40590 (July 7, 2022).......... 15 1 2029 $150.6 (2020$) 1.4
Commercial Water Heating Equipment [dagger], 87 FR 30610 (May 14 1 2026 $34.6 (2020$) 4.7
19, 2022)......................................................
Consumer Clothes Dryers [dagger], 87 FR 51734 (August 23, 2022). 15 12 2027 $149.7 (2020$) 1.8
Microwave Ovens [dagger], 87 FR 52282 (August 24, 2022)......... 18 9 2026 $46.1 (2021$) 0.7
Consumer Conventional Cooking Products [dagger], 88 FR 6818 34 9 2027 $183.4 (2021$) 1.2
(February 1, 2023).............................................
Consumer Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezes, and Freezers 49 12 2027 $1,323.6 (2021$) 3.8
[dagger][Dagger]...............................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This column presents the total number of OEMs identified in the energy conservation standard rule contributing to cumulative regulatory burden.
** This column presents the number of OEMs producing RCWs that are also listed as OEMs in the identified energy conservation standard contributing to
cumulative regulatory burden.
*** This column presents industry conversion costs as a percentage of product revenue during the conversion period. Industry conversion costs are the
upfront investments manufacturers must make to sell compliant products/equipment. The revenue used for this calculation is the revenue from just the
covered product/equipment associated with each row. The conversion period is the time frame over which conversion costs are made and lasts from the
publication year of the final rule to the compliance year of the final rule. The conversion period typically ranges from 3 to 5 years, depending on
the energy conservation standard.
[dagger] These rulemakings are in the proposed rule stage and all values are subject to change until finalized.
[Dagger] At the time of issuance of this RCW proposed rule, this rulemaking has been issued and is pending publication in the Federal Register. Once
published, the consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers proposed rule will be available at: www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0003.
DOE requests information regarding the impact of cumulative
regulatory burden on manufacturers of RCWs associated with multiple DOE
standards or product-specific regulatory actions of other Federal
agencies.
3. National Impact Analysis
This section presents DOE's estimates of the national energy and
water savings
[[Page 13596]]
and the NPV of consumer benefits that would result from each of the
TSLs considered as potential amended standards.
a. Significance of Energy and Water Savings
To estimate the energy and water savings attributable to potential
amended standards for RCWs, DOE compared their energy and water
consumption under the no-new-standards case to their anticipated energy
and water consumption under each TSL. The savings are measured over the
entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year period that begins
in the year of anticipated compliance with amended standards (2027-
2056). Table V.23 and Table V.24 present DOE's projections of the
national energy and water savings for each TSL considered for RCWs,
respectively. The savings were calculated using the approach described
in section IV.H of this document.
Table V.23--Cumulative National Energy Savings for Residential Clothes Washers; 30 Years of Shipments
[2027-2056]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(quads)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary energy.................. 0.59 0.59 0.70 1.39 2.15
FFC energy...................... 0.61 0.62 0.74 1.45 2.27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.24--Cumulative National Water Savings for Residential Clothes Washers; 30 Years of Shipments
[2027-2056]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(trillion gallons)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water Savings................... 1.26 1.27 2.07 2.53 2.94
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB Circular A-4 \121\ requires agencies to present analytical
results, including separate schedules of the monetized benefits and
costs that show the type and timing of benefits and costs. Circular A-4
also directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements
underlying the estimates of benefits and costs. For this proposed
rulemaking, DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9 years, rather
than 30 years, of product shipments. The choice of a 9-year period is a
proxy for the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain energy
conservation standards and potential revision of and compliance with
such revised standards.\122\ The review timeframe established in EPCA
is generally not synchronized with the product lifetime, product
manufacturing cycles, or other factors specific to RCWs. Thus, such
results are presented for informational purposes only and are not
indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology. The NES and
NWS sensitivity analysis results based on a 9-year analytical period
are presented in Table V.25 and Table V.26. The impacts are counted
over the lifetime of RCWs purchased in 2027-2035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4:
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003.
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (Last accessed
June 12, 2022).
\122\ Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review its
standards at least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain
products, a 3-year period after any new standard is promulgated
before compliance is required, except that in no case may any new
standards be required within 6 years of the compliance date of the
previous standards. While adding a 6-year review to the 3-year
compliance period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may
undertake reviews at any time within the 6-year period and that the
3-year compliance date may yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year
analysis period may not be appropriate given the variability that
occurs in the timing of standards reviews and the fact that for some
products, the compliance period is 5 years rather than 3 years.
Table V.25--Cumulative National Energy Savings for Residential Clothes Washers; 9 Years of Shipments
[2027-2035]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(quads)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary energy.................. 0.24 0.25 0.29 0.50 0.72
FFC energy...................... 0.26 0.26 0.31 0.53 0.75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 13597]]
Table V.26--Cumulative National Water Savings for Residential Clothes Washers; 9 Years of Shipments
[2027-2035]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(trillion gallons)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water Savings................... 0.51 0.52 0.79 0.93 1.04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for
consumers that would result from the TSLs considered for RCWs. In
accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory analysis,\123\ DOE
calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real discount
rate. Table V.27 shows the consumer NPV results with impacts counted
over the lifetime of products purchased in 2027-2056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4:
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Available at
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (Last accessed
June 12, 2022).
Table V.27--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Residential Clothes Washers; 30 Years of
Shipments
[2027-2056]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Discount rate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(billion 2021$)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent....................... 8.39 8.50 8.13 14.52 20.77
7 percent....................... 3.36 3.41 2.48 5.14 7.68
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical
period are presented in Table V.28. The impacts are counted over the
lifetime of products purchased in 2027-2035. As mentioned previously,
such results are presented for informational purposes only and are not
indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology or decision
criteria.
Table V.28--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Residential Clothes Washers; 9 Years of
Shipments
[2027-2035]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Discount rate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(billion 2021$)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent....................... 3.90 3.97 3.68 6.13 8.35
7 percent....................... 1.93 1.96 1.39 2.74 3.95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The previous results reflect the use of a default trend to estimate
the change in price for RCWs over the analysis period (see section
IV.F.1 of this document). DOE also conducted a sensitivity analysis
that considered one scenario with a lower rate of price decline than
the reference case and one scenario with a higher rate of price decline
than the reference case. The results of these alternative cases are
presented in appendix 10C of the NOPR TSD. In the high-price-decline
case, the NPV of consumer benefits is higher than in the default case.
In the low-price-decline case, the NPV of consumer benefits is lower
than in the default case.
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
It is estimated that that amended energy conservation standards for
RCWs would reduce energy and water expenditures for consumers of those
products, with the resulting net savings being redirected to other
forms of economic activity. These expected shifts in spending and
economic activity could affect the demand for labor. As described in
section IV.N of this document, DOE used an input/output model of the
U.S. economy to estimate indirect employment impacts of the TSLs that
DOE considered. There are uncertainties involved in projecting
employment impacts, especially changes in the later years of the
analysis. Therefore, DOE generated results for near-term timeframes
(2027-2031), where these uncertainties are reduced.
The results suggest that the proposed standards would be likely to
have a negligible impact on the net demand for labor in the economy.
The net change in jobs is so small that it would be imperceptible in
national labor statistics and might be offset by other,
[[Page 13598]]
unanticipated effects on employment. Chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD
presents detailed results regarding anticipated indirect employment
impacts.
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
As discussed, in establishing product classes and in evaluating
design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE
evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the utility or
performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV))
a. Performance Characteristics
EPCA authorizes DOE to design test procedures that measure energy
efficiency, energy use, water use (in the case of showerheads, faucets,
water closets and urinals), or estimated annual operating cost of a
covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of
use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) Currently, DOE's test procedure addresses
the energy and water efficiency of clothes washers, and DOE's clothes
washer test procedures do not prescribe a method for testing clothes
washer cleaning performance or other consumer-relevant attributes of
performance.
Representative average use of a clothes washer reflects, in part, a
consumer using the clothes washer to achieve an acceptable level of
cleaning performance. DOE recognizes that in general, a consumer-
acceptable level of cleaning performance can be easier to achieve
through the use of higher amounts of energy and water use during the
clothes washer cycle. Conversely, maintaining acceptable cleaning
performance can be more difficult as energy and water levels are
reduced. Improving one aspect of clothes washer performance, such as
reducing energy and/or water use as a result of energy conservation
standards, may require manufacturers to make a trade-off with one or
more other aspects of performance, such as cleaning performance,
depending on which performance characteristics are prioritized by the
manufacturer. DOE expects, however, that consumers maintain the same
expectations of cleaning performance regardless of the efficiency of
the clothes washer. As the clothes washer market continuously evolves
to higher levels of efficiency--either as a result of mandatory minimum
standards or in response to voluntary programs such as ENERGY STAR--it
becomes increasingly more important that DOE ensures that its test
procedure continues to reflect representative use. As such, the normal
cycle that is used to test the clothes washer for energy and water
performance must be one that provides a consumer-acceptable level of
cleaning performance, even as efficiency increases.
Whirlpool commented that amended standards would result in an
increase in purchase price and perceptible differences in product
performance including cycle time, vibration and noise, fabric care,
cleaning and rinse performance, and detergent effectiveness.
(Whirlpool, No. 39 at pp. 8-9) Whirlpool commented that it does not
recommend that DOE develop a performance requirement, like that under
consideration for dishwashers currently, but rather referenced the EPCA
requirement that DOE consider performance and the impacts to consumer
utility as one of the seven statutory factors for considering whether a
standard is justified. (Id.) Whirlpool recommended that DOE conclude
that amended standards are not justified due to the potential to lessen
utility and performance of clothes washers, particularly for top-
loading standard-size clothes washers. (Id.)
Regarding cycle time specifically, Whirlpool commented that amended
standards could require an increase in cycle time. (Whirlpool, No. 39
at p. 9) Specifically, Whirlpool explained that the wash phase of the
cycle may need to be longer in order to compensate for decreased water
temperatures and reduced load motion due to increased pauses to allow
for motor cooling; the spin phase would need to be longer to reduce
RMC; and that as spin speeds increase, cycle time could be increased
due to a greater risk of out-of-balance conditions, which require more
sensing and re-balancing to address. Whirlpool also commented that
appendix J would require spinning at maximum speed for both small and
large load sizes and noted that smaller loads do not extract moisture
as well as larger loads, and therefore would require even more spin
time. (Id.) Whirlpool also asserted that because increased spin time
may lead to greater electrical energy use by the clothes washers, the
annual energy consumption reported on the EnergyGuide label may show an
increase in energy use for new higher-efficiency models, which would be
counterintuitive for consumers. (Id.)
Regarding vibration and noise specifically, Whirlpool commented
that it would expect higher overall noise and vibration levels as a
result of increased spin speeds and spin times. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at
p. 10) In addition, the drivetrain may produce louder sounds due to the
additional motor torque required to move a load with lower water
levels. (Id.) Whirlpool also commented that the higher risk of out-of-
balance conditions from faster spin speeds may also contribute to
higher noise and vibration levels. (Id.) Whirlpool recommended that DOE
account for any additional product cost required to keep sound and
vibration levels where they are currently to prevent consumer
dissatisfaction at higher efficiency levels. (Id.)
Regarding fabric care specifically, Whirlpool commented if wash
time is lengthened in order to compensate for reduced water
temperatures, the additional agitation on the clothes may lead to
increased fabric wear and damage. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at pp. 10-11)
Whirlpool also commented that faster spinning would increase the degree
of wrinkling in a load and that clothes may become more tangled. (Id.)
Regarding cleaning and rinsing performance specifically, Whirlpool
commented that amended standards could result in biofilm accumulations
on internal wash unit surfaces, white residues, difficulty removing
detergent and particulates, redeposition, yellowing of clothes, and
reduced stain removal, especially for oily or fatty soils. (Whirlpool,
No. 39 at p. 11) Whirlpool added that some of these issues (e.g.,
reduced stain removal) may be immediately apparent to consumers,
whereas others (e.g., biofilm accumulation) may become noticeable over
time. (Id.) Whirlpool commented that a correlation exists between lower
water temperatures and degraded cleaning performance. (Id.) Whirlpool
added that oily or fatty solids are soluble around 85 [deg]F, that
detergents can do only some of the work removing oily or fatty soils at
temperatures below 85 [deg]F, and that natural skin oils will be harder
to remove under lower temperatures. (Id.) Whirlpool also commented that
rinse performance could suffer as a result of the need to make trade-
offs in allocating the available water between the wash and rinse
phases. Whirlpool commented that reduced water during the rinse phase
makes it harder to effectively remove detergent and particulates from
the wash load and increases re-deposition. (Id.)
Whirlpool commented that overall load motion, the degree to which
the load moves in the wash bath and the amount of free water visible to
the consumer, may be sacrificed as clothes washers move to faster spin
and lower torque powertrains. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 12) Whirlpool
further commented that, according to its initial testing, a reduction
in load motion of over 50 percent could result from the new
[[Page 13599]]
powertrains needed for amended standards due to the lower available
torque from the motor and reduced water levels needed to meet more
stringent water efficiency requirements. (Id.)
Whirlpool commented in summary that cleaning in a clothes washer is
a holistic experience that encompasses a consumer's expectation of
product appearance, cleanliness of the clothes washer itself, water
level, water temperatures, load motion, cycle time, and cleaning
performance, including stain and soil removal, particulate removal,
odor removal, and detergent rinsing. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 12)
Whirlpool added that if consumer expectations are not met at any point,
they will likely have a negative perception of product performance and
often voice complaints about it in the form of a negative review or
call to the manufacturer. (Id.)
AHAM commented that DOE's proposed changes to the test procedure
alone, and when coupled with amended energy conservation standards, are
likely to drive product performance impacts. (AHAM, No. 40 at p. 9)
AHAM further commented that increasing spin speed and spin time could
cause increased vibration and noise, negatively impact fabric care due
to tangling and wrinkling, and increase cycle time. (AHAM, No. 40 at
pp. 9-10)
AHAM recommended that instead of adding a performance minimum to
the test procedure, DOE should avoid changes that could impact clothes
washer performance, and account for the potential impact of these
changes in DOE's amended standards analysis, as required by EPCA.
(AHAM, No. 40 at p. 10) AHAM also noted that conducting a performance
test may not capture all the potential impacts that standards may have
on clothes washer performance. (Id.) AHAM recommended that DOE further
investigate these potential impacts during manufacturer interviews.
(Id.)
AHAM commented that efficiency standards that require increased
cycle times beyond an acceptable length would negatively impact
consumers and could result in cycle times that are not synchronized
with clothes dryer cycle times. (AHAM, No. 40 at p. 10) AHAM
recommended against introducing a maximum cycle length requirement;
instead, AHAM recommended that any potential impact of cycle time
should be avoided and accounted for in DOE's amended standards, as
required by EPCA. (Id.)
In addition to considering the comments summarized in this section,
DOE also discussed performance characteristics in detail as part of its
confidential interviews with manufacturers. DOE has considered
potential impacts to the various attributes of product performance as
part of its consideration of amended standards, as discussed further in
section V.C.1 of this document.
DOE is aware of high-efficiency clothes washers that achieve equal
or better cleaning performance than lower-efficiency clothes washers in
third-party performance reviews. For example, DOE has consulted
performance ratings published by Consumer Reports,\124\ which DOE
recognizes is one popular resource for consumers seeking independent
reviews of consumer products. According to information provided on
their website, the test method used by Consumer Reports appears to be
similar in nature to AHAM's cleaning performance test procedure, but
inconsistent with the test conditions prescribed by DOE's appendix J
test procedure; \125\ nevertheless, its test results provide an
objective measure of the performance capabilities for products
currently on the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ Consumer Reports ratings of clothes washers available at
www.consumerreports.org/appliances/washing-machines/. Last accessed
September 23, 2022.
\125\ The Consumer Reports describes its washing performance
test as reflecting the degree of color change to swatches of fabric
that were included in an 8-pound test load of mixed cotton items
using the unit's ``most aggressive'' normal cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For top-loading standard-size RCWs, Consumer Reports ratings
indicate that models rated at or above TSL 4 achieve equal or better
cleaning performance than models with lower efficiency ratings.
Specifically, among 4 tested top-loading standard-size models with an
IMEF/IWF rating \126\ at or above TSL 4, all of them receive a relative
``washing performance'' rating of 5 out of 5. Among 70 tested top-
loading standard-size models with an IMEF/IWF rating below TSL 4, 11
models (16 percent) receive a relative rating of 5 out of 5, and 26
models (37 percent) receive a relative rating of 4 out of 5--for a
total of only 53 percent of units receiving a score of 4 or 5 out of 5.
These ratings suggest that top-loading standard-size RCWs with
efficiency ratings at or above TSL 4 can achieve equal or better
overall cleaning performance scores than models with lower efficiency
ratings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ Although the efficiency levels are defined based on EER
and WER, manufacturer ratings use IMEF and IWF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For front-loading standard-size RCWs, Consumer Reports ratings
indicate no significant differences between models rated at or above
TSL 4 and models with lower efficiency ratings. Specifically, among 27
tested front-loading standard-size models with an IMEF/IWF rating at or
above TSL 4, 20 models (74 percent) receive a relative rating of 5 out
of 5, and 6 models (22 percent) receive a relative rating of 4 out of
5--for a total of only 96 percent of units receiving a score of 4 or 5
out of 5. Among 20 tested front-loading standard-size models with an
IMEF/IWF rating below TSL 4, 18 models (90 percent) receive a relative
rating of 5 out of 5, and 2 models (10 percent) receive a relative
rating of 4 out of 5--for a total of 100 percent of units receiving a
score of 4 or 5 out of 5. These ratings suggest that front-loading
standard-size RCWs with efficiency ratings at or above TSL 4 can
achieve roughly equivalent overall cleaning performance scores compared
to models with lower efficiency ratings.
DOE seeks comment on whether the Consumer Reports test produces
cleaning performance results that are representative of an average use
cycle as measured by the DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks comment on
how relative cleaning performance results would vary if tested under
test conditions consistent with the DOE appendix J test procedure.
In addition to considering the Consumer Reports ratings, DOE
conducted performance testing on a representative sample of top-loading
standard-size and front-loading standard-size units, which collectively
represent around 98 percent of RCW shipments. The detailed results of
DOE's testing are provided in the performance characteristics test
report, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking. In
particular, DOE evaluated wash temperatures, stain removal, mechanical
action (i.e., ``wear and tear''), and cycle duration across the range
of efficiency levels considered in the analysis. Specifically, DOE
evaluated wash temperatures and cycle time based on test data performed
according to DOE's new appendix J test procedure; additionally, DOE
evaluated cleaning performance and fabric care based on additional
testing performed according to the soil/stain removal and mechanical
action tests specified in AHAM's HLW-2-2020 test method: Performance
Evaluation Procedures for Household Clothes Washers (``AHAM HLW-2-
2020''). The AHAM HLW-2-2020 test method does not prescribe specific
test conditions for performing the test (e.g., inlet water temperatures
conditions, load size, test cycle, or wash/rinse temperature
selection). For each clothes washer in its test sample, DOE tested the
Hot Wash/Cold Rinse
[[Page 13600]]
(``Hot'') temperature selection \127\ in the Normal cycle \128\ using
the large load size \129\ specified in appendix J, as well as using the
inlet water temperatures and ambient conditions specified in appendix
J. DOE specifically analyzed the Hot cycle with the large load size
because (1) the Hot temperature selection would be the temperature
selection most likely targeted for reduced wash temperature as a design
option for achieving a higher energy efficiency rating; (2) the large
load size is more challenging to clean than the small load size; and
(3) all units in the test sample offer a Hot temperature selection
(allowing for consistent comparison across units). DOE expects that the
Hot temperature selection with the large load size is the cycle
combination most likely to experience the types of performance
compromises described by AHAM and manufacturers. In sum, DOE selected
the most conservative assumptions for its performance testing
investigation to allow DOE to better understand the potential impacts
on performance at various efficiency levels for clothes washers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ Figure 2.12.1.2 of appendix J provides a flow chart
defining the Hot Wash/Cold Rinse temperature selection. Generally,
the Hot Wash/Cold Rinse temperature selection corresponds to the
hottest available wash temperature less than 140 [deg]F, with
certain exceptions as provided in Figure 2.12.1.2.
\128\ Section 1 of appendix J defines the Normal cycle as the
cycle recommended by the manufacturer (considering manufacturer
instructions, control panel labeling, and other markings on the
clothes washer) for normal, regular, or typical use for washing up
to a full load of normally soiled cotton clothing.
\129\ Table 5.1 of appendix J defines the small and large load
sizes to be tested according to the clothes washer's measured
capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment on its use of the Hot temperature selection
with the large load size to evaluate potential impacts on clothes
washer performance as a result of amended standards.
More specifically, DOE performed the Soil/Stain Removal test
specified in section 6 of AHAM HLW-2-2020 to measure relative cleaning
performance among the test sample units. AHAM HLW-2-2020 states that
the purpose of the Soil/Stain Removal test is to evaluate the
performance of household clothes washers in removing representative
soils and stains from fabric. DOE also performed the Mechanical Action
test specified in section 7 of AHAM HLW-2-2020 to measure relative
fabric wear and tear among the test sample units. AHAM HLW-2-2020
states that the purpose of the Mechanical Action test is to measure the
mechanical action applied by the clothes washer to the textiles. AHAM
HLW-2-2020 states that this test may be performed in conjunction with
the Soil/Stain Removal test; therefore, DOE conducted both tests
simultaneously on each test run. AHAM HLW-2-2020 specifies running
three replications of the test method on each tested unit, with the
results of the three replications averaged.
DOE requests comment on its use of the Soil/Stain Removal test and
Mechanical Action test specified in AHAM HLW-2-2020 as the basis for
evaluating performance-related concerns expressed by AHAM and
manufacturers.
The performance characteristics test report provides detailed test
results in table and graphical format. The discussion throughout the
remainder of this section summarizes the key conclusions from the test
results.
With regard to hot wash temperatures, manufacturer comments (as
summarized previously in this section) suggested that decreasing water
temperature to achieve higher efficiency could decrease cleaning
performance by making it harder to remove fatty soils, which are
soluble around 85 [deg]F. (See Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 11) To evaluate
whether more stringent standards may reduce water temperatures below
the 85 [deg]F threshold and thus potentially decrease cleaning
performance for fatty soils, DOE analyzed the wash temperature of the
hottest temperature selection available in the Normal cycle for each
clothes washer in the test sample. For front-loading standard-size
RCWs, DOE's test data show no identifiable correlation between
efficiency and the hottest available wash temperature in the Normal
cycle. At the proposed standard level (i.e., TSL 4, corresponding to EL
3), considering units both slightly higher and slightly lower than EL
3, the hottest available wash temperature in the Normal cycle ranges
from around 70 [deg]F to around 140 [deg]F. This closely matches the
range of the hottest wash temperatures available on units at lower
efficiency levels, which range from around 80 [deg]F to around 155
[deg]F. Notably, at EL 3, multiple models from multiple manufacturers
provide wash temperatures higher than the 85 [deg]F threshold and would
be able to dissolve and clean fatty soils.
For top-loading standard-size RCWs, DOE's test data show that for
units at EL 2 and below, the hottest available wash temperature in the
Normal cycle ranges from around 70 [deg]F to around 110 [deg]F. At EL 3
(considering units both slightly higher and slightly lower than EL 3),
the hottest available wash temperature in the Normal cycle ranges from
around 80 [deg]F to around 100 [deg]F. Several models from multiple
manufacturers are available with temperatures higher than the 85 [deg]F
threshold and would be able to dissolve and clean fatty soils.
Based on this data, DOE tentatively concludes that the proposed
standard level (i.e., TSL 4), would not require a substantive reduction
in hot water temperature on the hottest temperature selection in the
Normal cycle, and would not preclude the ability to provide wash
temperatures above the 85 [deg]F threshold.
DOE requests comment on its wash temperature data presented in the
performance characteristics test report and on its tentative
conclusions derived from this data. DOE requests any additional data
DOE should consider about wash temperatures at the proposed standard
level, as DOE's data leads to the tentative conclusion that fatty soils
would be able to be dissolved at this efficiency level.
With regard to stain removal, manufacturer comments (as summarized
previously in this section) suggested that more stringent standards
could result in reduced stain removal, especially for oily or fatty
stains. (See Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 11) To evaluate whether more
stringent standards would result in a decrease in stain removal
performance, DOE conducted the Soil/Stain Removal test specified in
AHAM HLW-2-2020 using the Hot temperature selection with the largest
load size, as described. In particular, one of the stains evaluated in
the AHAM HLW-2-2020 Soil/Stain Removal test is sebum--an oily, waxy
substance produced by skin glands.\130\ For front-loading standard-size
RCWs, DOE's test data show no observable correlation between efficiency
and the total cleaning score as measured by the AHAM test method. At EL
3 (considering units both slightly higher and slightly lower than EL
3), total cleaning scores ranged from around 86 to around 99 (higher is
better). At lower efficiency levels, total cleaning scores ranged from
around 90 to around 96.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ The standardized soil/stain strips used in the AHAM HLW-2-
2020 test consist of square test fabric swatches carrying five
different types of stains: red wine, chocolate and milk, blood,
carbon black/mineral oil, and pigment/sebum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For top-loading standard-size RCWs, DOE's test data show that for
units at EL 2 and below, total cleaning scores range from around 90 to
around 98. The clustering of data at or above a score of 90 (as
measured on the Hot temperature selection with the large load size)
likely represents a market-representative threshold of stain removal
performance as measured with this cycle configuration. DOE's total
cleaning
[[Page 13601]]
scores at EL 3 for stain removal also include 90, which indicates that
manufacturers can produce clothes washers at EL 3 while maintaining a
level of stain removal that is market-representative. DOE also looked
at the implementation of prioritizing hardware design options over
reduced wash temperatures. When hardware design options are
implemented, DOE's analysis suggests that the proposed standard level
would not preclude the ability to provide total cleaning scores for
top-loading units equally as high as the highest scores currently
achieved by units at lower efficiency levels.
DOE requests comment on its stain removal data presented in the
performance characteristics test report and on its conclusions derived
from this data. In particular, DOE requests comment on whether the
clustering of data at or above a score of 90 (as measured on the Hot
temperature selection with the large load size) corresponds to a
market-representative threshold of stain removal performance as
measured with this cycle configuration. DOE additionally requests
comment on its analysis indicating that implementing additional
hardware design options, rather than reducing wash temperatures, on EL
2 units could enable total cleaning scores at EL 3 that are equally as
high as the highest scores currently achieved by units at lower
efficiency levels.
With regard to wear and tear, manufacturer comments (as summarized
previously in this section) suggested that if wash time is lengthened
to compensate for reduced water temperatures, the additional agitation
on the clothes may lead to increased fabric wear and damage. (See
Whirlpool, No. 39 at pp. 10-11; AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 9-10) To evaluate
whether more stringent standards would result in an increase in wear
and tear on clothing, DOE conducted the Mechanical Action test
specified in AHAM HLW-2-2020 concurrently with the stain removal test
as described. For top-loading standard-size RCWs, DOE's test data show
that units at EL 3 have lower (i.e., better) mechanical action scores
than baseline-rated units, indicating that the higher-efficiency units
provide less wear and tear than the baseline units in the test sample.
Specifically, at EL 3, mechanical action scores ranged from around 150
to around 175, closely matching the range at EL 2, which ranged from
around 150 to around 170. At lower efficiency levels, mechanical action
scores ranged from around 190 to around 230. The data suggests that the
better mechanical action scores at the higher efficiency levels may
correlate with the use of wash plates (i.e., impellers) at those
levels, compared to the use of traditional agitators at the lower
efficiency levels.
For front-loading standard-size RCWs, DOE's test data show that for
units at or below EL 2, mechanical action scores range from around 135
to around 180. At EL 3 (considering units both slightly higher and
slightly lower than EL 3), mechanical action scores range from around
160 to around 210. Although some units at EL 3 have higher (i.e.,
worse) mechanical action scores than the lower-efficiency units, the
low end of the range is less than (i.e., better than) some of the
baseline-rated units. DOE is not aware of any industry-accepted
threshold for acceptable mechanical action performance, and there is no
significant clustering of DOE's data to suggest any particular market-
representative threshold.
Based on this data, DOE tentatively concludes that the proposed
standard level (i.e., TSL 4) would not preclude the ability to provide
mechanical action scores comparable to the scores for units at lower
efficiency levels.
DOE requests comment on its mechanical action data presented in the
performance characteristics test report and on its conclusions derived
from this data. In particular, DOE requests comment on whether there is
a market-representative threshold of mechanical action performance as
measured on the Hot temperature selection using the large load size.
DOE also requests comment on whether better mechanical action scores at
higher top-loading efficiency levels are attributable to the use of
wash plates rather than traditional agitators in those higher-
efficiency units.
With regard to cycle time, manufacturer comments (as summarized
previously in this section) suggested that more stringent standards
could require an increase in cycle time. (See Whirlpool, No. 39 at p.
9; AHAM, No. 40 at p. 10). To evaluate whether more stringent standards
would result in an increase in cycle time, DOE measured the average
cycle time as defined in appendix J for each unit in the test sample.
For both top-loading standard-size and front-loading standard-size
RCWs, DOE's test data show no observable correlation between efficiency
and average cycle time. For top-loading standard-size RCWs, the average
cycle time for the entire product class is around 50 minutes, as
measured according to the appendix J test procedure. At EL 3
(considering units both slightly higher and slightly lower than EL 3),
cycle time ranged from around 35 minutes to around 65 minutes. This
closely matches the range of units at lower efficiency levels, which
ranged from around 35 minutes to around 70 minutes. For front-loading
standard-size RCWs, the average cycle time for the entire product class
is around 45 minutes, as measured according to the appendix J test
procedure. At EL 3 (considering units both slightly higher and slightly
lower than EL 3), cycle time ranged from around 40 minutes to around 55
minutes. This closely matches the range of units at lower efficiency
levels, which ranged from around 35 minutes to around 65 minutes.
Based on this data, DOE tentatively concludes that the proposed
standard level (i.e., TSL 4), would not result in an increase in
average cycle time as measured by appendix J.
DOE requests comment on its cycle time data presented in the
performance characteristics test report and on its conclusions derived
from this data.
In summary, DOE's test data suggest that the proposed standard
level (i.e., TSL 4) can be achieved with key performance attributes
(e.g., wash temperatures, stain removal, mechanical action, and cycle
duration) that are largely comparable to the performance of lower-
efficiency units available on the market today. Based on DOE's testing
of models that currently meet the proposed standards, DOE does not
expect performance to be compromised at the proposed standard level.
DOE seeks comment on its testing and assessment of performance
attributes (i.e., wash temperatures, stain removal, mechanical action,
and cycle duration), particularly at the proposed standard level (i.e.,
TSL 4). In addition, DOE seeks additional data that stakeholders would
like DOE to consider on performance attributes at TSL 4 efficiencies as
well as the current minimum energy conservation standards.
b. Availability of ``Traditional'' Agitators
The inner drum of a baseline standard-size top-loading RCW
typically contains a vertically oriented agitator in the center of the
drum, which undergoes a twisting motion. The motion of the agitator,
which is powered by an electric motor, circulates the clothes around
the center of the wash basket. Some agitators have a corkscrew-like
design that also circulates the clothing vertically from the bottom to
the top of the basket. Higher-efficiency top-loading RCWs typically use
a disk-shaped ``wash plate,'' rather than a vertical agitator, to move
the clothes within the basket. The rotation of the wash plate
[[Page 13602]]
underneath the clothing circulates the clothes throughout the wash
drum.
A conventional agitator requires clothing to be fully suspended in
water; as the agitator rotates, the agitator vanes catch the clothing
and move the garments through the water. A rotating wash plate,
however, requires a much lower water level inside the wash tub to clean
the clothing properly. The wet clothing load sits on top of the wash
plate, and as the wash plate rotates, raised fins catch the clothing
along the bottom of the wash tub to rotate the garments.
AHAM presented shipment data that showed the number of shipments of
clothes washers with and without agitators during 2011-2020. (AHAM, No.
40 at pp. 11-12) Based on this data, AHAM concluded that consumer
preference has shifted over the years in favor of clothes washers with
agitators. (Id.) AHAM commented that manufacturers have introduced or
re-introduced top-loading clothes washers with agitator technology due
to increasing demand from consumers and from consumer complaints that
there does not appear to be enough water in the wash load, and that
clothes do not appear to be getting clean, in top-loading clothes
washers without agitators. (Id.) AHAM asserted that the efficiency
levels DOE analyzed in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis are
likely to remove products from the market that are highly rated for
consumer satisfaction and reliability, and recommended that DOE's
efficiency standards not lead to these products being removed from the
market. (Id.)
Whirlpool commented that consumers are increasingly demanding top-
loading clothes washers with agitators, perhaps due in part to any
negative experiences that consumers may have had with previous front-
loading or top-loading clothes washers with a wash plate. (Whirlpool,
No. 39 at p. 15) Whirlpool presented data showing that 72 percent of
top-loading clothes washer shoppers are looking for a clothes washer
with an agitator. (Id.) Whirlpool also presented data showing that top-
loading clothes washers with wash plates once made up about 54 percent
of all top-loading shipments, and that number has since declined to 34
percent. (Id.) Whirlpool commented that manufacturers have responded to
this demand shift in large part by offering a broad assortment of
agitator clothes washers. (Id.) Whirlpool noted that two major
competitors to Whirlpool have recently introduced their first ever top-
loading agitator models over the past few years. (Id.) Whirlpool
asserted that any amended standards from DOE that would preclude
manufacturers from being able to offer top-loading clothes washers with
agitators would be problematic for their consumers. (Id.)
Whirlpool expressed concern that if the top-loading standard level
were amended to EL 2 or above, agitators would be phased out from the
U.S. market and would be replaced by wash plates. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at
pp. 3-4) Whirlpool recommended that DOE consider not amending the top-
loading clothes washer standards, which would allow traditional
agitator clothes washers to stay on the market. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at
p. 20)
Whirlpool described the two different types of agitators used in
clothes washers today: traditional agitators that have an internal
mechanism driving the barrel of the agitator in a single direction, and
high-efficiency agitators that have the barrel of the agitator fixed to
or molded as part of the wash plate. (Id.) Whirlpool further explained
that traditional agitators operate in deeper water, and the motion of
the agitator generates the flow of clothing within the wash bath;
whereas high-efficiency agitators use less water and rely on fabric-to-
fabric shear to move the clothing within the drum. (Id.) Whirlpool
commented that consumers may notice that high-efficiency agitator
clothes washers use less water or require a longer cycle time than
traditional agitator clothes washers. (Id.) Whirlpool asserted that
many consumers have used traditional agitator clothes washers for their
entire lives and may not readily accept the performance, water level,
and wash motion differences between agitator and non-agitator models.
(Id.)
As discussed further in section V.C.1 of this document, DOE is
proposing to adopt an amended standard for top-loading, standard-size
clothes washers that corresponds to the CEE Tier 1 level. DOE's market
analysis indicates that top loading models currently on the market at
TSL 4 use wash plates (i.e., do not have agitators). DOE is aware of
top-loading clothes washers without an agitator that achieve equal or
better cleaning performance than top-loading clothes washers with a
traditional-style agitator in third-party performance reviews.
According to Consumer Reports, among 40 tested RCW models with a
traditional-style agitator, 4 models (10 percent) receive a relative
``washing performance'' rating of 5 out of 5, and 13 models (33
percent) receive a relative rating of 4 out of 5--for a total of 43
percent of units receiving a score of 4 or 5 out of 5. Among 36 tested
models with a high-efficiency wash plate design, 11 models (30 percent)
receive a relative rating of 5 out of 5, and 14 models (39 percent)
receive a relative rating of 4 out of 5--for a total of 69 percent of
units receiving a score of 4 or 5 out of 5. These ratings indicate that
clothes washers with high-efficiency wash plate designs can achieve
equal or better overall cleaning performance scores than clothes
washers with traditional-style agitators.
As discussed, DOE recognizes that the Consumer Reports cleaning
performance test method is inconsistent with the test conditions
prescribed by DOE's appendix J test procedure and that products with
superior cleaning performance ratings may sacrifice or trade off with
one or more other aspects of consumer-relevant performance.
DOE seeks comment on any aspects of cleaning performance that
provide differentiation between the use of an agitator or a wash plate
that are not reflected in the Consumer Reports washing performance
ratings evaluated in this NOPR.
DOE seeks comment on whether any lessening of the utility or
performance of top-loading standard-size RCWs, in accordance with 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV), would result from a potential standard
that would preclude the use of a traditional agitator. In particular,
DOE seeks information and data on how such utility or performance would
be measured or evaluated.
c. Water Levels
Each higher efficiency level considered by DOE corresponds to a
higher WER value compared to the baseline level. Higher WER values are
achieved through the use of less water during the cycle, which
generally achieved through lower water levels during the wash and/or
rinse portions of the cycle.
Whirlpool expressed concern that decreasing water levels and wash
temperatures would negatively impact consumer perceptions that their
clothes washers are working correctly. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at pp. 12-14)
Whirlpool stated that across all manufacturers and brands, it saw
customer sentiment scores for water level and wash temperatures were
net positive for clothes washers that were rated at 6.5 IWF (the
current DOE baseline level for top-loading clothes washers), and that
customer sentiment scores were net negative for clothes washers rated
at 4.3 IWF (the ENERGY STAR Most Efficient level for standard-size
clothes washers). (Id.) Whirlpool added that decreasing water usage,
and therefore increasing detergent concentration, does not correlate to
improved consumer satisfaction. (Id.)
[[Page 13603]]
Whirlpool commented that it received consumer complaints about water
levels being too low and not completely covering their clothes, and
predicted that consumer complaints would increase with any amended
standards that would drive a further decrease in water levels. (Id.)
Whirlpool added that lowering water levels in order to meet amended
standards may leave its clothes washers without enough free water to
support the degree of load motion needed to maintain consumer
satisfaction. (Id.)
Whirlpool further stated that consumers strongly demand flexibility
in water level. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 15) Whirlpool commented that
manufacturers have responded to this demand for flexibility by offering
deep fill and deep-water wash options on top-loading clothes washers.
(Id.) Whirlpool commented that in the entire top-loading clothes washer
segment, Whirlpool is only aware of three models that do not have deep
fill options. (Id.) Whirlpool expressed concern that amended standards
could erode Whirlpool's ability to offer consumers this flexibility.
(Id.)
Whirlpool commented that manufacturers have taken several actions
during and since the last updates to DOE and ENERGY STAR standards to
communicate, educate, and set appropriate consumer expectations for
performance. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at pp. 14-16) For example, Whirlpool
explained that on its websites, it has created a page that describes
the various differences between clothes washers with agitators versus
clothes washers with wash plates that details how both types of clothes
washers work to clean clothes, the differences in water levels between
these types of clothes washers, the benefits of each type of clothes
washer, and how to find the right type of clothes washer. (Id.)
Whirlpool added that it also works to educate retail associates about
these fundamental differences between clothes washers to communicate
this information to consumers and answer any questions they may have
while shopping. (Id.) Whirlpool commented that despite manufacturers'
collective efforts to educate consumers about efficient clothes washers
and how they perform, consumers may still not accept new clothes
washers that use less energy and water. (Id.)
Whirlpool stated that higher levels of torque are needed to move
clothes in top-loading clothes washers with lower water levels, which
creates more resistance when trying to move clothes around during the
wash phase. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 8) Whirlpool commented that
increased resistance and torque create higher levels of stress on many
components, cause components to wear out more quickly, and lead to
hotter motor temperatures, which requires increased dwell period for
cooling. (Id.) Whirlpool suggested that DOE capture the cost and
product changes necessitated by the additional torque needed to move
clothes in a wash basket with lower wash levels. (Id.)
Whirlpool commented that it would expect a rebound effect to occur
for clothes washers as a result of amended standards. Whirlpool
commented that consumers who are dissatisfied with the water level in
the DOE-tested cycle will likely take some sort of action to
compensate, including adding their own water to the cycle or choosing
to largely or exclusively use deep fill and deep water wash options on
their clothes washer. Whirlpool added that if consumers are
dissatisfied with cleaning and rinse performance, they may decide to
wash smaller loads (thereby increasing the number of annual cycles),
use warmer wash temperatures, pretreat clothes or use options such as
second rinse and pre-soak, or wash a load multiple times. (Whirlpool,
No. 39 at pp. 17-18) GEA commented that based on its consumer
preference data, consumers expressed a strong preference for control
over the amount of water used in their clothes washers. (GEA, No. 38 at
p. 2) GEA found that typically, consumers prefer to add more water to
their wash load. (Id.)
AHAM commented that manufacturers have experienced consumer
pushback as a result of reducing water use. (AHAM, No. 40 at p. 11)
AHAM noted that, while consumers typically use the normal cycle, most
top-loading clothes washers include a deep fill option in order to
address consumer interest in the ability to increase water levels.
(Id.) AHAM added that as a result of reduced water use, consumers tend
to rely on deep-fill settings, or add water to their clothes washers
themselves. (Id.) AHAM commented that a significant portion of
consumers dislike clothes washers with low water levels. (Id.)
AHAM commented that the effects of strict water requirements may
lead to consumer perceptions of inadequate cleaning performance, and
will likely cause consumers to take actions that cause efficiency
performance to diverge from DOE's projections. AHAM added that this
could amount to a negative ``rebound effect,'' where higher efficiency
requirements lead to increased energy and water use due to consumers
responding to inadequate performance at stringent efficiency levels.
(AHAM, No. 40 at p. 10)
AHAM noted that, while consumers typically use the normal cycle,
most top-loading clothes washers include a deep fill option in order to
address consumer interest in the ability to increase water levels.
As discussed, DOE has considered potential impacts to the various
attributes of product performance as part of its consideration of
amended standards, as discussed further in section V.C.1 of this
document. To the extent that water levels correlate with cleaning and
rinsing performance or other relevant attributes of clothes washer
performance, DOE has considered such impacts as part of its analysis.
DOE requests comment and information on sales of RCWs with deep
fill and/or deep rinse options or settings and the frequency of use of
cycles with these options or settings selected.
d. Availability of Portable Products
As discussed, top-loading portable RCWs are generally mounted on
caster wheels, which allows the clothes washer to be moved more easily.
AHAM commented that the proposed energy conservation standards
could impact portable clothes washers and cause features of portability
and lower price points to be lost. (AHAM, No. 40 at p. 16) AHAM added
that the loss of low priced and portable top-loading clothes washers
would raise equity concerns. (Id.)
DOE's testing and analysis of top-loading standard-size portable
units indicates that such products would be able to achieve the
proposed standard level for the top-loading standard-size product class
with only small changes to the final spin portion of the cycle (e.g.,
to implement ``consistent spin'') and a minor reduction in water use.
Accordingly, DOE tentatively determines that the proposed standard
level would not preclude the availability of portable clothes washers
from the market.
e. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed in the previous sections, DOE has
tentatively concluded that the standards proposed in this NOPR would
not lessen the utility or performance of the RCWs under consideration
in this proposed rulemaking.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
DOE considered any lessening of competition that would be likely to
result from new or amended standards.
[[Page 13604]]
As discussed in section III.F.1.e of this document, the Attorney
General determines the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition
likely to result from a proposed standard, and transmits such
determination in writing to the Secretary, together with an analysis of
the nature and extent of such impact. To assist the Attorney General in
making this determination, DOE has provided DOJ with copies of this
NOPR and the accompanying TSD for review. DOE will consider DOJ's
comments on the proposed rule in determining whether to proceed to a
final rule. DOE will publish and respond to DOJ's comments in that
document. DOE invites comment from the public regarding the competitive
impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule. In addition,
stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ regarding
these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES section for information to
send comments to DOJ.
6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves
the Nation's energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the
environmental impacts (costs) of energy production. Reduced electricity
demand due to energy conservation standards is also likely to reduce
the cost of maintaining the reliability of the electricity system,
particularly during peak-load periods. Chapter 15 in the NOPR TSD
presents the estimated impacts on electricity generating capacity,
relative to the no-new-standards case, for the TSLs that DOE considered
in this proposed rulemaking.
Energy conservation resulting from potential energy conservation
standards for RCWs is expected to yield environmental benefits in the
form of reduced emissions of certain air pollutants and greenhouse
gases. Table V.29 provides DOE's estimate of cumulative emissions
reductions expected to result from the TSLs considered in this proposed
rulemaking. The emissions were calculated using the multipliers
discussed in section IV.K of this document. DOE reports annual
emissions reductions for each TSL in chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD.
Table V.29--Cumulative Emissions Reduction for Residential Clothes Washers Shipped in 2027-2056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power Sector Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)....... 20.4 20.6 24.2 49.0 79.3
CH4 (thousand tons)............. 1.5 1.5 1.8 3.4 4.9
N2O (thousand tons)............. 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.7
NOX (thousand tons)............. 11.4 11.5 13.2 28.3 48.8
SO2 (thousand tons)............. 8.8 8.9 10.8 19.7 28.1
Hg (tons)....................... 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upstream Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)....... 1.7 1.7 1.9 4.2 7.3
CH4 (thousand tons)............. 161.9 163.4 186.6 408.1 713.3
N2O (thousand tons)............. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NOX (thousand tons)............. 25.5 25.7 29.5 64.1 111.4
SO2 (thousand tons)............. 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3
Hg (tons)....................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total FFC Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)....... 22.1 22.3 26.1 53.2 86.6
CH4 (thousand tons)............. 163.4 164.9 188.4 411.4 718.3
N2O (thousand tons)............. 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7
NOX (thousand tons)............. 36.9 37.2 42.7 92.4 160.2
SO2 (thousand tons)............. 8.9 9.0 10.9 199.9 28.5
Hg (tons)....................... 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the analysis for this proposed rulemaking, DOE estimated
monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of
CO2 that DOE estimated for each of the considered TSLs for
RCWs. Section IV.L of this document discusses the SC-CO2
values that DOE used. Table V.30 presents the value of CO2
emissions reduction at each TSL for each of the SC-CO2
cases. The time-series of annual values is presented for the proposed
TSL in chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD.
[[Page 13605]]
Table V.30--Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction for Residential Clothes Washers Shipped in 2027-2056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC-CO2 case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistics
---------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 5% 3% 2.5% 3%
---------------------------------------------------------------
95th
Average Average Average percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(billion 2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 219 924 1,437 2,814
2............................................... 221 933 1,451 2,841
3............................................... 258 1,088 1,694 3,313
4............................................... 509 2,174 3,394 6,613
5............................................... 812 3,496 5,470 10,628
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in section IV.L.2 of this document, DOE estimated the
climate benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of methane
and N2O that DOE estimated for each of the considered TSLs
for RCWs. Table V.31 presents the value of the CH4 emissions
reduction at each TSL, and Table V.32 presents the value of the
N2O emissions reduction at each TSL. The time-series of
annual values is presented for the proposed TSL in chapter 14 of the
NOPR TSD.
Table V.31--Present Value of Methane Emissions Reduction for Residential Clothes Washers Shipped in 2027-2056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC-CH4 case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistics
---------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 5% 3% 2.5% 3%
---------------------------------------------------------------
95th
Average Average Average percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(billion 2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 74 214 297 567
2............................................... 74 216 299 572
3............................................... 84 246 341 652
4............................................... 179 530 738 1,403
5............................................... 307 917 1,280 2,428
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.32--Present Value of Nitrous Oxide Emissions Reduction for Residential Clothes Washers Shipped in 2027-
2056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC-N2O Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistics
---------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 5% 3% 2.5% 3%
---------------------------------------------------------------
95th
Average Average Average percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(billion 2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 0.80 3.11 4.79 8.28
2............................................... 0.80 3.14 4.84 8.36
3............................................... 0.96 3.77 5.81 10.02
4............................................... 1.76 6.97 10.78 18.56
5............................................... 2.56 10.22 15.84 27.21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the
contribution of CO2 and other GHG emissions to changes in
the future global climate and the potential resulting damages to the
global and U.S. economy continues to evolve rapidly. DOE, together with
other Federal
[[Page 13606]]
agencies, will continue to review methodologies for estimating the
monetary value of reductions in CO2 and other GHG emissions.
This ongoing review will consider the comments on this subject that are
part of the public record for this and other rulemakings, as well as
other methodological assumptions and issues. DOE notes that the
proposed standards would be economically justified even without
inclusion of monetized benefits of reduced GHG emissions.
DOE also estimated the monetary value of the health benefits
associated with NOX and SO2 emissions reductions
anticipated to result from the considered TSLs for RCWs. The dollar-
per-ton values that DOE used are discussed in section IV.L of this
document. Table V.33 presents the present value for NOX
emissions reduction for each TSL calculated using 7-percent and 3-
percent discount rates, and Table V.34 presents similar results for
SO2 emissions reductions. The results in these tables
reflect application of EPA's low dollar-per-ton values, which DOE used
to be conservative. The time-series of annual values is presented for
the proposed TSL in chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD.
Table V.33--Present Value of NOX Emissions Reduction for Residential
Clothes Washers Shipped in 2027-2056
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount 7% Discount
TSL rate rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(million 2021$)
-------------------------------
1....................................... 1,467 634
2....................................... 1,481 641
3....................................... 1,712 739
4....................................... 3,468 1,441
5....................................... 5,684 2,304
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.34--Present Value of SO2 Emissions Reduction for Residential
Clothes Washers Shipped in 2027-2056
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount 7% Discount
TSL rate rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(million 2021$)
-------------------------------
1....................................... 505 225
2....................................... 510 227
3....................................... 615 272
4....................................... 1,098 472
5....................................... 1,540 650
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has not considered the monetary benefits of the reduction of Hg
for this proposed rule. Not all the public health and environmental
benefits from the reduction of greenhouse gases, NOx, and
SO2 are captured in the previous values, and additional
unquantified benefits from the reductions of those pollutants as well
as from the reduction of Hg, direct PM, and other co-pollutants may be
significant.
7. Other Factors
The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is
economically justified, may consider any other factors that the
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) No
other factors were considered in this analysis.
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
Table V.35 presents the NPV values that result from adding the
estimates of the potential economic benefits resulting from reduced
GHG, NOX, and SO2 emissions to the NPV of
consumer benefits calculated for each TSL considered in this proposed
rulemaking. The consumer benefits are domestic U.S. monetary savings
that occur as a result of purchasing the covered products, and are
measured for the lifetime of products shipped in 2027-2056. The climate
benefits associated with reduced GHG emissions resulting from the
adopted standards are global benefits and are also calculated based on
the lifetime of RCWs shipped in 2027-2056.
Table V.35--Consumer NPV Combined With Present Value of Climate Benefits and Health Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using 3% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average SC-GHG case.......... 10.7 10.8 10.8 19.8 29.1
3% Average SC-GHG case.......... 11.5 11.6 11.8 21.8 32.4
2.5% Average SC-GHG case........ 12.1 12.2 12.5 23.2 34.8
3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case.. 13.7 13.9 14.4 27.1 41.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using 7% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average SC-GHG case.......... 4.5 4.6 3.8 7.7 11.8
3% Average SC-GHG case.......... 5.4 5.4 4.8 9.8 15.1
[[Page 13607]]
2.5% Average SC-GHG case........ 6.0 6.0 5.5 11.2 17.4
3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case.. 7.6 7.7 7.5 15.1 23.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Conclusion
When considering new or amended energy conservation standards, the
standards that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining
whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must
determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by,
to the greatest extent practicable, considering the seven statutory
factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or
amended standard must also result in significant conservation of
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
For this NOPR, DOE considered the impacts of amended standards for
RCWs at each TSL, beginning with the maximum technologically feasible
level, to determine whether that level was economically justified.
Where the max-tech level was not justified, DOE then considered the
next most efficient level and undertook the same evaluation until it
reached the highest efficiency level that is both technologically
feasible and economically justified and saves a significant amount of
energy. DOE refers to this process as the ``walk-down'' analysis.
To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of
each TSL, tables in this section present a summary of the results of
DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the
quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other
burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. These include
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be
disproportionately affected by a national standard and impacts on
employment.
DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-
ranging discussion of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy
savings in the absence of government intervention. Much of this
literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue
energy efficiency improvements. There is evidence that consumers
undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of
information, (2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or
aggregate benefits, (3) a lack of sufficient savings to warrant
delaying or altering purchases, (4) excessive focus on the short term,
in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings
relative to available returns on other investments, (5) computational
or other difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant
tradeoffs, and (6) a divergence in incentives (for example, between
renters and owners, or builders and purchasers). Having less than
perfect foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the future,
consumers may trade off these types of investments at a higher-than-
expected rate between current consumption and uncertain future energy
cost savings.
In DOE's current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the
benefits and costs of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase
decisions are included in two ways. First, if consumers forego the
purchase of a product in the standards case, this decreases sales for
product manufacturers, and the impact on manufacturers attributed to
lost revenue is included in the MIA. Second, DOE accounts for energy
savings attributable only to products actually used by consumers in the
standards case; if a standard decreases the number of products
purchased by consumers, this decreases the potential energy savings
from an energy conservation standard. DOE provides estimates of
shipments and changes in the volume of product purchases in chapter 9
of the NOPR TSD. However, DOE's current analysis does not explicitly
control for heterogeneity in consumer preferences, preferences across
subcategories of products or specific features, or consumer price
sensitivity variation according to household income.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household Electricity Demand,
Revisited. Review of Economic Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853-883.
doi: 10.1111/0034-6527.00354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While DOE is not prepared at present to provide a fuller
quantifiable framework for estimating the benefits and costs of changes
in consumer purchase decisions due to an energy conservation standard,
DOE is committed to developing a framework that can support empirical
quantitative tools for improved assessment of the consumer welfare
impacts of appliance standards. DOE has posted a paper that discusses
the issue of consumer welfare impacts of appliance energy conservation
standards, and potential enhancements to the methodology by which these
impacts are defined and estimated in the regulatory process.\132\ DOE
welcomes comments on how to more fully assess the potential impact of
energy conservation standards on consumer choice and how to quantify
this impact in its regulatory analysis in future rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ Sanstad, A.H. Notes on the Economics of Household Energy
Consumption and Technology Choice. 2010. Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory. Available at www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_theory.pdf (Last accessed June
12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Residential Clothes
Washer Standards
Table V.36 and Table V.37 summarize the quantitative impacts
estimated for each TSL for RCWs. The national impacts are measured over
the lifetime of RCWs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the
anticipated year of compliance with amended standards (2027-2056). The
energy savings, emissions reductions, and value of emissions reductions
refer to full-fuel-cycle results. The efficiency levels contained in
each TSL are described in section V.A of this document.
[[Page 13608]]
Table V.36--Summary of Analytical Results for Residential Clothes Washer TSLs: National Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quads........................... 0.61 0.62 0.74 1.45 2.27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)....... 22.11 22.32 26.13 53.21 86.62
CH4 (thousand tons)............. 163.41 164.89 188.43 411.43 718.26
N2O (thousand tons)............. 0.21 0.21 0.26 0.48 0.71
NOX (thousand tons)............. 36.90 37.24 42.73 92.39 160.21
SO2 (thousand tons)............. 8.88 8.96 10.88 19.93 28.45
Hg (tons)....................... 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.13 0.18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings. 13.46 13.60 19.88 27.83 35.68
Climate Benefits *.............. 1.14 1.15 1.34 2.71 4.42
Health Benefits **.............. 1.97 1.99 2.33 4.57 7.22
Total Benefits [dagger]......... 16.57 16.74 23.54 35.11 47.32
Consumer Incremental Product 5.07 5.10 11.75 13.31 14.91
Costs [Dagger].................
Consumer Net Benefits........... 8.39 8.50 8.13 14.52 20.77
Total Net Benefits.............. 11.50 11.64 11.79 21.80 32.41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2021$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings. 6.36 6.43 9.20 12.73 16.12
Climate Benefits *.............. 1.14 1.15 1.34 2.71 4.42
Health Benefits **.............. 0.86 0.87 1.01 1.91 2.95
Total Benefits [dagger]......... 8.36 8.45 11.55 17.35 23.50
Consumer Incremental Product 3.00 3.02 6.72 7.58 8.45
Costs [Dagger].................
Consumer Net Benefits........... 3.36 3.41 2.48 5.14 7.68
Total Net Benefits.............. 5.36 5.43 4.83 9.77 15.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with RCWs shipped in 2027-2056. These results
include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC-CO2, SC-CH4, and SC-N2O. Together
these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated
with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single
central SC-GHG point estimate. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted
the Federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary
injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's
order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's
appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined
the defendants in that case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim
estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents
monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
(for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L
of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total
and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes
the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
Table V.37--Summary of Analytical Results for Residential Clothes Washer TSLs: Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 * TSL 2 * TSL 3 * TSL 4 * TSL 5 *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (million 2021$) (No- 1,680.4 to 1,746.4............ 1,636.5 to 1,702.9............ 1,490.3 to 1,631.0............ 1,208.1 to 1,376.7............ 798.7 to 985.9.
new-standards case INPV = 1,738).
Industry NPV (% change) **......... (3.3) to 0.5.................. (5.9) to (2.0)................ (14.3) to (6.2)............... (30.5) to (20.8).............. (54.1) to (43.3).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Average LCC Savings (2021$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semi-Automatic..................... $329.......................... $329.......................... $329.......................... $329.......................... $219.
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact......... n.a........................... n.a........................... n.a........................... n.a........................... n.a.
Top-Loading, Standard-Size......... $138.......................... $138.......................... $115.......................... $134.......................... $157.
Front-Loading, Compact............. $0............................ $0............................ $0............................ $7............................ $56.
Front-Loading, Standard-Size....... $57........................... $78........................... $78........................... $19........................... $55.
[[Page 13609]]
Shipment-Weighted Average *........ $119.......................... $124.......................... $107.......................... $107.......................... $132.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Simple PBP (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semi-Automatic..................... 0.3........................... 0.3........................... 0.3........................... 0.3........................... 0.4.
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact......... n.a........................... n.a........................... n.a........................... n.a........................... n.a.
Top-Loading, Standard-Size......... 4.6........................... 4.6........................... 6.8........................... 5.9........................... 5.5.
Front-Loading, Compact............. 0.0........................... 0.0........................... 0.0........................... 9.1........................... 7.1.
Front-Loading, Standard-Size....... 2.8........................... 2.4........................... 2.4........................... 3.2........................... 3.4.
Shipment-Weighted Average *........ 4.0........................... 3.9........................... 5.5........................... 5.2........................... 4.9.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semi-Automatic..................... 0%............................ 0%............................ 0%............................ 0%............................ 0%.
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact......... n.a........................... n.a........................... n.a........................... n.a........................... n.a.
Top-Loading, Standard-Size......... 14%........................... 14%........................... 28%........................... 25%........................... 23%.
Front-Loading, Compact............. 0%............................ 0%............................ 0%............................ 24%........................... 29%.
Front-Loading, Standard-Size....... 0%............................ 0%............................ 0%............................ 24%........................... 18%.
Shipment-Weighted Average *........ 11%........................... 11%........................... 20%........................... 24%........................... 21%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The entry ``n.a.'' means not applicable because there is no change in the standard at certain TSLs.
* Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2027.
** Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining
whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must
determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by,
to the greatest extent practicable, considering the seven statutory
factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) For
this NOPR, DOE considered the impacts of amended standards for RCWs at
each TSL, beginning with the maximum technologically feasible level, to
determine whether that level was economically justified. Where the max-
tech level was not justified, DOE then considered the next most
efficient level and undertook the same evaluation until it reached the
highest efficiency level that is both technologically feasible and
economically justified and saves a significant amount of energy.
Samsung commented that top-loading standard-size clothes washers,
which cover roughly 70 percent of the marketplace, offer the greatest
efficiency improvement opportunity and should be set to EL 3, which is
included in TSL 4. (Samsung, No. 41 at pp. 2-3) Samsung added that
DOE's analysis demonstrates a practical payback period of 4.2 years for
top-loading standard-size RCWs, and DOE's engineering analysis shows
that slight adjustments to wash temperature, spray rinse, and changing
to a direct drive motor can contribute to a significant National Energy
Savings of 1.85 quads. (Id.) Samsung added that direct drive motor and
inverter control technology have matured over the years and have become
highly cost competitive. (Id.) Samsung commented that it predicts these
technologies will commonly be used in the near term given the benefits
to energy efficiency, quiet operation, and high reliability. (Id.)
Samsung noted that increasing efficiency for top-loading standard-size
clothes washers becomes especially important if DOE's consumer choice
model indicates that the top-loading market share will increase with
increased minimum energy performance standards on top-loading standard-
size clothes washers. (Id.)
Samsung recommended that to realize savings for front-loading
standard-size clothes washers, DOE should adopt EL 2, which is included
in TSL 2 and TSL 3. (Samsung, No. 41 at p. 3) Samsung commented that
when comparing the models listed in DOE's CCD and those listed in EPA's
Qualified Products List, 78 percent of front-loading standard-size
models meet EL 2 proposed in the September 2021 Preliminary TSD. (Id.)
Samsung noted that increasing the MEPS beyond EL 2 provides diminishing
returns in the form of a longer payback period. (Id.) Samsung commented
that going forward, if DOE expects consumers to adopt top-loading
clothes washers, improvement in National Energy Savings for front-
loading clothes washers becomes negligible as efficiency level
increases. (Id.)
As discussed, DOE evaluated each TSL, beginning with the maximum
technologically feasible level, to determine the highest efficiency
level that is both technologically feasible and economically justified
and saves a significant amount of energy. The following paragraphs
summarize the results of this evaluation. In particular, the summary
discussion emphasizes the impacts on the top-loading standard-size and
front-loading standard-size product classes, which together represent
96 percent of the market, as presented in Table IV.34 of this document.
DOE first considered TSL 5, which represents the max-tech
efficiency levels for all product classes. Specifically for top-loading
standard-size RCWs, DOE's expected design path for TSL 5 (which
represents EL 4 for this product class) incorporates the use of a
stainless-steel basket, a direct drive motor, a wash plate, reduced hot
and warm wash water temperatures compared to temperatures available on
baseline units, an increased tub size compared to the baseline, and the
fastest achievable spin speeds. In particular, the faster spin speeds
and reduced hot and warm wash temperatures provide the improvement in
efficiency at TSL 5 compared to TSL 4. For front-loading standard-size
RCWs, DOE's expected design path for TSL 5 (which represents EL 4 for
this product class) incorporates the use of the most efficient
available direct drive motor, the implementation of advanced sensors,
and the fastest achievable spin speeds. In particular, the more
efficient motor, faster spin
[[Page 13610]]
speeds, and advanced sensors provide the improvement in efficiency at
TSL 5 compared to TSL 4. TSL 5 would save an estimated 2.27 quads of
energy and 2.94 trillion gallons of water, an amount DOE considers
significant. Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $7.68
billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $20.77 billion using a
discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 are 86.62 Mt of
CO2, 28.45 thousand tons of SO2, 160.21 thousand
tons of NOX, 0.18 tons of Hg, 718.26 thousand tons of
CH4, and 0.71 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at
TSL 5 is $4.42 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at
TSL 5 is $2.95 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $7.22
billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs,
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 5 is $15.05
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs,
the estimated total NPV at TSL 5 is $32.41 billion. The estimated total
NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE primarily
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a
proposed standard level is economically justified.
At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is a savings of $219 for semi-
automatic, $157 for top-loading standard-size, $56 for front-loading
compact, and $55 for front-loading standard-size clothes washers. The
simple payback period is 0.4 years for semi-automatic, 5.5 years for
top-loading standard-size, 7.1 years for front-loading compact, and 3.4
years for front-loading standard-size clothes washers. The fraction of
consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 0 percent for semi-automatic,
23 percent for top-loading standard-size, 29 percent for front-loading
compact, and 18 percent for front-loading standard-size clothes
washers. Notably, for the top-loading standard-size product class,
which represents 73 percent of the market, TSL 5 would increase the
first cost by $189, in comparison to an installed cost of $706 for
baseline units. For the front-loading standard-size product class,
which represents 23 percent of the market, TSL 5 would increase the
first cost by $70, compared to an installed cost of $1,195 for baseline
units. At TSL 5, the proposed standard for top-loading ultra-compact
clothes washers is at the baseline, resulting in no LCC impact, no
simple PBP, and no consumers experiencing a net LCC cost.
At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$939.6 million to a decrease of $752.4 million, which correspond to a
decrease of 54.1 percent and 43.3 percent, respectively. The loss in
INPV is largely driven by industry conversion costs as manufacturers
work to redesign their portfolio of model offerings and re-tool entire
factories to comply with amended standards at this level. Industry
conversion costs could reach $1,253.8 million at this TSL.
Conversion costs at max-tech are significant, as nearly all
existing RCW models would need to be redesigned to meet the required
efficiencies. Currently, approximately 3 percent of RCW annual
shipments meet the max-tech levels. For top-loading standard-size
clothes washers, which account for 73 percent of annual shipments, less
than 1 percent of current shipments meet this level. Of the nine OEMs
offering top-loading standard-size products, one OEM offers models that
meet the efficiencies required by TSL 5. The remaining eight OEMs would
need to overhaul their existing platforms and make significant updates
to their production facilities. Those manufacturers may need to
incorporate increased tub capacities, wash plate designs, direct drive
motors, reinforced wash baskets, robust suspension and balancing
systems, and advanced sensors. These product changes require
significant investment. In interviews, several manufacturers expressed
concerns about their ability to meet existing market demand given the
required scale of investment, redesign effort, and 3-year compliance
timeline.
Based upon the above considerations, the Secretary tentatively
concludes that at TSL 5 for RCWs, the benefits of energy and water
savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, and emission reductions
would be outweighed by the impacts on manufacturers, including the
large potential reduction in INPV. DOE estimated the potential loss in
INPV to be as high as 54 percent. The potential losses in INPV are
primarily driven by large conversion costs that must be made ahead of
the compliance date. At max-tech, manufacturers would need to make
significant upfront investments to update nearly all product lines and
manufacturing facilities. Manufacturers expressed concern that they
would not be able to complete product and production line updates
within the 3-year conversion period. Additionally, when considering the
estimated monetary value of emissions reductions--representing $4.42
billion in climate benefits (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-
percent discount rate), and $7.22 billion (using a 3-percent discount
rate) or $2.95 billion (using a 7-percent discount rate) in health
benefits--DOE maintains its tentative conclusion that the overall
benefits would be outweighed by the impacts on manufacturers.
Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 5 is not
economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 4, which represents the ENERGY STAR Most
Efficient level for the front-loading product classes, the CEE Tier 1
level for the top-loading standard-size product class, and a gap fill
level for the semi-automatic product classes. Specifically, for top-
loading standard-size RCWs, DOE's expected design path for TSL 4 (which
represents EL 3 for this product class) incorporates many of the same
technologies and design strategies as described for TSL 5. At TSL 4,
top-loading standard-size units would incorporate a stainless-steel
basket, a direct drive motor, and a wash plate, consistent with TSL 5.
Models at TSL 4 would also incorporate reduced hot wash water
temperatures compared to temperatures available at the baseline through
TSL 3 levels, increased tub size compared to the baseline (although not
as large as TSL 5), and faster spin speeds compared to the baseline
(although not as fast as TSL 5). In particular, the faster spin speeds,
reduced hot wash temperatures, and use of a wash plate provide the
improvement in efficiency at TSL 4 compared to TSL 3. For front-loading
standard-size RCWs, DOE's expected design path for TSL 4 (which
represents EL 3 for this product class) incorporates the use of the
most efficient direct drive motor available and spin speeds that are
faster than the baseline level but not as fast as at TSL 5. In
particular, more efficient motor and faster spin speeds provide the
improvement in efficiency at TSL 4 compared to TSL 3. TSL 4 would save
an estimated 1.45 quads of energy and 2.53 trillion gallons of water,
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer
benefit would be $5.14 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and
$14.52 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 53.21 Mt of
CO2, 19.93 thousand tons of SO2, 92.39 thousand
tons of NOX, 0.13 tons of Hg, 411.41 thousand tons of
CH4, and 0.48 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated
[[Page 13611]]
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at
TSL 4 is $2.71 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at
TSL 4 is $1.91 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $4.57
billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs,
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 is $9.77
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs,
the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 is $21.80 billion. The estimated total
NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE primarily
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a
proposed standard level is economically justified.
At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is a savings of $329 for semi-
automatic, $134 for top-loading standard-size, $7 for front-loading
compact, and $19 for front-loading standard-size clothes washers. The
simple payback period is 0.3 years for semi-automatic, 5.9 years for
top-loading standard-size, 9.1 years for front-loading compact, and 3.2
years for front-loading standard-size clothes washers. The fraction of
consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 0 percent for semi-automatic,
25 percent for top-loading standard-size, 24 percent for front-loading
compact, and 24 percent for front-loading standard-size clothes
washers. For the top-loading standard-size product class, TSL 4 would
increase the first cost by $185, in comparison to an installed cost of
$706 for baseline units. For the front-loading standard-size product
class, TSL 4 would increase the first cost by $49, compared to an
installed cost of $1,195 for baseline units. At TSL 4, the proposed
standard for top-loading ultra-compact clothes washers is at the
baseline resulting in no LCC impact, no simple PBP, and no consumers
experiencing a net LCC cost. Overall, across all product classes,
around 24 percent of consumers would experience a net LCC cost at TSL
4. DOE estimated that about 14 percent of low-income households would
experience a net LCC cost at TSL 4, and as a result of smaller
households and lower annual usage, about 33 percent of senior-only
households would experience a net LCC cost at TSL 4.
At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$530.2 million to a decrease of $361.6 million, which correspond to a
decrease of 30.5 percent and 20.8 percent, respectively. The loss in
INPV is largely driven by industry conversion costs as manufacturers
work to redesign their portfolio of model offerings and update
production facilities to comply with amended standards at this level.
Industry conversion costs could reach $690.8 million at this TSL.
At TSL 4, most top-loading standard-size products would need to be
redesigned to meet these efficiencies; however, a substantial number of
front-loading standard-size products are available on the market due to
manufacturers' participation in the ENERGY STAR Most Efficient program.
Currently, approximately 14 percent of RCW shipments meet TSL 4
efficiencies, including nearly 46 percent of standard-size front-
loading shipments. Of the seven OEMs with standard-size front-loading
products, five OEMs offer 87 basic models (representing approximately
50 percent of all front-loading standard-size basic models) that meet
TSL 4 efficiencies. For standard-size top-loading products,
approximately two percent of shipments meet this level. Of the nine
OEMs offering top-loading standard-size products, two OEMs offer around
20 basic models (representing approximately 4 percent of all top-
loading standard-size basic models) that meet the efficiencies required
by TSL 4. At this level, the remaining seven manufacturers would likely
implement largely similar design options as at TSL 5, but to a lesser
extent for the increase in tub size and hardware changes associated
with faster spin speeds (e.g., reinforced wash baskets, robust
suspension and balancing systems, and advanced sensors)--which are
faster than the baseline level but not as fast as TSL 5. In interviews,
manufacturers indicated that meeting TSL 4 efficiencies would require a
less extensive redesign than meeting TSL 5 efficiencies.
At TSL 4, manufacturers expressed concerns--both through written
comments as well as during confidential manufacturer interviews--
regarding impacts to certain attributes of product performance,
including wash temperatures, cleaning and rinsing performance, and
fabric care, particularly for top-loading standard-size RCWs. As
discussed in section V.B.4.a of this document, DOE recognizes that in
general, a consumer-acceptable level of cleaning performance (i.e., a
representative average use cycle) can be easier to achieve through the
use of higher amounts of energy and water use during the clothes washer
cycle. Conversely, maintaining acceptable cleaning performance can be
more difficult as energy and water levels are reduced. Improving one
aspect of clothes washer performance, such as reducing energy and/or
water use as a result of energy conservation standards, may require
manufacturers to make a trade-off with one or more other aspects of
performance, such as cleaning performance, depending on which
performance characteristics are prioritized by the manufacturer. DOE
expects, however, that consumers maintain the same expectations of
cleaning performance regardless of the efficiency of the clothes
washer.
Manufacturers did not provide any quantitative data to support the
assertion that a standard level at TSL 4 would negatively impact
product performance. As discussed in section V.B.4.a of this document,
DOE's analysis of third-party clothes washer performance reviews
suggests that both top-loading and front-loading RCWs models rated at
TSL 4 can achieve equal or better overall cleaning performance scores
than models with lower efficiency ratings. DOE also conducted its own
performance testing on a representative sample of top-loading standard-
size and front-loading standard-size RCWs, the results of which suggest
that TSL 4 can be achieved with key performance attributes (e.g., wash
temperatures, stain removal, mechanical action, and cycle duration)
that are largely comparable to the performance of lower-efficiency
units available on the market today. In particular, DOE tentatively
concludes that the proposed standard level at TSL 4: (1) would not
require any substantive reduction in hot water temperature on the
hottest temperature selection in the Normal cycle, and would not
preclude the ability to provide wash temperatures above the 85 [deg]F
threshold at which fatty soils are soluble; (2) would be able to
maintain total cleaning score of at least 90, the market-representative
threshold as measured on the Hot temperature selection with the large
load size; furthermore, by prioritizing hardware design options over
reduced wash temperatures, the proposed standard level would not
preclude the ability to provide total cleaning scores for top-loading
units equally as high as the highest scores currently achieved by units
at lower efficiency levels; (3) would not preclude the ability to
provide mechanical action scores comparable to the scores for units at
lower efficiency levels; and (4) would not result in an increase in
average cycle
[[Page 13612]]
time as measured by the appendix J test procedure.
In summary, based on DOE's testing of models that currently meet
the proposed standards, DOE does not expect performance to be
compromised at the proposed standard level. Furthermore, products are
readily available on the market at each efficiency level analyzed in
the NOPR, including TSL 4, indicating a certain degree of market
acceptance at each efficiency level.
DOE requests data and information regarding any quantitative
performance-related characteristics at TSL 4 in comparison to
performance at the current baseline level (e.g., cleaning performance,
rinsing performance, fabric wear, etc.), particularly for top-loading
standard-size RCWs.
As discussed, DOE's clothes washer test procedure does not
prescribe a method for testing clothes washer cleaning performance or
other relevant attributes of RCW performance. DOE, in partnership with
EPA, has developed the ENERGY STAR Test Method for Determining
Residential Clothes Washer Cleaning Performance \133\ to determine
cleaning performance for clothes washers that meet the ENERGY STAR Most
Efficient criteria. Cleaning performance is determined on the same test
units immediately following the energy and water consumption tests for
ENERGY STAR qualification. Notably, however, this test method is
designed to be performed in conjunction with DOE's appendix J2 test
procedure--whereas the amended standards proposed by this NOPR would be
based on testing conducted to the appendix J test procedure. Appendix J
specifies different load sizes than appendix J2, among other changes,
which can significantly affect any measurement of cleaning performance.
Additional investigation would be required to develop a cleaning
performance test procedure designed to be conducted in conjunction with
appendix J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ ENERGY STAR test method available at www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/Test%20Method%20for%20Determining%20Residential%20Clothes%20Washer%20Cleaning%20Performance%20-%20July%202018_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and
burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that at a standard set
at TSL 4 for RCWs would be economically justified. At this TSL, the
weighted average LCC savings for all product classes is $107. An
estimated 25 percent of top-loading standard-size clothes washer
consumers and an estimated 24 percent of front-loading (compact and
standard-size) clothes washer consumers would experience a net cost.
DOE acknowledges the larger impact on senior-only households as a
result of smaller households and lower average annual use, but notes
that the average LCC savings are still positive. The FFC national
energy and water savings are significant and the NPV of consumer
benefits is positive using both a 3-percent and 7-percent discount
rate. Notably, the benefits to consumers, considering low-income and
senior-only subgroups as well, vastly outweigh the cost to
manufacturers. At TSL 4, the NPV of consumer benefits, even measured at
the more conservative discount rate of 7 percent is over 27 times
higher than the maximum estimated manufacturers' loss in INPV. The
standard levels at TSL 4 are economically justified even without
weighing the estimated monetary value of emissions reductions. When
those emissions reductions are included--representing $2.71 billion in
climate benefits (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent
discount rate), and $4.57 billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or
$1.91 billion (using a 7-percent discount rate) in health benefits--the
rationale becomes stronger still.
Therefore, based on the above considerations, DOE proposes to adopt
the energy conservation standards for RCWs at TSL 4. The proposed
amended energy conservation standards for RCWs, which are expressed in
EER and WER, are shown in Table V.38.
Table V.38--Proposed Amended Energy Conservation Standards for
Residential Clothes Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum energy Minimum water
Product class efficiency ratio efficiency ratio
(lb/kWh/cycle) (lb/gal/cycle)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers.... 2.12 0.27
Automatic Clothes Washers:
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact 3.79 0.29
(less than 1.6 ft\3\
capacity)....................
Top-Loading, Standard-Size 4.78 0.63
(1.6 ft\3\ or greater
capacity)....................
Front-Loading, Compact (less 5.02 0.71
than 3.0 ft\3\ capacity).....
Front-Loading, Standard-Size 5.73 0.77
(3.0 ft\3\ or greater
capacity)....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is
(1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2021$) of the
benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards
(consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy,
minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the annualized
monetary value of the climate and health benefits from emission
reductions.
Table V.39 shows the annualized values for RCWs under TSL 4,
expressed in 2021$. The results under the primary estimate are as
follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
NOX and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3-percent
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the
proposed standards for RCWs is $800.8 million per year in increased
equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $1,344.2
million from reduced equipment operating costs, $155.7 million from GHG
reductions, and $202.0 million from reduced NOX and
SO2 emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to
$901.1 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the proposed standards for RCWs is $764.0 million per
year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits
are $1,598.0 million from reduced equipment operating costs, $155.7
million from GHG reductions, and $262.2 million from reduced
NOX and SO2 emissions. In this case, the net
benefit amounts to $1,251.8 million per year.
[[Page 13613]]
Table V.39--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes
Washers
[TSL 4]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 2021$/year
-------------------------------------------------------
Primary Low-net-benefits High-net-benefits
estimate estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings......................... 1,598.0 1,544.5 1,657.8
Climate Benefits *...................................... 155.7 151.7 159.7
Health Benefits **...................................... 262.2 255.8 268.9
-------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits [dagger]............................. 2,015.9 1,952.0 2,086.4
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]............. 764.0 778.7 695.5
-------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits........................................ 1,251.8 1,173.4 1,390.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings......................... 1,344.2 1,302.8 1,389.7
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)................... 155.7 151.7 159.7
Health Benefits **...................................... 202.0 197.5 206.7
-------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits [dagger]............................. 1,701.9 1,652.0 1,756.1
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]............. 800.8 813.3 737.9
-------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits........................................ 901.1 838.7 1,018.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with RCWs shipped in 2027-2056. These results
include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056. The Primary, Low
Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2022 Reference
case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental
equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net
Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive
projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits
and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this
document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG
at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point
estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four
sets of SC-GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the
Federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction
issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the
preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's appeal of that
injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in
that case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim estimates of the
social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As
reflected in this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized
benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
(for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total benefits include for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-
GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan
Manufacturers, including importers, must use product-specific
certification templates to certify compliance to DOE. For RCWs, the
certification template reflects the general certification requirements
specified at 10 CFR 429.12 and the product-specific requirements
specified at 10 CFR 429.20.
Ameren et al. encouraged DOE to require manufacturers to report
average cycle time in the CCD. (Ameren et al., No. 42 at pp. 10-12)
Ameren et al. commented that reporting average cycle time increases
stakeholder and consumer access to cycle time, which Ameren et al.
identify as an important RCW performance attribute. (Id.) Ameren et al.
commented that cycle time information is important for some consumers,
particularly for RCW consumers who routinely wash serial loads. (Id.)
Ameren et al. added that making cycle time widely available enables
stakeholders to better evaluate the cycle time of a given clothes
washer relative to its performance level, which could be even more
important with possible increases to standards that may drive increases
in spin times to decrease drying energy. (Id.) Ameren et al. also
commented that reporting RCW cycle time increases the transparency of
the energy efficiency metrics since reporting additional information on
cycle time helps improve the transparency of how the energy efficiency
metric is derived for a given clothes washer. (Id.) Ameren et al. added
that this is especially important considering the wide variation in the
cycle time of top- and front-loading RCWs. (Id.) Ameren et al. further
commented that reporting RCW cycle time enables continuous improvement
of the test procedure and energy conservation standard over time. (Id.)
Ameren et al. specified that having access to additional data on cycle
time enables DOE and other stakeholder groups to consider more
effectively the value of cycle time measurement as a performance
feature in future rulemakings. (Id.) Ameren et al. presented data from
NEEA that plotted cycle time versus rated IMEF of 18 top-loading and
front-loading RCWs. (Id.) Ameren et al. found that cycle time varies
widely across front-loading and top-loading standard-size product
[[Page 13614]]
classes. (Id.) Ameren et al. added that according to NEEA's testing
\134\ some RCWs with identical IMEF ratings can have cycle times that
are twice as long as other models. (Id.) Ameren et al. therefore
concluded that these cycle times will also vary in laboratory testing
(with the appendix J2 textiles) and that this variation represents
real-world cycle time differences. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ NEEA's testing was conducted using an 8.45 lb load of AHAM
cotton textiles, using the Normal Cycle on Warm Wash/Cold Rinse with
default spin settings. Ameren et al. noted that NEEA's analysis
confirms that the cycle times of cycles run with appendix J2
textiles and AHAM cotton textiles are nearly identical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE consider disclosing other
configurations such as stacked clothes washers and clothes dryers in
the CCD. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 6) The CA IOUs commented that there are
several clothes washer configurations available on the market which
might offer unique functionality to some consumers while not warranting
a separate product class. (Id.) For example, the CA IOUs listed
combination all-in-one washer-dryers, pedestal type clothes washers,
laundry centers,\135\ and double clothes washer products,\136\ and
stated that all represent unique product configurations that are not
differentiated in the CCD. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that, while
these configurations are clear and intuitive to consumers and
retailers, the public does not have access to a reliable database
denoting these unique product characterizations. (Id.) The CA IOUs
commented that considering the increasing market share and marketing of
these products, they encourage DOE to consider the disclosure of these
product configurations into certification requirements and adding those
attributes to the CCD. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ A laundry center is a single tall unit which contains both
a clothes washer and a clothes dryer.
\136\ The CA IOUs reference products with two integrated clothes
washer drums, such as the Samsung FlexWashTM as ``double
clothes washers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to Ameren et al. and the CA IOUs, the values for which
DOE currently requires reporting for RCWs are product characteristics
that are required in order for DOE to determine whether the product is
in compliance with the applicable standards. For example, currently
reported values include characteristics that determine product class
(e.g., loading axis, capacity), measured characteristics on which a
standard depends (e.g., IMEF, EER), and characteristics necessary for
enforcement of standards (e.g., RMC).
At this time, DOE tentatively concludes that cycle time and product
configuration (as recommend by commenters) are not required to
determine compliance with the applicable standard. In this NOPR, DOE is
not proposing to amend the product-specific certification requirements
for RCWs. DOE would consider any amendments to the reported values for
RCWs in a separate rulemaking.
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011),
requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or
adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits
justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are
difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least
burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives,
taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable,
the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net
benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health
and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities
must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to
direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage
the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or
providing information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the OMB has
emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future
compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or
anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble,
this proposed regulatory action is consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this proposed regulatory action constitutes a
``significant regulatory action within the scope of section 3(f)(1)''
of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, pursuant to section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O.
12866, DOE has provided to OIRA an assessment, including the underlying
analysis, of benefits and costs anticipated from the proposed
regulatory action, together with, to the extent feasible, a
quantification of those costs; and an assessment, including the
underlying analysis, of costs and benefits of potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives to the planned regulation, and an
explanation why the planned regulatory action is preferable to the
identified potential alternatives. These assessments are summarized in
this preamble and further detail can be found in the technical support
document for this rulemaking.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's website (www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE has
prepared the following IRFA for the products that are the subject of
this proposed rulemaking.
For manufacturers of RCWs, the SBA has set a size threshold, which
defines those entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the
purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size
standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to
the requirements of the proposed rule. (See 13 CFR part 121.) The size
standards are listed by North American Industry Classification System
(``NAICS'') code and industry description and are available at
www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards. Manufacturing of
RCWs is classified under NAICS 335220, ``Major Household Appliance
Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 1,500 employees or fewer
[[Page 13615]]
for an entity to be considered as a small business for this category.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
DOE is proposing amended energy conservation standards for RCWs.
EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these products (42
U.S.C. 6295(g)(2) and (9)(A)), and directs DOE to conduct future
rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C.
6295(g)(4) and (9)(B)) EPCA further provides that, not later than 6
years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a
standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that
standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR
including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) This proposed
rulemaking is in accordance with DOE's obligations under EPCA.
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
B of EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy
efficiency and established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include RCWs, the
subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)) EPCA prescribed energy
conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(2) and
(9)(A)), and directs DOE to conduct future rulemakings to determine
whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4) and (9)(B))
This proposed rulemaking is in accordance the 6-year review required
under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1).
3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
DOE reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on
February 19, 2003. 68 FR 7990. DOE conducted a market survey to
identify potential small manufacturers of RCWs. DOE began its
assessment by reviewing DOE's CCD,\137\ California Energy Commission's
Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database System (``MAEDbS''),\138\
ENERGY STAR's Product Finder data set,\139\ individual company
websites, and prior RCW rulemakings to identify manufacturers of the
covered product. DOE then consulted publicly available data, such as
manufacturer websites, manufacturer specifications and product
literature, import/export logs (e.g., bills of lading from Panjiva
\140\), and basic model numbers, to identify OEMs of RCWs. DOE further
relied on public data and subscription-based market research tools
(e.g., Dun & Bradstreet reports \141\) to determine company location,
headcount, and annual revenue. DOE also asked industry representatives
if they were aware of any small manufacturers during manufacturer
interviews. DOE screened out companies that do not offer products
covered by this rulemaking, do not meet the SBA's definition of a
``small business,'' or are foreign-owned and operated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ U.S. Department of Energy's Compliance Certification
Database is available at: www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/#q=Product_Group_s%3A* (Last accessed March 25, 2022).
\138\ California Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance
Efficiency Database System is available at:
cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/ApplianceSearch.aspx (Last
accessed March 25, 2022).
\139\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ENERGY STAR Product
Finder is available at: www.energystar.gov/productfinder/ (Last
accessed March 25, 2022).
\140\ S&P Global. Panjiva Market Intelligence is available at:
panjiva.com/import-export/United-States (Last accessed May 5, 2022).
\141\ D&B Hoovers[bond]Company Information[bond]Industry
Information[bond]Lists, app.dnbhoovers.com/ (Last accessed August 1,
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE initially identified 19 OEMs that sell RCWs in the United
States. Of the 19 OEMs identified, DOE tentatively determined that one
company qualifies as a small business and is not foreign-owned and
operated.
DOE reached out to the small business and invited them to
participate in a voluntary interview. The small business did not
respond to DOE's interview request. DOE also requested information
about small businesses and potential impacts on small businesses while
interviewing large manufacturers.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
The one small business identified manufactures one standard-size
top-loading clothes washer for residential use. DOE did not identify
any RCW models manufactured by this small business listed in the CCD,
MAEDbS, or ENERGY STAR databases. Instead, DOE identified this
manufacturer through the prior rulemaking analysis. 77 FR 32307. There
is limited public information about the energy and water efficiency of
this small business's RCW model. Based on a review of available product
literature and test data of a comparable RCW model, DOE estimates that
their current design would not meet the efficiencies required at TSL 4.
Furthermore, DOE's review of the product suggests that the design could
not be easily adapted to meet TSL 4 efficiencies. DOE expects that the
small manufacturer would likely need to make significant investments to
redesign the product to meet the proposed efficiencies. Therefore, DOE
is unable to conclude that the proposed rule would not have a
``significant impact on a substantial number of small entities'' at
this time.
DOE seeks comments, information, and data on the number of small
businesses in the industry, the names of those small businesses, and
their market shares by product class. DOE also requests comment on the
potential impacts of the proposed standard on small manufacturers. In
particular, DOE seeks comment on the efficiency performance of the
small manufacturer's RCW model and the estimated cost to redesign to
the proposed standard level.
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
The discussion in the previous section analyzes impacts on small
businesses that would result from DOE's proposed rule, represented by
TSL 4. In reviewing alternatives to the proposed rule, DOE examined
energy conservation standards set at lower efficiency levels. While TSL
1, TSL 2, and TSL 3 would likely reduce the impacts on the one small
business manufacturer, it would come at the expense of a reduction in
energy savings. TSL 1 achieves 58 percent and TSL 2 achieves 57 percent
lower energy savings compared to the energy savings at TSL 4. TSL 3
achieves 49 percent lower energy savings compared to the energy savings
at TSL 4. Additionally, TSL 1 and TSL 2 achieve 50 percent and TSL 3
achieves 18 percent lower water savings compared to the water savings
at TSL 4. TSL 5 were also analyzed, but it was determined this level
would lead to greater costs to manufacturers.
Based on the presented discussion, establishing standards at TSL 4
balances the benefits of the energy and water savings at TSL 4 with the
potential burdens placed on RCW manufacturers, including small business
manufacturers. Accordingly, DOE does not propose one
[[Page 13616]]
of the other TSLs considered in the analysis, or the other policy
alternatives examined as part of the regulatory impact analysis and
included in chapter 17 of the NOPR TSD.
Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other
means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue
from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an
exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a
period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final
rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally,
manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency standards may apply to
DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief under certain
circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart
E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (``PRA''), a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information by a Federal agency unless that collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
OMB Control Number 1910-1400, Compliance Statement Energy/Water
Conservation Standards for Appliances, is currently valid and assigned
to the certification reporting requirements applicable to covered
equipment, including RCWs.
DOE's certification and compliance activities ensure accurate and
comprehensive information about the energy and water use
characteristics of covered products and covered equipment sold in the
United States. Manufacturers of all covered products and covered
equipment must submit a certification report before a basic model is
distributed in commerce, annually thereafter, and if the basic model is
redesigned in such a manner to increase the consumption or decrease the
efficiency of the basic model such that the certified rating is no
longer supported by the test data. Additionally, manufacturers must
report when production of a basic model has ceased and is no longer
offered for sale as part of the next annual certification report
following such cessation. DOE requires the manufacturer of any covered
product or covered equipment to establish, maintain, and retain the
records of certification reports, of the underlying test data for all
certification testing, and of any other testing conducted to satisfy
the requirements of part 429, part 430, and/or part 431. Certification
reports provide DOE and consumers with comprehensive, up-to date
efficiency information and support effective enforcement.
Revised certification data would be required for RCWs were this
NOPR to be finalized as proposed; however, DOE is not proposing amended
certification or reporting requirements for RCWs in this NOPR. Instead,
DOE may consider proposals to establish certification requirements and
reporting for RCWs under a separate rulemaking regarding appliance and
equipment certification. DOE will address changes to OMB Control Number
1910-1400 at that time, as necessary.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE is analyzing this proposed regulation in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (``NEPA'') and DOE's NEPA
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include
a categorical exclusion for rulemakings that establish energy
conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment.
10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE anticipates that this
rulemaking qualifies for categorical exclusion B5.1 because it is a
rulemaking that establishes energy conservation standards for consumer
products or industrial equipment, none of the exceptions identified in
categorical exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no extraordinary circumstances
exist that require further environmental analysis, and it otherwise
meets the requirements for application of a categorical exclusion. See
10 CFR 1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA review before issuing the
final rule.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has
tentatively determined that it would not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs
and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy
conservation for the products that are the subject of this proposed
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297)
Therefore, no further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to
adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a),
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation:
(1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3)
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined
that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed
[[Page 13617]]
rule meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C.
1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that
may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any
one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA
requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates
the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national
economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal
agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by
elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed
``significant intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan
for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially
affected small governments before establishing any requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE
published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental
consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also
available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
Although this proposed rule does not contain a Federal
intergovernmental mandate, it may require expenditures of $100 million
or more in any one year by the private sector. Such expenditures may
include: (1) investment in research and development and in capital
expenditures by RCW manufacturers in the years between the final rule
and the compliance date for the new standards and (2) incremental
additional expenditures by consumers to purchase higher-efficiency
RCWs, starting at the compliance date for the applicable standard.
Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a Federal agency to respond to the
content requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that
accompanies the proposed rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)) The content
requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private sector
mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that
apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this NOPR and the TSD for this
proposed rule respond to those requirements.
Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before
promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is
required. (2 U.S.C. 1535(a)) DOE is required to select from those
alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the proposed rule unless DOE publishes
an explanation for doing otherwise, or the selection of such an
alternative is inconsistent with law. As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(m),
this proposed rule would establish amended energy conservation
standards for RCWs that are designed to achieve the maximum improvement
in energy efficiency that DOE has determined to be both technologically
feasible and economically justified, as required by 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A full discussion of the
alternatives considered by DOE is presented in chapter 17 of the TSD
for this proposed rule.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15,
1988), DOE has determined that this proposed rule would not result in
any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review
most disseminations of information to the public under information
quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452
(Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446
(Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE
published updated guidelines which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this NOPR under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded
that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has tentatively concluded that this regulatory action, which
proposes amended energy conservation standards for RCWs, is not a
significant energy action because the proposed standards are not likely
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or
use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator
at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy
Effects on this proposed rule.
L. Information Quality
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan.
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential
[[Page 13618]]
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The
purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information
the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector
decisions.'' 70 FR 2664, 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses
that are typically used and has prepared a report describing that peer
review.\142\ Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and
documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and
independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/
scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the
productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects.
Because available data, models, and technological understanding have
changed since 2007, DOE has engaged with the NAS to review DOE's
analytical methodologies to ascertain whether modifications are needed
to improve the Department's analyses. DOE is in the process of
evaluating the resulting report.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ The 2007 ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer
Review Report'' is available at the following website: energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (Last accessed June 12, 2022).
\143\ The report is available at www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-methods-for-setting-building-and-equipment-performance-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
The time and date of the webinar meeting are listed in the DATES
section at the beginning of this document. Webinar registration
information, participant instructions, and information about the
capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on
DOE's website at www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=68. Participants are responsible for ensuring
their systems are compatible with the webinar software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this
document, or who is representative of a group or class of persons that
has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to make an
oral presentation at the webinar. Such persons may submit to
[email protected]. Persons who wish to speak
should include with their request a computer file in WordPerfect,
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that briefly describes
the nature of their interest in this rulemaking and the topics they
wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a daytime telephone
number where they can be reached.
DOE requests persons selected to make an oral presentation to
submit an advance copy of their statements at least two weeks before
the webinar. At its discretion, DOE may permit persons who cannot
supply an advance copy of their statement to participate, if those
persons have made advance alternative arrangements with the Building
Technologies Office. As necessary, requests to give an oral
presentation should ask for such alternative arrangements.
C. Conduct of the Webinar
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar/public
meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion.
The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing,
but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6306) A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings
and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order
of presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct
of the webinar. There shall not be discussion of proprietary
information, costs or prices, market share, or other commercial matters
regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After the webinar and until the end
of the comment period, interested parties may submit further comments
on the proceedings, as well as on any aspect of the proposed
rulemaking.
The webinar will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE
will present a general overview of the topics addressed in this
proposed rulemaking, allow time for prepared general statements by
participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views
on issues affecting this proposed rulemaking. Each participant will be
allowed to make a general statement (within time limits determined by
DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will allow, as time
permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general
statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit
participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should
be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants
concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of
participants concerning other matters relevant to this proposed
rulemaking. The official conducting the webinar/public meeting will
accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time
permits. The presiding official will announce any further procedural
rules or modification of the previous procedures that may be needed for
the proper conduct of the webinar.
A transcript of the webinar will be included in the docket, which
can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of
this document and will be accessible on the DOE website. In addition,
any person may buy a copy of the transcript from the transcribing
reporter.
D. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed
rule. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other
information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section
at the beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be
[[Page 13619]]
included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment.
Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If
you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly
viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential''
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make
its own determination about the confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE seeks comment on the product class structure analyzed in
this NOPR.
(2) DOE seeks comment on the technology options not identified in
this NOPR that manufacturers may use to attain higher efficiency levels
of RCWs.
(3) DOE seeks comment on whether any additional technology options
should be screened out on the basis of any of the screening criteria in
this NOPR.
(4) DOE seeks comment on whether the baseline efficiency levels
analyzed in this NOPR for each product class are appropriate.
(5) DOE seeks comment on whether the higher efficiency levels
analyzed in this NOPR for each product class are appropriate.
(6) DOE seeks comment on whether the efficiency levels analyzed in
this NOPR for semi-automatic RCWs are appropriate.
(7) DOE seeks comment on the baseline MPCs and incremental MPCs
developed for each product class.
(8) DOE seeks comment on its tentative determination to use the DOE
dataset as the basis for the translation equations rather than use the
joint DOE-AHAM dataset.
(9) DOE seeks comment on its tentative determination not to merge
the compact and standard-size translations, but to instead develop
separate translations for each product class.
(10) DOE seeks comment on whether it should consider defining an
``unadjusted'' baseline efficiency level based on a translation between
appendix J2 and appendix J metrics without consideration of any changes
to spin implementations as a result of adopting the appendix J test
procedure.
(11) DOE requests comment and information on the specific
efficiency levels at which any potential rebound effects may happen, as
well as the magnitude of the effect.
(12) DOE requests comment and information on frequency of cleaning
cycles run per number of cycles used to clean clothes and associated
data as compared to the recommendations in the manufacturer's use and
care manuals.
(13) DOE requests comment and information on RCW lifetime.
(14) DOE seeks comment on the approach and inputs used to develop
no-new standards case shipments projection and market share for each
product class.
(15) DOE requests data on the market size and typical selling price
of units sold through the second-hand market for residential clothes
washers.
(16) For households who would be negatively impacted by amended
energy conservation standards, a potential rebate program to reduce the
total installed costs would be effective in lowering the percentage of
consumers with a net cost and reducing simple payback period. DOE is
aware of 80 rebate programs currently available for residential clothes
washers meeting ENERGY STAR requirements initiated by 63 organizations
in various States as described in chapter 17 of the NOPR TSD. DOE is
seeking comment about how amended energy conservation standards may
impact the low-income and senior-only consumer economics being
presented and considered in this proposed rulemaking.
(17) DOE is seeking comment about definable subpopulations in
addition to low-income and senior-only households and the associated
data required to differentiate how such subpopulation use clothes
washers.
(18) To consider to costs of monitoring test procedure and energy
conservation standard rulemakings,
[[Page 13620]]
DOE requests AHAM provide the costs of monitoring, which would be
independent from the conversion costs required to adapt product designs
and manufacturing facilities to an amended standard, for DOE to
determine whether these costs would materially affect the analysis. In
particular, a summary of the job titles and annual hours per job title
at a prototypical company would allow DOE to construct a detailed
analysis of AHAM's monitoring costs.
(19) DOE seeks comment on the availability of direct drive motors
in quantities required by industry if DOE were to adopt amended
standards.
(20) DOE seeks comments, information, and data on the capital
conversion costs and product conversion costs estimated for each TSL.
(21) DOE seeks comment on whether manufacturers expect
manufacturing capacity constraints due to production facility updates
would limit product availability to consumers in the timeframe of the
amended standard compliance date (2027).
(22) DOE requests information regarding the impact of cumulative
regulatory burden on manufacturers of RCWs associated with multiple DOE
standards or product-specific regulatory actions of other Federal
agencies.
(23) DOE seeks comment on whether the Consumer Reports test
produces cleaning performance results that are representative of an
average use cycle as measured by the DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks
comment on how relative cleaning performance results would vary if
tested under test conditions consistent with the DOE appendix J test
procedure.
(24) DOE requests comment on its use of the Hot temperature
selection with the large load size to evaluate potential impacts on
clothes washer performance as a result of amended standards.
(25) DOE requests comment on its use of the Soil/Stain Removal test
and Mechanical Action test specified in AHAM HLW-2-2020 as the basis
for evaluating performance-related concerns expressed by AHAM and
manufacturers.
(26) DOE requests comment on its wash temperature data presented in
the performance characteristics test report and on its tentative
conclusions derived from this data. DOE requests any additional data
DOE should consider about wash temperatures at the proposed standard
level, as DOE's data leads to the tentative conclusion that fatty soils
would be able to be dissolved at this efficiency level.
(27) DOE requests comment on its stain removal data presented in
the performance characteristics test report and on its conclusions
derived from this data. In particular, DOE requests comment on whether
the clustering of data at or above a score of 90 (as measured on the
Hot temperature selection with the large load size) corresponds to a
market-representative threshold of stain removal performance as
measured with this cycle configuration. DOE additionally requests
comment on its analysis indicating that implementing additional
hardware design options, rather than reducing wash temperatures, on EL
2 units could enable total cleaning scores at EL 3 that are equally as
high as the highest scores currently achieved by units at lower
efficiency levels.
(28) DOE requests comment on its mechanical action data presented
in the performance characteristics test report and on its conclusions
derived from this data. In particular, DOE requests comment on whether
there is a market-representative threshold of mechanical action
performance as measured on the Hot temperature selection using the
large load size. DOE also requests comment on whether better mechanical
action scores at higher top-loading efficiency levels are attributable
to the use of wash plates rather than traditional agitators in those
higher-efficiency units.
(29) DOE requests comment on its cycle time data presented in the
performance characteristics test report and on its conclusions derived
from this data.
(30) DOE seeks comment on its testing and assessment of performance
attributes (i.e., wash temperatures, stain removal, mechanical action,
and cycle duration), particularly at the proposed standard level (i.e.,
TSL 4). In addition, DOE seeks additional data that stakeholders would
like DOE to consider on performance attributes at TSL 4 efficiencies as
well as the current minimum energy conservation standards.
(31) DOE requests comment and information on sales of RCWs with
deep fill and/or deep rinse options or settings and the frequency of
use of cycles with these options or settings selected.
(32) DOE requests data and information regarding any quantitative
performance-related characteristics at TSL 4 in comparison to
performance at the current baseline level (e.g., cleaning performance,
rinsing performance, fabric wear, etc.), particularly for top-loading
standard-size RCWs.
(33) DOE seeks comments, information, and data on the number of
small businesses in the industry, the names of those small businesses,
and their market shares by product class. DOE also requests comment on
the potential impacts of the proposed standard on small manufacturers.
In particular, DOE seeks comment on the efficiency performance of the
small manufacturer's RCW model and the estimated cost to redesign to
the proposed standard level.
Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the
conduct of this rulemaking that may not specifically be identified in
this document.
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of
proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February 9,
2023, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on February 21, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend
part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:
[[Page 13621]]
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. Amend Sec. 430.32 by:
0
a. Removing paragraphs (g)(1) through
(3);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (g)(4) as paragraph (g)(1);
0
c. Revising the introductory sentence of newly redesignated paragraph
(g)(1); and
0
d. Adding new paragraph (g)(2).
The addition and revision read as follows:
Sec. 430.32 Energy and water conservation standards and their
compliance dates.
* * * * *
(g) Clothes washers.
(1) Clothes washers manufactured on or after January 1, 2018, and
before [Date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], shall have an Integrated Modified Energy Factor no
less than, and an Integrated Water Factor no greater than:* * *
(2) Clothes washers manufactured on or after [Date 3 years after
date of publication of final rule in the Federal Register], shall have
an Energy Efficiency Ratio and a Water Efficiency Ratio no less than:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Water
efficiency efficiency
Product class ratio (lb/kWh/ ratio (lb/gal/
cycle) cycle)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers.......... 2.12 0.27
Automatic Clothes Washers:
Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact (less 3.79 0.29
than 1.6 ft\3\ capacity)...........
Top-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 4.78 0.63
ft\3\ or greater capacity).........
Front-Loading, Compact (less than 5.02 0.71
3.0 ft\3\ capacity)................
Front-Loading, Standard-Size (3.0 5.73 0.77
ft\3\ or greater capacity).........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-03862 Filed 3-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P