Federal Register, Volume 77 Issue 105 (Thursday, May 31, 2012)

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 105 (Thursday, May 31, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32307-32380]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12320]

[[Page 32307]]

Vol. 77

Thursday,

No. 105

May 31, 2012

Part III

Department of Energy

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Residential Clothes Washers; Final Rule and Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Rules
and Regulations

[[Page 32308]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

[Docket Number EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019]
RIN 1904-AB90

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Residential Clothes Washers

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as
amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer
products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including
residential clothes washers. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) to determine whether amended standards would be
technologically feasible and economically justified, and would save a
significant amount of energy. In this direct final rule, DOE is
adopting amended energy conservation standards for residential clothes
washers. It has determined that the amended energy conservation
standards for these products would result in significant conservation
of energy, and are technologically feasible and economically justified.
A notice of proposed rulemaking that proposes identical energy
efficiency standards is published elsewhere in today's Federal
Register. If DOE receives adverse comment and determines that such
comment may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final
rule, this final rule will be withdrawn and DOE will proceed with the
proposed rule.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is September 28, 2012 unless
adverse comment is received by September 18, 2012. If adverse comments
are received that DOE determines may provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawal of the final rule, a timely withdrawal of this rule will be
published in the Federal Register. If no such adverse comments are
received, compliance with the amended standards established for
residential clothes washers in today's final rule will be required on
March 7, 2015 and January 1, 2018, as set forth in Table I.1 in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking is available for review at
www.regulations.gov, including Federal Register notices, framework
documents, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and
other supporting materials. All documents in the docket are listed in
the regulations.gov index. Not all documents listed in the index may be
publicly available, however, such as information that is exempt from
public disclosure.
A link to the docket web page can be found at: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019. The regulations.gov web page
contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public
comments, in the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Witkowski, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington,
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7463. Email:
Stephen.Witkowski@ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7796. Email:
Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.govmailto:.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Direct Final Rule and Its Benefits
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Residential Clothes
Washers
3. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
III. General Discussion
A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
1. Elimination of Existing Product Classes
2. Product Class Differentiation by Method of Access
3. Compact Product Class
4. Product Class Summary
B. Test Procedure
1. Capacity Measurement
2. Test Load Size
3. Self Clean Cycles
4. Steam Cycles
5. Consumer Usage Patterns
6. Standard Extractor RMC Test Procedure
7. Performance Metric
8. Standby Power
9. Test Cloth
10. Technical Edits
11. Anti-Circumvention
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
E. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. General
2. Products Included in This Rulemaking
3. Product Classes
4. Non-Regulatory Programs
5. Technology Options
B. Screening Analysis
1. Technologies Requiring Clarification or Reclassification
2. Technological Feasibility
3. Practicability to Manufacture, Install, and Service/Adverse
Impacts on Product Utility or Availability
4. Adverse Impacts on Health or Safety
5. Additional Screening Criteria
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Other Technologies not Analyzed
2. Baseline Efficiency Levels
3. Higher Efficiency Levels
4. Maximum Technologically Feasible Efficiency Levels
5. Proprietary Designs
6. Reverse Engineering
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy and Water Use Analysis
1. Clothes Washer Usage
2. Rebound Effect
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Product Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Energy Price Projections
6. Water and Wastewater Prices
7. Maintenance and Repair Costs
8. Product Lifetime
9. Discount Rates
10. Compliance Date of Amended Standards
11. Base-Case Efficiency Distribution
12. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis
13. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Period
G. National Impact Analysis--National Energy Savings and Net
Present Value Analysis
1. Shipments
2. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case and Standards Cases
3. Total Installed Cost per Unit
4. National Energy and Water Savings
5. Net Present Value of Consumer Benefit
6. Benefits From Effects of Standards on Energy Prices
H. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. GRIM Analysis
3. Discussion of Comments
4. Manufacturer Interviews
J. Employment Impact Analysis
K. Utility Impact Analysis
L. Emissions Analysis
M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts
1. Social Cost of Carbon
2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions
V. Analytical Results
A. Trial Standard Levels

[[Page 32309]]

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
3. National Impact Analysis
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
C. Conclusion
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Residential
Clothes Washers
2. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Standards
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Why DOE Is Considering the Standards in
Today's Direct Final Rule
2. Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the
Standards
3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules
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. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
M. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Direct Final Rule and Its Benefits

Title III, Part B \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as
codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles. Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended
energy conservation standard that DOE prescribes for certain products,
such as residential clothes washers, shall be designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that 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)) In accordance with
these and other statutory provisions discussed in this notice, DOE is
adopting amended energy conservation standards for residential clothes
washers. The amended standards, which are a minimum allowable
integrated modified energy factor (IMEF) and maximum allowable
integrated water factor (IWF), are shown in Table I-1. One set of
amended standards applies to all products listed in Table I-1
manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after March
7, 2015. A second set of amended standards applies to the two top-
loading product classes for products manufactured in, or imported into,
the United States on or after January 1, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.

Table I-1--Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes
Washers (Compliance Starting 2015 and 2018)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date: Compliance date:
March 7, 2015 January 1, 2018
-------------------------------------------
Product class Maximum Maximum
Minimum IWF Minimum IWF
IMEF * [dagger] IMEF * [dagger]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Top-loading, Compact 0.86 14.4 1.15 12.0
(less than 1.6 ft\3\
capacity)..................
2. Top-loading, Standard.... 1.29 8.4 1.57 6.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Front-loading, Compact 1.13 8.3 N/A
(less than 1.6 ft\3\
capacity)..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Front-loading, Standard.. 1.84 4.7 N/A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* IMEF (integrated modified energy factor) is calculated as the clothes
container capacity in cubic feet divided by the sum, expressed in
kilowatt-hours (kWh), of: (1) The total weighted per-cycle hot water
energy consumption; (2) the total weighted per-cycle machine
electrical energy consumption; (3) the per-cycle energy consumption
for removing moisture from a test load; and (4) the per-cycle standby
and off mode energy consumption.
[dagger] IWF (integrated water consumption factor) is calculated as the
sum, expressed in gallons per cycle, of the total weighted per-cycle
water consumption for all wash cycles divided by the clothes container
capacity in cubic feet.

These standard levels are equivalent to those proposed in a comment
submitted by groups representing manufacturers; energy and
environmental advocates; and consumer groups. This collective set of
comments, titled ``Agreement on Minimum Federal Efficiency Standards,
Smart Appliances, Federal Incentives and Related Matters for Specified
Appliances'' (the ``Joint Petition'' \2\), recommends specific energy
conservation standards for residential clothes washers that, in the
commenters' view, would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C.
6295(o). The amended standards that DOE is adopting in today's direct
final rule are the clothes washer efficiencies recommended in the Joint
Petition (shown in Table I-2), evaluated according to DOE's clothes
washer test procedure at appendix J2 and expressed in integrated energy
and water use metrics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ DOE Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019, Comment 35.

[[Page 32310]]

Table I-2--Joint Petition Recommended Energy Conservation Standards for
Residential Clothes Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date: Compliance date:
2015 2018
-------------------------------------------
Product class Maximum Maximum
Minimum WF Minimum WF
MEF * [dagger] MEF * [dagger]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Top-loading, Compact 1.26 14.0 1.81 11.6
(less than 1.6 ft\3\
capacity)..................
2. Top-loading, Standard.... 1.72 8.0 2.0 6.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Front-loading, Compact 1.72 8.0 N/A
(less than 1.6 ft\3\
capacity)..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Front-loading, Standard.. 2.20 4.5 N/A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* MEF (modified energy factor) is calculated as the clothes container
capacity in cubic feet divided by the sum, expressed in kilowatt-hours
(kWh), of: (1) The total weighted per-cycle hot water energy
consumption; (2) the total weighted per-cycle machine electrical
energy consumption; and (3) the per-cycle energy consumption for
removing moisture from a test load.
[dagger] WF (water consumption factor) is calculated as the sum,
expressed in gallons per cycle, of the total weighted per-cycle water
consumption for the cold wash/cold rinse cycle divided by the clothes
container capacity in cubic feet.

As discussed further in III.A.1, DOE did not maintain the top-
loading semi-automatic and suds-saving product classes, and therefore
did not consider these product classes in its analysis. DOE also added
a front-loading, compact product class.

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I-3 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of
today's standards on consumers of residential clothes washers, as
measured by the average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and the median
payback period. The impacts on consumers, as measured by the average
LCC savings, are positive for all product classes.

Table I-3--Impacts of Today's Standards on Consumers of Residential
Clothes Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Median
Average LCC payback
Product class savings period
(2010$) (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-Loading, Standard *....................... 268/366 0.4/0.9
Front-Loading, Standard....................... 37 1.3
Top-Loading, Compact *........................ 159/312 0.5/2.1
Front-Loading, Compact........................ 54 0.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The first value refers to the standards in 2015, and the second value
refers to the standards in 2018.

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 (2015 to 2044). Using a real discount rate of 8.5
percent, DOE estimates that the industry net present value (INPV) for
manufacturers of clothes washers is $2,586 million in 2010$. Under
today's standards, DOE expects that manufacturers may lose up to 33
percent of their INPV, which is approximately $859 million.
Additionally, based on DOE's interviews with the manufacturers of
clothes washers, DOE does not expect any plant closings or significant
loss of employment.

C. National Benefits

DOE's analyses indicate that today's standards would save a
significant amount of energy and water over 30 years (2015-2044)--an
estimated 2.04 quads of energy and 3.03 trillion gallons of water. In
addition, DOE expects the energy savings from today's standards to
eliminate the need for approximately 1.30 gigawatts (GW) of generating
capacity by 2044.
The cumulative national net present value (NPV) of total consumer
costs and savings of today's standards in 2010$ ranges from $13.01
billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $31.29 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 for products purchased in 2015-2044, discounted to 2011.
In addition, today's standards would have significant environmental
benefits. The energy savings would result in cumulative greenhouse gas
emission reductions of approximately 113 million metric tons (Mt) of
carbon dioxide (CO2) from 2015 through 2044. During this
period, the standards would also result in emissions reductions \3\ of
approximately 94.1 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NOX)
and 0.269 ton of mercury (Hg).\4\ DOE estimates that the net present
monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions is between
$530 and $8,450 million, expressed in 2010$ and discounted to 2011. The
value of the CO2 reductions is calculated using a range of
values per metric ton of CO2 developed by a recent
interagency process. The derivation of these Social Cost of Carbon
(SCC) values is discussed in section IV.M.1. DOE also estimates that
the net present monetary value of the NOX emissions
reductions, expressed in 2010$ and discounted to 2011, is $12 to $122
million at a 7-percent discount rate, and $28 to $286 million at a 3-
percent discount rate.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ DOE calculates emissions reductions relative to the most
recent version of the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) Reference case
forecast. As noted in section 15.2 of the direct final rule TSD
chapter 15, this forecast accounts for emissions reductions from in-
place regulations, including the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR, 70
FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), but not the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR,
70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005)). Subsequent regulations, including the
recently finalized transport rule, the Cross-State Air Pollution
rule issued on July 6, 2011, do not appear in the forecast at this
time.
\4\ Results for NOX and Hg are presented in short
tons. One short ton equals 2,000 lbs.
\5\ DOE is aware of multiple agency efforts to determine the
appropriate range of values used in evaluating the potential
economic benefits of reduced Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await
further guidance regarding consistent valuation and reporting of Hg
emissions before it once again monetizes Hg emissions reductions in
its rulemakings.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 32311]]

The benefits and costs of today's standards, for products sold in
2015-2044, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The
annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the annualized national
economic value, expressed in 2010$, of the benefits from operating the
product (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less
energy, minus increases in equipment purchase and installation costs,
which is another way of representing consumer NPV, plus (2) the
annualized monetary value of the benefits of emission reductions,
including CO2 emission reductions.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the time-
series of costs and benefits into annualized values. First, DOE
calculated a present value in 2011, the year used for discounting
the NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the time-series of
costs and benefits using discount rates of three and seven percent
for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO2
reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as
shown in Table I-3. From the present value, DOE then calculated the
fixed annual payment over a 30-year period that yields the same
present value. The fixed annual payment is the annualized value.
Although DOE calculated annualized values, this does not imply that
the time-series of cost and benefits from which the annualized
values were determined is a steady stream of payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although adding the value of consumer savings to the values of
emission reductions provides a valuable perspective, two issues should
be considered. First, the national operating cost savings are domestic
U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of market
transactions, while the value of CO2 reductions is based on
a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and
CO2 savings are performed with different methods that use
quite different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost
savings is measured for the lifetime of products shipped in 2015-2044.
The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of some
future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of one
metric ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts continue well
beyond 2100.
Table I-4 shows the annualized values for today's standards for
residential clothes washers, expressed in 2010$. The results under the
primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for
benefits and costs other than CO2 reductions, for which DOE
used a 3-percent discount rate along with the SCC series corresponding
to a value of $22.3/ton in 2010, the cost of the standards for clothes
washers in today's rule is $185 million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the annualized benefits are $1,234 million per year in
reduced equipment operating costs, $141.7 million in CO2
reductions, and $5.4 million in reduced NOX emissions. In
this case, the net benefit amounts to $1.20 billion per year. Using a
3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the SCC series
corresponding to a value of $22.3/ton in 2010, the cost of the
standards for clothes washers in today's rule is $212 million per year
in increased equipment costs, while the benefits are $1,808 million per
year in reduced operating costs, $141.7 million in CO2
reductions, and $8.0 million in reduced NOX emissions. In
this case, the net benefit amounts to $1.75 billion per year.

Table I-4--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Amended Standards for Residential Clothes Washers for Products Sold in 2015-2044
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate Primary estimate* Low net benefits estimate* High net benefits estimate*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized (million 2010$/year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Cost Savings.............. 7%................................... 1234................................. 1101................................. 1379.
3%................................... 1808................................. 1587................................. 2042.
CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t **.......... 5%................................... 34.5................................. 31.7................................. 37.4.
CO2 Reduction at $22.3/t **......... 3%................................... 142.................................. 130.................................. 154.
CO2 Reduction at $36.5/t **......... 2.5%................................. 226.................................. 207.................................. 246.
CO2 Reduction at $67.6/t **......... 3%................................... 431.................................. 396.................................. 469.
NOX Reduction at $2,537/t **........ 7%................................... 5.40................................. 5.03................................. 5.82.
3%................................... 8.01................................. 7.39................................. 8.68.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total [dagger].................. 7% plus CO2 range.................... 1274 to 1671......................... 1137 to 1502......................... 1423 to 1854.
7%................................... 1381................................. 1236................................. 1539.
3% plus CO2 range.................... 1851 to 2248......................... 1626 to 1991......................... 2089 to 2520.
3%................................... 1958................................. 1725................................. 2205.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Product Costs........... 7%................................... 185.................................. 258.................................. 200.
3%................................... 212.................................. 309.................................. 230.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Net Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total [dagger].................. 7% plus CO2 range.................... 1088 to 1485......................... 880 to 1244.......................... 1223 to 1654.
7%................................... 1196................................. 978.................................. 1339.
3% plus CO2 range.................... 1639 to 2036......................... 1317 to 1682......................... 1859 to 2291.
3%................................... 1746................................. 1416................................. 1976.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Primary, Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts (which affect product shipments) from the AEO2010 Reference case, Low Economic
Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental product costs reflect a declining trend using the default product price trend in the Primary Estimate and
the High Benefits Estimate, and constant product prices in the Low Benefits Estimate. Because product prices are constant in the Low Benefits Estimate, the incremental product costs are
higher than in the other two estimates. Although the price trends in the Primary Estimate and the High Benefits Estimate are the same, the incremental product costs are higher in the High
Benefits Estimate because this case assumes High Economic Growth and thus has more product shipments. The approach used for forecasting product prices is explained in section IV.F.1.

[[Page 32312]]

** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2010$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9, $22.3, and $36.5 per ton are the averages of SCC
distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.6 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount
rate. The value for NOX (in 2010$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE's analysis.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount rate, which is $22.3/ton in 2010 (in 2010$). In the rows labeled as ``7% plus
CO2 range'' and ``3% plus CO2 range,'' the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values.

D. Conclusion

Based on the analyses culminating in this final rule, DOE found the
benefits to the nation of the standards (energy savings, water savings,
favorable consumer LCC savings and payback period, positive NPV of
consumer benefit, and emission reductions) outweigh the burdens (profit
margin impacts that could result in a reduction in INPV for
manufacturers). DOE has concluded that the standards in today's final
rule represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result
in significant conservation of energy. DOE further notes that
residential clothes washers achieving these standard levels are already
commercially available.

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying today's final rule, as well as some of the relevant
historical background related to the establishment of standards for
residential clothes washers.

A. Authority

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975
(EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified)
established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other
Than Automobiles,\7\ a program covering most major household appliances
(collectively referred to as ``covered products''), which includes the
residential clothes washers that are the subject of this rulemaking.
(42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards
for these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(a)), and directed DOE to
conduct three cycles of rulemakings to determine whether to amend these
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4)(A), (g)(4)(B), and (g)(9)(B)) DOE also
notes that under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), DOE must also periodically review
its energy conservation standards for covered products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program for covered
products consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling;
(3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards; and (4)
certification and enforcement procedures. The Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) is primarily responsible for labeling, and DOE implements the
remainder of the program. 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. 6293) 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 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use
these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with
standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. Id. The DOE test procedures for
residential clothes washers appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B, appendices J1 and J2. Until the
compliance date of the amended energy and water conservation standards
established in today's direct final rule, absent withdrawal of the rule
by DOE pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), manufacturers must use the
test procedures at appendix J1 to certify compliance. Subsequently,
manufacturers must use the test procedures at appendix J2. Similarly,
DOE will use the test procedure at appendix J1 for enforcement purposes
until the compliance date of these amended energy and water
conservation standards, and will subsequently use appendix J2. See
section III.B for a detailed discussion of the test procedure
amendments.
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing amended
standards for covered products. As indicated above, any amended
standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may
not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) In deciding whether an
amended 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, to the greatest extent
practicable, considering the following seven factors:
1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the
covered products that 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 of Energy (Secretary) considers
relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
EPCA allows DOE to issue a final rule (hereinafter referred to as a
``direct final rule'') establishing an energy conservation standard on
receipt of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are
fairly representative of relevant points of view (including
representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and
efficiency advocates) as determined by the Secretary, that contains
recommendations with respect to an energy conservation standard that
are in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). A notice of
proposed rulemaking (NOPR) that proposes an identical energy efficiency
standard must be published simultaneously with the final rule, and DOE
must provide a public comment period of at least 110 days. 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4) Not later than

[[Page 32313]]

120 days after issuance of the direct final rule, if one or more
adverse comments or an alternative joint recommendation are received
relating to the direct final rule, the Secretary must determine whether
the comments or alternative recommendation may provide a reasonable
basis for withdrawal under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or other applicable law.
If the Secretary makes such a determination, DOE must withdraw the
direct final rule and proceed with the simultaneously published notice
of proposed rulemaking. DOE must publish in the Federal Register the
reason why the direct final rule was withdrawn. Id.
Furthermore, 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)) 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 of 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))
EPCA also 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. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii).
Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) specifies requirements when
promulgating a standard for a type or class of covered product that has
two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level
than that which applies generally to such type or class of products for
any group of covered products which have the same function or intended
use, if 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 than applies or will apply
to the other products within that type or class. Id. 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 such a 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)).
Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State
laws or 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 42
U.S.C. 6297(d)).
Any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards
promulgated after July 1, 2010, must 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 the
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)) The
current standard for residential clothes washers is based on modified
energy factor (MEF), a metric that does not incorporate standby or off
mode energy use. On March 7, 2012, DOE published a final rule revising
the clothes washer test procedure (hereafter, the March 2012 TP final
rule). 77 FR 13888. Use of the new test procedure in 10 CFR 430 subpart
B appendix J2 will be required for clothes washers manufactured on or
after the compliance date of the 2015 standard in this direct final
rule. The revised test procedure establishes an ``integrated modified
energy factor'' (IMEF), a metric that incorporates energy use in
standby and off modes. The revised test procedure also includes updates
to the active mode provisions of the test procedure, which affect the
calculation of IMEF, and establishes an ``integrated water factor''
(IWF). In this final rule, DOE prescribes amended energy conservation
standards based on IMEF and IWF.
DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order
13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281, Jan. 21, 2011).
Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law,
agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 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.
We emphasize as well that Executive Order 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 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, DOE believes that today's direct final rule is consistent
with these principles, including that, to the extent permitted by law,
agencies adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its
benefits justify its costs and select, in choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits.
Consistent with E.O. 13563, and the range of impacts analyzed in
this rulemaking, the energy conservation standards adopted herein by
DOE achieve maximum net benefits.

B. Background

1. Current Standards
In a final rule published on January 12, 2001 (2001 Final Rule),
DOE prescribed amended energy conservation standards for residential
clothes washers. 66 FR 3314. EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, revised the
energy conservation standards for

[[Page 32314]]

residential clothes washers by establishing a maximum water factor
value, effective January 1, 2011. These standards are set forth in
Table II-1.

Table II-1--Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes
Washers Established in the 2001 Final Rule and EISA 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEF ft\3\/ WF gal/
Product class kWh/cycle cycle/ft\3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft\3\ * 0.65 N/A
capacity)....................................
Top-Loading, Standard......................... * 1.26 ** 9.5
Front-Loading................................. * 1.26 ** 9.5
Top-Loading, Semi-Automatic................... N/A N/A
Suds-Saving................................... N/A N/A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Source: 2001 Final Rule (66 FR 3314).
** Source: EISA 2007 (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)).

The EPCA amendments in EISA 2007 also require DOE to publish a
final rule no later than December 31, 2011 determining whether to amend
the standards in effect for clothes washers manufactured on or after
January 1, 2015. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)) Today's final rule fulfills
this statutory requirement.
The EISA 2007 amendments further require that any final rule for
new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1,
2010, 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 the 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)) Today's standards are based on
an ``integrated modified energy factor'' (IMEF), which incorporates
energy use in standby mode and off mode, and an ``integrated water
factor'' (IWF), which more accurately represents consumer usage
patterns compared to the current water factor metric.
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Residential Clothes Washers
The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA),
Public Law 100-12 (March 17, 1989), amended EPCA and required that all
rinse cycles of clothes washers manufactured after January 1, 1988
include an unheated water option, but stated that such clothes washers
may have a heated water rinse option. NAECA further required that DOE
conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine if amended standards are
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(2) and (4)).
To complete the first rulemaking cycle required by NAECA, DOE
published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) on May 18,
1988 (53 FR 17712), a NOPR on August 9, 1989 (54 FR 32744), and a final
rule on May 14, 1991 (May 1991 final rule). 56 FR 22279. The May 1991
final rule mandated performance-based energy conservation standards for
top-loading compact and standard clothes washers based on a minimum
energy factor (EF) for products manufactured on or after May 14, 1994.
To complete the second rulemaking cycle required by NAECA, the
Department published an ANOPR on November 14, 1994 to consider amending
the energy conservation standards for clothes washers, dishwashers, and
clothes dryers. 59 FR 56423. DOE published a supplemental ANOPR for
clothes washers on November 19, 1998 (63 FR 64343), a NOPR on October
5, 2000 (65 FR 59550), and a final rule on January 12, 2001 revising
the energy conservation standards. 66 FR 3314.
As mentioned in the ``Background'' section, EISA 2007 amended EPCA
to revise the energy conservation standards for residential clothes
washers by establishing a maximum water factor, effective January 1,
2011. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)) EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, further
requires that DOE publish a final rule no later than December 31, 2011,
to determine whether to amend the standards in effect for clothes
washers manufactured on or after January 1, 2015. (42 U.S.C.
6295(g)(9)(B)(i)).
DOE initiated the current rulemaking on August 28, 2009 by
publishing a notice announcing the availability of the framework
document, the ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Framework
Document for Residential Clothes Washers.'' In this notice, DOE also
announced a public meeting and requested public comment on the matters
raised in the framework document. 74 FR 44306 (Aug. 28, 2009). The
framework document described the procedural and analytical approaches
that DOE anticipated using to evaluate energy conservation standards
for clothes washers and identified various issues to be resolved in
conducting this rulemaking. The framework document is available at
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/clothes_washers_framework.html.
DOE held a public meeting on September 21, 2009, where it presented
the contents of the framework document; described the analyses it
planned to conduct during the rulemaking; sought comments from
interested parties on these subjects; and, in general, sought to inform
interested parties about, and facilitate their involvement in, the
rulemaking. Interested parties discussed the following major issues at
the public meeting: Test procedure revisions; product classes;
technology options; approaches to the engineering, life-cycle cost,
payback period and national impact analyses; efficiency levels analyzed
in the engineering analysis; and the approach for estimating typical
energy and water consumption. At the meeting and during the period for
commenting on the framework document, DOE received many comments that
helped it identify and resolve issues involved in this rulemaking.
In response to the framework document, DOE received the Joint
Petition, a comment submitted by groups representing manufacturers (the
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), Whirlpool
Corporation (Whirlpool), General Electric Company (GE), Electrolux, LG
Electronics, Inc. (LG), BSH Home Appliances (BSH), Alliance Laundry
Systems (ALS), Viking Range, Sub-Zero Wolf, Friedrich A/C, U-Line,
Samsung, Sharp Electronics, Miele, Heat Controller, AGA Marvel, Brown
Stove, Haier, Fagor America, Airwell Group, Arcelik, Fisher & Paykel,
Scotsman Ice, Indesit, Kuppersbusch, Kelon, and DeLonghi); energy and
environmental advocates (American Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy (ACEEE), Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE),
Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE), Northwest Power and Conservation
Council (NPCC), and Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP));
and consumer groups (Consumer Federation of America (CFA) and the
National Consumer Law Center (NCLC)) (collectively, the ``Joint
Petitioners''). The Joint Petitioners recommended specific energy
conservation standards for residential clothes washers that, in their
view, would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
Earthjustice submitted a comment

[[Page 32315]]

affirming its support for the joint petition. (Earthjustice, No. 38 at
p. 1). \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ A notation in the form ``Earthjustice, No. 38 at p. 1''
identifies a written comment that DOE has received and has included
in the docket of the standards rulemaking for residential clothes
washers (Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019). This particular notation
refers to a comment (1) submitted by Earthjustice, (2) in document
number 38 in the docket of that rulemaking, and (3) appearing on
page 1 of document number 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After careful consideration of the Joint Petition containing a
consensus recommendation for amended energy conservation standards for
residential clothes washers, the Secretary has determined that this
``Consensus Agreement'' has been submitted by interested persons who
are fairly representative of relevant points of view on this matter.
Congress provided some guidance within the statute itself by specifying
that representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and
efficiency advocates are relevant parties to any consensus
recommendation. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)) As delineated above, the
Consensus Agreement was signed and submitted by a broad cross-section
of the manufacturers who produce the subject products, their trade
associations, and environmental, energy efficiency, and consumer
advocacy organizations. Although States were not signatories to the
Consensus Agreement, they did not express any opposition to it.
Moreover, DOE does not read the statute as requiring absolute agreement
among all interested parties before the Department may proceed with
issuance of a direct final rule. By explicit language of the statute,
the Secretary has discretion to determine when a joint recommendation
for an energy or water conservation standard has met the requirement
for representativeness (i.e., ``as determined by the Secretary'').
Accordingly, DOE will consider each consensus recommendation on a case-
by-case basis to determine whether the submission has been made by
interested persons fairly representative of relevant points of view.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the Secretary must also determine
whether a jointly-submitted recommendation for an energy or water
conservation standard is in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. This determination is exactly the
type of analysis which DOE conducts whenever it considers potential
energy conservation standards pursuant to EPCA. DOE applies the same
principles to any consensus recommendations it may receive to satisfy
its statutory obligation to ensure that any energy conservation
standard that it adopts achieves the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified
and will result in significant conservation of energy. Upon review, the
Secretary determined that the Consensus Agreement submitted in the
instant rulemaking comports with the standard-setting criteria set
forth under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Accordingly, the consensus agreement
levels were included as trial standard level (TSL) 3 in today's rule
for residential clothes washers. The details of the efficiency levels
comprising TSL 3 and the other TSLs considered for the direct final
rule are discussed in section VI.A.
In sum, because the relevant criteria under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)
have been satisfied, the Secretary has determined that it is
appropriate to adopt amended energy conservation standards for
residential clothes washers through this direct final rule.
As required by the same statutory provision, DOE is also
simultaneously publishing a NOPR which proposes the identical standard
levels contained in this direct final rule and is providing for a 110-
day public comment period. DOE will consider whether any comment
received during this comment period is sufficiently ``adverse'' as to
provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule and
continuation of this rulemaking under the NOPR. Typical of other
rulemakings, it is the substance, rather than the quantity, of comments
that will ultimately determine whether a direct final rule will be
withdrawn. To this end, the substance of any adverse comment(s)
received will be weighed against the anticipated benefits of the
Consensus Agreement and the likelihood that further consideration of
the comment(s) would change the results of the rulemaking. DOE notes
that to the extent an adverse comment had been previously raised and
addressed in the rulemaking proceeding, such a submission will not
typically provide a basis for withdrawal of a direct final rule.
3. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
As stated previously, in promulgating today's direct final rule
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE carefully considered the Joint
Petition submitted to DOE, which contained a consensus recommendation
for amended energy conservation standards for residential clothes
washers. For the reasons stated in this direct final rule, the
Secretary determined that the ``Consensus Agreement'' was submitted by
interested persons who are fairly representative of relevant points of
view on this matter. The Secretary also determined, for the reasons set
forth in this direct final rule, that the standards contained in the
Consensus Agreement comport with the standard-setting criteria set
forth under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Therefore, the Secretary promulgates
this direct final rule establishing the amended energy conservation
standards for residential clothes washers.
As required by the same statutory provision, DOE is also
simultaneously publishing a NOPR and providing for a 110-day public
comment period. Should DOE determine to proceed with the NOPR, or to
gather additional data for future energy conservation standards
activities for residential clothes washers, DOE will consider any
comments and data received on the direct final standards. Although
comments are welcome on all aspects of this rulemaking, DOE is
particularly interested in comments on the following:
(1) Impacts of the standards that may lessen or improve the utility
or performance of the covered products. These impacts may include
increased cycle times to wash clothes, ability to achieve good wash
performance (e.g., cleaning and rinsing), increased longevity of
clothing, improved ergonomics of washer use, increase in noise, and
other potential impacts.
(2) The 2015 and 2018 compliance dates for the proposed standards
and whether these compliance dates adequately consider the typical
clothes washer model design cycle for manufacturers.
(3) Whether repair costs for residential clothes washers would
increase at the efficiency levels indicated in today's rule due to any
changes in the design and materials and components used in order to
comply with the new efficiency standards.
(4) Where there would be any anticipated changes in the consumption
of complementary goods (e.g., laundry detergent, stain removers, fabric
softeners) that may result from the proposed standards.
(5) Whether DOE should incorporate the cost of risers or storage
drawers (also referred to as pedestals) into the baseline installation
costs for front-loading machines.
Changes in the Utility of the Products
DOE has prepared a technical support document (TSD) that analyzed
the effect of this rule on, among other things, life cycle costs,
payback periods and other consumer-related impacts. However, there are
other facets of consumer welfare that are not explicitly captured in
this analysis, including washing

[[Page 32316]]

performance, increased longevity of clothing, and noise. While
information gathered in the course of this rulemaking did not
demonstrate a linkage between these topics and efficiency standards,
DOE is seeking comment and information on how consumers value changes
in these attributes and if those values should be incorporated into DOE
analysis.
Also, although it is outside the scope of this rule, DOE may
consider seeking information on whether to account for wash performance
and fabric care in test procedures for clothes washers.
2015 and 2018 Compliance Dates
Recognizing that this direct final rule, including the compliance
dates, is based on a consensus agreement including virtually all
manufacturers of residential clothes washers, DOE is seeking comment on
redesign timelines anticipated by the manufacturers and how the 2015
and 2018 compliance dates may affect those timelines. DOE's
manufacturer impact analysis is based on information provided by the
manufacturer and supports the positions that manufacturers will need to
make only minor redesign to comply with the 2015 standards, though the
2018 standards could require more substantial redesigns. Accepting that
manufacturers fully considered their cost implications prior to
entering voluntarily the consensus agreement, DOE assumes that
manufacturers would not have agreed to compliance dates they could not
meet or that imposed prohibitive costs. However, depending on how the
redesign timeline and the compliance dates coincide, the cost estimates
may be affected, for example, due to sunk cost, as well as the
anticipated market shares of front-loading versus top-loading clothes
washers.
The TSD, which is available at the rulemaking Web site at
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/clothes_washers.html, provides an overview of the activities DOE
undertook in developing standards for clothes washers. It presents and
describes in detail each analysis DOE performed, including descriptions
of inputs, sources, methodologies, and results. These analyses are as
follows:
A market and technology assessment addresses the scope of
this rulemaking, identifies the clothes washer product classes,
characterizes the markets for the products, and reviews techniques and
approaches for improving their efficiency.
A screening analysis reviews technology options to improve
the efficiency of residential clothes washers and weighs those options
against DOE's four prescribed screening criteria.
An engineering analysis develops the relationship between
increased manufacturer price and increased efficiency.
A markups analysis establishes markups for converting
manufacturer prices to customer product costs.
An energy use analysis generates energy-use estimates for
residential clothes washers as a function of efficiency levels.
A life-cycle cost analysis calculates the effects of
standards on individual customers and compares the life-cycle costs
(LCC) and payback period (PBP) of products with and without higher
efficiency standards.
A shipments analysis forecasts shipments with and without
higher efficiency standards.
A national impact analysis forecasts the national energy
savings (NES), and the national net present value of total consumer
costs and savings, expected to result from specific, potential energy
conservation standards for residential clothes washers.
A consumer subgroup analysis discusses the effects of
standards on different subgroups of consumers.
A manufacturer impact analysis discusses the effects of
standards on the finances and profitability of product manufacturers.
An employment impact analysis discusses the indirect
effects of standards on national employment.
A utility impact analysis discusses the effects of
standards on electric and gas utilities.
An emissions analysis discusses the effects of standards
on three pollutants--sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and mercury--as well as carbon emissions.
A regulatory impact analysis discusses the impact of non-
regulatory alternatives to efficiency standards.
Finally, the comments received since publication of the framework
document, including the Joint Petition, have contributed to DOE's
proposed resolution of the issues in this rulemaking. This direct final
rule addresses these comments and responds to the issues they raised.

III. General Discussion

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy
used or by capacity or other performance-related features that affect
efficiency. Different energy conservation standards may apply to
different product classes. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
DOE received several comments from interested parties regarding the
product classes and their organization. Specifically, DOE received
comments regarding the criteria used as a basis for creating product
classes; the potential elimination of top-loading semiautomatic and
suds-saving product classes; and whether combination washer/dryers are
covered products. DOE's responses to these comments are discussed in
the following sections.
Existing energy conservation standards divide residential clothes
washers into five product classes based on location of access,
capacity, and other features such as suds saving.
Top-loading, compact (less than 1.6 cubic feet capacity);
Top-loading, standard (1.6 cubic feet or greater
capacity);
Top-loading, semiautomatic;
Front-loading; and
Suds-saving.
AWE stated that DOE's practice of considering separate product
classes should be analyzed, and that by making exceptions for old
technologies by creating their own product class, DOE hinders
innovation and the establishment of more progressive standards. AWE
further stated that some manufacturers have already demonstrated that
efficiency levels can be obtained without sacrificing performance.
According to AWE, DOE should move to performance-based standards and to
eliminate technology-based standards unless it can be demonstrated that
the full life-cycle consumer economic impacts would favor continuation
of product classes. (AWE, No. 12 at p. 2) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
6295(q), DOE must set different energy conservation standards for
groups of covered products if such products consume a different kind of
energy than other products within the same type or class, or if such
products have a capacity or other performance-related feature that
justifies a different standard. In determining whether a different
standard is justified, EPCA requires DOE to consider utility to the
consumer and any other appropriate factors. DOE is required to
establish standards that achieve the maximum improvement in energy and
water efficiency that is both technologically feasible and economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) As explained below, DOE has
adhered to these statutory requirements in establishing the product
classes in today's rulemaking.

[[Page 32317]]

1. Elimination of Existing Product Classes
DOE sought comment in the framework document as to whether it
should retain the top-loading semi-automatic and suds-saving product
classes because it is unaware of any such residential clothes washers
on the market. DOE also noted that its test procedures at appendices J1
and J2 do not measure the possible energy savings associated with suds-
saving because DOE is not aware of methodology to measure such savings
over sequential operating cycles as necessary to capture the benefit of
suds-saving. AHAM, ALS, GE, Samsung, and Whirlpool supported the
elimination of top-loading semi-automatic and suds-saving product
classes. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at pp. 42, 72; \9\
ALS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 39; GE, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 7 at p. 41; GE, No. 20 at p. 1; \10\ Samsung, No. 25 at
p. 3; Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 41) AHAM, ALS,
GE, and Whirlpool stated that these products are no longer available on
the market. (AHAM, No. 16 at p. 3; ALS, No. 13 at p. 2; GE, No. 20 at
p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 3) AWE stated that suds-saving is not a
new or proprietary technology, but that it is starting to make a
comeback. AWE further stated DOE should consider suds saving in its
analysis. (AWE, No. 12 at p. 3) In its research, DOE did not identify
any suds-saving residential clothes washers on the market in the United
States. For this reason, and in accordance with general support among
interested parties, DOE is eliminating the top-loading semi-automatic
and suds-saving product classes in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ A notation in the form ``AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 7 at pp. 42, 72'' identifies an oral comment that DOE received
during the September 21, 2009, framework public meeting and which
was recorded in the public meeting transcript in the docket for the
standards rulemaking for residential clothes washers (Docket No.
EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019), maintained in the Resource Room of the
Building Technologies Program. This particular notation refers to a
comment (1) made by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
(AHAM) during the public meeting, (2) recorded in document number 7,
which is the public meeting transcript that is filed in the docket
of this rulemaking, and (3) which appears on pages 42 and 72 of
document number 7.
\10\ In its written comment, document number 19 in the docket of
this rulemaking, GE states that it adopts by reference the comments
submitted to DOE by AHAM. Thus, GE is cited alongside AHAM when
discussing AHAM's written comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Product Class Differentiation by Method of Access
In the framework document, DOE also sought comment as to whether
the method of loading clothes washers, or any other characteristic
commonly associated with traditional top-loading or front-loading
clothes washers are ``features'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(4) in EPCA and whether the availability of such feature(s)
would likely be affected by eliminating the separate classes for these
product types previously established by DOE. More specifically, DOE
invited comments on whether one or more of the characteristics commonly
associated with different types of clothes washers, such as method of
loading, presence or absence of agitators, ability to interrupt cycles
and possibly others, provide consumer utility that should, under
existing law, be recognized and protected by DOE in separate product
classes.
a. Single Product Class
ACEEE, ASAP, Electrolux Home Products (EHP), NEEP, Pacific Gas and
Electric Company (PG&E), and Samsung, along with PG&E, Southern
California Gas Company (SCG), and Southern California Edison (SCE),
jointly (hereafter ``California Utilities'') and ASAP, NRDC, and NCLC,
jointly (hereafter, ``Joint Comment'' \11\), supported a single product
class for all standard-size clothes washers, eliminating the
differentiation based on method of loading. According to BSH, the
California Utilities, Earthjustice, the Joint Comment, and NEEP, a
single product class would not lessen utility or performance under
EPCA. ASAP and the California Utilities commented that a single product
class would not eliminate top-loaders from the market, and AWE noted
that there are high efficiency top-loading clothes washers available.
ASAP and the Joint Comment stated that there are at least 35 clothes
washer models from four manufacturers on the current ENERGY STAR list.
BSH commented that with the current differentiation between top-loading
and front-loading clothes washers, consumers may assume that a high
efficiency top-loader is more efficient than a ``worst-in-class''
front-loader if they are both ENERGY STAR rated, even though the
reverse may be true. The California Utilities noted that there are
currently 10-15 top-loading residential clothes washers in the
California Energy Commission (CEC) database that are Consortium for
Energy Efficiency (CEE) Tier 2 or better, and top-loading horizontal-
axis clothes washers with efficiencies comparable to front-loading
clothes washers are prevalent in some European markets. Samsung noted
that utility rebates and certain energy labeling programs do not
differentiate by clothes washer axis. (ACEEE, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 7 at p. 46; ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at
pp. 34-35, p. 45; AWE, No. 12 at p. 2; BSH, No. 11 at p. 2; California
Utilities, No. 19 at pp. 1, 3; EHP, No. 18 at p. 2; Earthjustice,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 42; Earthjustice, No. 17 at p.
1; Joint Comment, No. 15 at p. 4; NEEP, No. 21 at pp. 1-2; PG&E, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 43; Samsung, No. 25 at p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ The Alliance to Save Energy submitted a written comment,
designated as document number 23 in the docket of this rulemaking,
stating that it endorses the joint comments submitted by ASAP, NRDC,
and NCLC, and requested that it be listed as a co-endorser in
citation of these joint comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to EHP, NEEP, and Samsung, the method of access for
loading clothing is not a feature that provides utility to the
consumer. EHP stated that manner of access was merely a convenience.
BSH commented that the vast majority of clothes washers are sold with
dryers, and clothes dryers are front-loading. (BSH, No. 11 at p. 2;
EHP, No. 18 at p. 2; NEEP, No. 21 at p. 1; Samsung, No. 25 at p. 3)
b. Multiple Product Classes
AHAM, ALS, and GE stated that they support the proposed product
classes, which maintain the distinction between top-loading and front-
loading residential clothes washers. (AHAM, No. 24 at p. 2; ALS, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 39; GE, No. 20 at p. 1) ALS and GE
commented that ``top-loading'' is a feature within the meaning of EPCA,
although ALS believes that ``vertical-axis'' and ``horizontal-axis''
are better terms because a horizontal-axis clothes washer can be
configured to be top-loading. (ALS, No. 13 at p. 3; GE, No. 20 at p. 1)
AHAM and Whirlpool stated that multiple product classes for
residential clothes washers would be consistent with classes that DOE
has defined for other products. AHAM stated that multiple product
classes were defined for refrigerator-freezers primarily on the basis
of door placement. Whirlpool commented that multiple refrigerator-
freezer classes reflect consumer choice and utility, while room air
conditioner product classes also reflect consumer choice and utility as
well as home configuration. (AHAM, No. 24 at p. 2; Whirlpool, No. 22 at
p. 3)
GE commented that, in contrast to front-loading residential clothes
washers, the vast majority of top-loading products are manufactured in
the United States and provide an important source of U.S. jobs in these
manufacturing locations. According to

[[Page 32318]]

GE, the U.S. manufacturers with significant investment in these top-
loading products produced domestically could be significantly
disadvantaged should standards eliminate top-loaders. (GE, No. 20 at p.
3)
AHAM commented that DOE already addressed the product class issue
for residential clothes washers in its denial of California's Petition
for Waiver.\12\ (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 43)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ This comment refers to DOE's denial of the California
Energy Commission's petition for waiver from Federal preemption of
its residential clothes washer water conservation standards. 71 FR
78157 (Dec. 28, 2006). On October 28, 2009, for reasons unrelated to
product class issues, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
reversed DOE's ruling and remanded CEC's petition for further
review. California Energy Comm'n v. DOE, 585 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir.
2009)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Joint Petition proposes energy conservations standard
levels for both the top-loading and front-loading standard and compact
product classes. (Joint Petition, No. 32 at 8)
c. Consumer Utility
DOE received additional comments regarding specific issues that
interested parties suggested are related to consumer utility in the
context of residential clothes washer product classes.
Cycle Time
AHAM, ALS, and GE stated that the longer cycle times of front-
loading clothes washers support differentiation of product classes by
method of access. According to ALS, cycle times longer than 85 minutes
are necessary for front-loaders to achieve good wash performance, which
can be achieved in a 55-minute wash cycle by a top-loader. (AHAM, No.
24 at p. 2; ALS, No. 13 at p. 4; GE, No. 20 at p. 2)
The California Utilities stated that it had conducted a preliminary
survey indicating that there may not be significant differences in
cycle times between top-loading and front-loading clothes washers. The
Joint Comment noted that cycle times for front-loading clothes washers
are becoming shorter. The California Utilities and the Joint Comment
also suggested that the lower remaining moisture content (RMC) typical
of front-loaders could lead to shorter clothes dryer cycle times,
reducing the combined time of washing and drying a laundry load.
(California Utilities, No. 19 at p. 3; Joint Comment, No. 15 at p. 4)
Mid-Cycle Access
ALS stated that garments can be added during a wash cycle in a top-
loading clothes washer, but that the loading door on a front-loading
clothes washer must be locked. According to ALS, the door can be
unlocked mid-cycle, but it requires time and may require draining the
wash water. (ALS, No. 13 at p. 4)
The California Utilities stated that many front-loading clothes
washers are now equipped with a feature to unlock the door in the
middle of a wash cycle. According to the Joint Comment, such a feature
has been available on front-loaders for over a decade. (California
Utilities, No. 19 at p. 3; Joint Comment No. 14 at p. 4)
Cost
ALS, GE, and Whirlpool stated that multiple product classes allow
consumers a low-cost clothes washer option. ALS stated that purchase
cost was the primary reason that top-loading residential clothes
washers have maintained a majority of the market share, and that
inherent differences between top-loading and front-loading designs will
preclude comparable consumer cost for equivalent top-loaders and front-
loaders. ALS commented that key components contributing to the added
cost of front-loading clothes washers are motors, electronic controls,
heavy mass weights, and door assembly costs. ALS estimated that the
front-loading door feature results in a manufacturing cost differential
of $250 and a consumer price differential of at least $500 when
compared to a top-loading door. Also, according to ALS, consumer
objections to stooping have required manufacturers to introduce
pedestals for front-loading clothes washers, adding $250 to the retail
price. (ALS, No. 13 at p. 3; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p.
41; GE, No. 20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 2) GE stated that a
single product class would force extremely expensive technological
changes on the industry. GE also commented that increased prices would
have a disproportionate impact on low-income consumers who are
especially sensitive to price. According to GE, these consumers may be
unable to make high initial payments or obtain credit, and may choose
to defer replacing older, less efficient clothes washers or to leave
the home laundry market altogether. (GE, No. 20 at pp. 1, 3)
EHP commented that, in the past, manufacturers have been able to
innovate to meet improved performance while maintaining cost. EHP also
stated that payback in the form of lower energy and water costs would
offset a higher initial cost of high efficiency top-loading clothes
washers. (EHP, No. 18 at p. 2) The Joint Comment stated that high
efficiency top-loading clothes washers are available on the market
priced near or below $500. (Joint Comment, No. 15 at p. 4)
Consumer Preference and Market Share
According to AHAM, ALS, GE, and Whirlpool, consumer preference
supports maintaining clothes washer product class distinction by method
of access. ALS commented that most consumers prefer not to stoop or
bend while loading clothes, which is not required for a top-loading
clothes washer. GE estimated that top-loading residential clothes
washers account for about 65 percent of the U.S. market. Whirlpool
commented that one-third of consumers who purchased front-loaders have
switched back to high-efficiency top-loaders. Whirlpool listed as
contributing factors the existence of high efficiency top-loading
clothes washers with better utility than front-loaders in terms of
ergonomics, vibration, noise, cycle times, value proposition, sour
smell, ease of use, and familiarity. Whirlpool further noted that
front-loader sales have slowed even though 84 percent of consumers say
energy conservation is very important to them when buying an appliance.
ALS stated that it had recently received a letter from a consumer
supporting Whirlpool's statement that many consumers who purchased
front loaders subsequently switched back to top loaders. (AHAM, No. 24
at p. 2; ALS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 45; ALS, No. 13 at
pp. 2, 4; GE, No. 20 at pp. 1-2; Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 7 at p. 44; Whirlpool, No. 22 at pp. 2-3)
EHP stated that the means of loading is merely a convenience factor
for consumers. (EHP, No. 18 at p. 2) ASAP, the California Utilities,
NEEP, and PG&E commented that the growth in front-loader market share
from 15 percent 5 years ago to approximately 35 percent now indicates
that consumer preference for front-loading clothes washers has shifted
dramatically recently. The California Utilities also stated that
consumer preference research that DOE commissioned for the last
residential clothes washer energy conservation rulemaking indicated
that concern for axis of rotation and door placement was scored low by
consumers.\13\ PG&E and

[[Page 32319]]

the California Utilities suggested that DOE conduct an analysis of
consumer preferences to assess current market conditions and trends.
(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 45; California Utilities,
No. 19 at p. 3; NEEP, No. 21 at pp. 1-2; PG&E, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 7 at pp. 31, 43)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ The CA Utilities cited the 2001 Residential Clothes Washer
Final Rule TSD, Appendices I and J. Appendix J details results of
consumer analysis performed to determine what clothes washer
attributes consumers value most and how changes in those attributes
as a result of standards would affect consumer utility and clothes
washer prices. Focus group results placed axis of rotation 12th and
door placement as 7th out of a list of 65 possible features. The TSD
is available at www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/clothes_washers.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Features
GE listed larger capacity, reduced vibration, and better cleaning
performance as additional utilities of top-loading residential clothes
washers. (GE, No. 20 at pp. 2-3)
d. DOE Response
EPCA provides the criteria under which DOE may define classes for
covered equipment:
A rule prescribing an energy conservation standard for a type (or
class) of covered products shall specify a level of energy use or
efficiency higher or lower than that which applies (or would apply) for
such type (or class) for any group of covered products which have the
same function or intended use, if the Secretary determines that covered
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 from that which applies (or will
apply) to other products within such type (or class).
In making a determination under this paragraph concerning whether a
performance-related feature justifies the establishment of a higher or
lower standard, the Secretary shall consider such factors as the
utility to the consumer of such a feature, and such other factors as
the Secretary deems appropriate. 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)
In previous rulemakings, DOE has concluded that the method of
loading clothes in washers (axis of access) is a ``feature'' within the
meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and, consequently, established separate
product classes for top-loading and front-loading residential clothes
washers. 56 FR 22263 (May 14, 1991).
In reviewing comments submitted by interested parties in response
to the framework document for the current rulemaking, DOE identified at
least one consumer utility related to the method of loading clothes for
residential clothes washers which represents a ``feature'' for purposes
of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4). Specifically, DOE believes that the longer
cycle times of front-loading residential clothes washers versus cycle
times for top-loaders are likely to impact consumer utility. (See
chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD.) Because the longer wash cycle
times for front-loaders arise from the reduced mechanical action of
agitation as compared to top-loaders, DOE believes such longer cycles
may be required to achieve the necessary cleaning, and thereby
constitute a performance-related utility of front-loading versus top-
loading residential clothes washers pursuant to the meaning of 42
U.S.C. 6295(q).
Based on a review of residential clothes washer models currently
listed in the CEC product database, DOE concludes that capacity is not
a meaningful differentiator between top-loaders and front-loaders. DOE
acknowledges that top-loading models from a single manufacturer achieve
the highest capacity--4.3 cubic feet--but multiple front-loading models
from two other manufacturers are rated at 4.1-4.2 cubic feet.
Interested parties did not submit sufficient information for DOE to
evaluate the relative wash performance, vibration, noise, or odor of
top-loading versus front-loading clothes washers.
DOE does not consider first cost a ``feature'' that provides
consumer utility for purposes of EPCA analysis. DOE acknowledges that
price is an important consideration to consumers, especially low-income
purchasers, but DOE accounts for such consumer impacts in the LCC and
PBP analyses conducted in support of this rulemaking.
Given the above discussion, DOE concludes that top-loading washers
provide consumer utilities that, in the context of residential clothes
washers, are a feature for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4). Therefore,
DOE retains the product class distinction between top-loading and
front-loading clothes washers in this final rule.
In response to the comments related to impacts on the relative
market share of top-loading versus front-loading residential clothes
washers, DOE considered the cross-price elasticity of demand for top-
loading and front-loading residential clothes washers in its shipments
analysis. The results of this analysis are presented in chapter 9 of
the direct final rule TSD.
Finally, DOE considered the impacts on manufacturers in its
manufacturer impacts analysis (see chapter 12 of the direct final rule
TSD).
3. Compact Product Class
ASAP, BSH, and EHP stated that DOE should consider defining a
single compact product class encompassing both top-loading and front-
loading clothes washers. Such a product class definition would shift
front-loading compact-size clothes washers from the current front-
loading product class to the existing top-loading compact product
class, which would be redesignated simply as ``compact'' to eliminate
the top-loading distinction. Alternatively, BSH proposed that a compact
front-loading product class be defined with a capacity equal to or less
than two cubic feet. BSH commented that compact-size front-loaders
would have difficulty achieving the same efficiency as standard-size
front-loaders, yet they provide specific utility due to their ability
to fit in small living spaces in areas of high population density. AHAM
and BSH noted that capacity is one of the general criteria for defining
separate product classes. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p.
47; BSH, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 40; BSH, No. 11 at pp.
2, 3, 5; EHP, No. 18 at p. 2)
The Joint Petition proposes a new front-loading, compact product
class and proposes energy conservations standard levels for both the
top-loading and front-loading compact product classes. (Joint Petition,
No. 32 at p. 8)
Based on these comments, DOE is retaining the top-loading compact
product class and adding a front-loading compact product class, as
proposed in the Joint Petition.
4. Product Class Summary
Table III-1 presents the product classes set forth in DOE's
regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(g) and the product classes established in
this rulemaking.

Table III-1--Clothes Washer Product Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product classes established
Product classes in 430.32(g) in this rulemaking
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Top-loading, compact (less than 1.6 i. Top-loading, compact
cubic feet capacity. (less than 1.6 cubic feet
capacity).
ii. Top-loading, standard (1.6 cubic feet ii. Top-loading, standard
or greater capacity). (1.6 cubic feet or greater
capacity).
iii. Top-loading, semiautomatic........... iii. Front-loading, compact
(less than 1.6 cubic feet
capacity).

[[Page 32320]]

iv. Front-loading......................... iv. Front-loading, standard
(1.6 cubic feet or greater
capacity).
v. Suds-saving............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Test Procedure

As noted previously, the DOE test procedures for residential
clothes washers appear at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices J1 and
J2. Until the compliance date of the amended energy and water
conservation standards established in today's direct final rule, absent
withdrawal of the rule by DOE pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4),
manufacturers must use the test procedures at appendix J1 to certify
compliance. Subsequently, manufacturers must use the test procedures at
appendix J2.
DOE established the test procedure at appendix J2 on March 7, 2012
(77 FR 13888) to incorporate standby mode energy consumption as well as
to update various active mode testing provisions. EISA 2007 amended
EPCA to require DOE to amend its test procedures to integrate measures
of standby mode and off mode energy consumption into the overall energy
efficiency, energy consumption, or other energy descriptor for each
covered product unless the current test procedure already fully
accounts for and incorporates standby and off mode energy consumption
or such integration is technically infeasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2))
In addition to incorporating standby power provisions, DOE received
comments in response to the August 2009 framework document stating that
it should also consider changes to the active mode provisions in the
test procedure.
DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking issued on September
21, 2010 (75 FR 57556) (hereinafter referred to as the September 2010
TP NOPR) to propose amendments regarding both standby mode and active
mode provisions of the test procedure, including the following: (1)
Incorporating standby and off mode power consumption into a combined
energy metric; (2) addressing technologies not covered by the appendix
J1 test procedure, such as steam wash cycles and self-clean cycles; (3)
revising the number of annual wash cycles; (4) updating use factors;
(5) revising the procedures and specifications for test cloth; (6)
redefining the appropriate water fill level for the capacity
measurement method; (7) establishing a new measure of water
consumption; and (8) revising the definition of the energy test cycle.
The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) published IEC
Standard 62301, ``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power,'' Edition 2.0 2011-01 (IEC Standard 62301 (Second
Edition)) on January 27, 2011. DOE reviewed this updated test procedure
and determined that it improves the measurement of standby mode and off
mode energy use compared to the previous version of the standard.
Therefore, DOE published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
on August 9, 2011 (76 FR 49238) (hereinafter referred to as the August
2011 TP SNOPR) to integrate new measures of standby power consumption
according to IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) and to incorporate
additional amendments to the active mode provisions, including the
following: (1) Revising the calculations for per-cycle energy use and
annual energy cost; (2) updating the load adjustment factor; (3)
clarifying the method for determining the energy test cycle; (4)
clarifying the method for setting the wash time for certain clothes
washers; (5) allowing the use of the most current AHAM Standard
detergent; (6) clarifying the definition of ``cold wash'' for clothes
washers that offer both ``cold wash'' and ``tap cold wash'' settings;
and (7) performing various minor technical corrections. DOE published a
second supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking on November 9, 2011
(76 FR 69870) to propose a revised definition of the energy test cycle.
DOE published the final rule on March 7, 2012 (77 FR 13888),
establishing the test procedure at appendix J2.
When conducting the test procedure rulemaking, DOE considered
comments received on the clothes washer test procedure submitted as
part of this rulemaking for energy conservation standards. In the
framework document, DOE requested input on its test procedures for
residential clothes washers and sought input, including supporting
data, regarding how these procedures can be improved. In response to
the framework document, DOE received several comments from interested
parties regarding potential amendments to the DOE clothes washer test
procedure to address the following issues: (1) The capacity
measurement; (2) the test load size specification; (3) the energy and
water use of self-clean cycles; (4) the energy and water use of steam
cycles; (5) parameters representing consumer usage patterns; (6) the
addition of a cleaning performance metric; (7) the remaining moisture
content (RMC) measurement; (8) the measurement of standby and off mode
energy use; (9) test cloth issues; (10) technical edits; and (11) anti-
circumvention.
1. Capacity Measurement
DOE's clothes washer test procedure at appendix J1 states that, for
measuring the capacity of the clothes washer, the clothes container
shall be manually filled with water to ``its uppermost edge.'' This
requirement can be interpreted in multiple ways, resulting in different
capacity measurements that would each be allowable under the test
procedure.
The Joint Comment stated that DOE should ensure that all data
collected for this rulemaking be based on a consistent measurement of
capacity, particularly because advertised capacity may be expressed
using a conversion factor of 15/13 applied to the capacity measured
under the DOE test procedure to approximate the capacity that would be
measured using the international test standard promulgated by the IEC.
The Joint Comment and Samsung stated that the measured clothes
container volume can exceed the wetted space occupied by laundry by 15-
20 percent or more. This could result in similar variation in MEF. The
Joint Comment suggested that DOE determine whether such measurement
uncertainty still exists for current vertical-axis clothes washers, and
whether the capacity measurement in the test procedure should be
modified for both vertical-axis and horizontal-axis clothes washers.
(Joint Comment, No. 15, p. 2; Samsung, No. 25 at p. 1) ASAP commented
that DOE should understand the difference between advertised capacity
and the capacity that is reported to ENERGY STAR, the CEC, and other
public databases, because the advertised capacity is typically larger
than the reported values. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p.
20)
ALS commented that the test procedure should be revised to clarify
that, for vertical-axis clothes washers, the ``uppermost edge'' would
refer to the ``top of the tub cover.'' (ALS, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 7 at p. 22; ALS, No. 13 at p. 1) Samsung commented that there are
various interpretations of what constitutes the usable volume and how
the capacity is measured on vertical-axis clothes washers. According to
Samsung, one such interpretation is to measure the volume to the top of
the tub cover, even though the user is instructed to load to below the
tub cover in a typical

[[Page 32321]]

use and care guide. Samsung estimates that loading to the top of the
tub cover could result in a 15-20 percent increase in the capacity
measurement of vertical-axis clothes washers (compared to loading to
the level recommended in the use and care guide), which would also
overstate the MEF and WF of the unit by 15-20 percent. Therefore,
Samsung proposed possible language to clarify the capacity measurement
in DOE's clothes washer test procedure based on wording from IEC
Standard 60456, ``Clothes washing machines for household use--Methods
for measuring the performance,'' (IEC Standard 60456) Edition 5,
Committee Draft for Vote (FDIS). The fill level in the DOE test
procedure would thus be defined as the ``uppermost edge which may be
used to fill in clothes, respecting manufacturer instructions.''
(Samsung, No. 25 at p. 1)
BSH commented that a volumetric capacity metric is misleading when
comparing conventional vertical-axis, high efficiency vertical-axis,
and horizontal-axis clothes washers because more volume does not
necessarily correspond with more load capacity. Performance should be
related to load size rather than drum volume for consumer comparisons.
(BSH, No. 11 at p. 2)
DOE recognizes that the clothes container capacity measurement in
appendix J1 could be interpreted in multiple ways. To provide
manufacturers with additional guidance prior to issuance of the March
2012 TP final rule, DOE issued an interpretive rule on July 26, 2010.
In the interpretive rule, DOE provided clarifications to the methods
for measuring clothes container capacity for both top-loading and
front-loading clothes washers using the appendix J1 test procedure.
This interpretive rule can be found on DOE's Web site at:
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/cw_guidance_faq.pdf.
In the March 2012 TP final rule, DOE established a different
capacity measurement procedure at appendix J2 to provide for a clearer,
more consistent and more easily repeatable measurement. Under appendix
J1, DOE's guidance document instructs manufacturers to measure the fill
level for top-loading clothes washers at the innermost diameter of the
tub cover (defined as ``Fill Level 3'' in the guidance). For the
reasons discussed in the March 2012 TP final rule, the revision to the
capacity measurement in appendix J2 requires manufacturers to measure
the fill level for top-loading clothes washers to the uppermost edge of
the rotating portion of the basket, including the balance ring (defined
as ``Fill Level 2'' in DOE's interpretive guidance).
For front-loaders, under both appendix J1 and appendix J2, the fill
level must not exceed the highest point of contact between the door and
the door seal, excluding any portion of the door or door seal that
would occupy the measured volume space when the door is closed. This is
consistent with the instructions provided for front-loaders in DOE's
guidance document.
DOE used the revised capacity measurement for top-loaders in
determining the conversion formulas from MEF to IMEF and WF to IWF in
today's final rule. For more details of the testing and analysis, see
chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD.
DOE notes that the FTC promulgates labeling requirements for
residential clothes washers, which would govern marketing claims made
by the manufacturer regarding capacity.
2. Test Load Size
Table 5.1 of the DOE clothes washer test procedure specifies test
cloth load sizes necessary to conduct the energy cycles. Minimum,
maximum, and average load sizes are defined as a function of clothes
washer capacity. Currently, the maximum load size provided in the table
is 3.80 cubic feet (ft\3\). No provision exists for determining load
size if capacity exceeds that limit. 10 CFR 430 subpart B appendix J1.
AHAM, ALS, GE and Whirlpool support a linear extension of the load
size table to larger capacities. AHAM, GE, and Whirlpool recommend
extending the table for capacities up to 6.0 ft\3\. Whirlpool noted
that DOE granted a waiver which extended the table to a capacity of 4.1
ft\3\, and ALS stated it agreed with this waiver. (AHAM, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 7 at p. 21; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 2; ALS, No. 13 at p. 1;
GE, No. 20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 1) The Joint Comment
objected to the extension of Table 5.1 to a capacity of 6 ft\3\ without
verifying the validity of the resulting load sizes with current
consumer data. (Joint Comment, No. 15 at pp. 1-2)
DOE reviewed current residential clothes washer product databases
from sources such as CEC and ENERGY STAR, and observed reported
capacities as large as 4.7 ft\3\. In response to comments received in
response to the September 2010 TP NOPR, DOE extended Table 5.1 in the
amended test procedure to include capacities up to 6.0 ft\3\ to
accommodate additional increases in capacity expected in the future. As
described fully in the September 2010 TP NOPR and March 2012 TP final
rule, DOE determined that the linear relationship between test load
size and container capacity in appendix J1 is valid, and therefore used
the same linear relationship to extend Table 5.1 to 6.0 ft\3\. (17 FR
13888)
3. Self Clean Cycles
DOE's clothes washer test procedure specifies energy test cycles,
the energy and water use of which are averaged to calculate the MEF and
WF of the unit under consideration. These energy test cycles are
selected from among various cycle settings provided by the manufacturer
for laundering clothing. They do not include any cycles or pre-set
settings provided for the purpose of cleaning, sanitizing, or
deodorizing any of the clothes washer components. DOE observed in its
test sample of units for the preliminary analysis that a dedicated
self-clean function is a prevalent feature, found in virtually all
front-loading clothes washers and in certain top-loading models as
well.
ASAP and the Joint Comment stated that the measurement of MEF and
WF should account for the energy and water use of self-clean cycles.
The Joint Comment further stated that such a measurement would provide
not only a more accurate assessment of machine efficiency, but also a
benefit to those clothes washer designs that address mold and odor
issues without requiring periodic sanitizing cycles. (ASAP, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 19; Joint Comment, No. 15 at p. 3)
In the September 2010 TP NOPR, DOE proposed a usage factor of 12
annual self-clean cycles for incorporating the energy used in self-
clean cycles. DOE based its usage factor on typical manufacturer
instructions that recommend using this feature once each month. DOE
received comments stating that consumer usage data on self-clean cycles
was insufficient to validate the usage factors it proposed in the test
procedure NOPR. In addition, there is uncertainty as to whether a self-
clean cycle should be tested only if it is a specific feature provided
by the manufacturer, or if a conventional cycle that the manufacturer
recommends the consumer to run periodically for the purpose of cleaning
or sanitizing the clothes washer should also be tested as a self-clean
cycle. Finally, DOE is concerned about the increased test burden
required for testing self-clean cycles given the relatively small
amount of annual energy used in these periodic cycles. For these
reasons, DOE did not include the energy and water use of self-clean
cycles in the modified test procedure.

[[Page 32322]]

4. Steam Cycles
The energy test cycles specified in the DOE clothes washer test
procedure do not include provisions for testing any cycles
incorporating steam injection. DOE is aware of a number of clothes
washers available on the market that offer a steam feature as either a
stand-alone cycle or as an add-on to a traditional wash cycle. DOE
notes that steam features are available on primarily some higher-end
front-loading clothes washers.
ASAP and the Joint Comment stated that DOE should amend the test
procedure to account for the impact of steam cycle use. (ASAP, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 19; Joint Comment, No. 15 at p. 3)
In the September 2010 TP NOPR, DOE proposed a temperature usage
factor of 0.02 to incorporate the energy used in steam cycles. DOE
believed that extra hot and steam cycles would be reserved for the most
heavily soiled loads, and would have similar use factors. DOE assumed
that the steam wash cycles would be selected somewhat fewer times than
the extra hot cycle because on some models steam is available only as
an option on certain settings. DOE received comments stating that
consumer usage data on steam cycles is insufficient to validate the
temperature usage factors it proposed in the September 2010 TP NOPR.
Furthermore, DOE notes that because there is significant variation in
how individual manufacturers implement steam features, creating a
universal definition of a steam cycle for the energy test cycle would
be difficult. Finally, DOE is concerned about the increased test burden
required for testing steam cycles given the relatively small amount of
annual energy used in these cycles. For these reasons, DOE did not
include the energy and water use of steam cycles in the modified test
procedure.
5. Consumer Usage Patterns
Various factors are provided in the DOE clothes washer test
procedure to properly account for consumer usage patterns, including
the number of use cycles per year, selection of load sizes, selection
of temperature settings, and the percentage of washed clothes loads
that are dried in a clothes dryer.
ALS supported reducing annual usage to 300 cycles, based on Procter
& Gamble consumer studies. The Joint Comment stated DOE should collect
data on current consumer laundry usage to validate or update the cycles
per year, estimates of ``average'' load size among clothes washers of
varying capacities, annual load size usage factors, temperature use
factors, and dryer use factor. The Joint Comment stated that DOE should
ensure that there is no systematic bias in these factors favoring
larger capacities. The Joint Comment also requested that DOE reassess
the load adjustment factor, which was established in the 1990s. (ALS,
No. 13 at p. 1; Joint Comment, No. 15 at pp. 1-3)
In the March 2012 TP final rule, DOE reduced the number of annual
cycles to 295 based on a survey of available consumer usage data and
comments received from interested parties. DOE increased the dryer
usage factor to 0.91 based on the most recent consumer survey data
available.
DOE is unaware of any updated consumer usage data regarding load
sizes among clothes washers of varying capacities and load size usage
factors. Therefore, DOE did not amend the load usage factors or the
linear relationship used to determine load size based on clothes washer
capacity in the modified test procedure. Similarly, DOE did not
identify any evidence that suggests any unwarranted bias in favor or
larger capacities in the test procedure.
DOE received additional information from commenters regarding
temperature use factors (TUFs). The information received contained
significant disparities, however, and no information supporting
particular TUFs was more persuasive or reliable than information
supporting other TUFs. Therefore, the information provided no basis
upon which to change the TUF values in the appendix J1 test procedure,
and DOE retained these TUFs in appendix J2. DOE did, however, establish
a new TUF for a full warm wash/warm rinse cycle and eliminated the
incremental use factor attributed to warm rinse in appendix J1.
Finally, DOE determined that the load adjustment factor (LAF) is
duplicative of, yet inconsistent with, the load usage factors.
Therefore, for consistency with the rest of the test procedure, DOE
amended the representative load size calculation in the equation for
drying energy to incorporate the load usage factors rather than a
separate LAF. DOE replaced the LAF with a weighted-average load size,
calculated by multiplying the minimum, average, and maximum load usage
factors by the minimum, average, and maximum load sizes, respectively,
and summing the products.
6. Standard Extractor RMC Test Procedure
The DOE test procedure contains provisions for evaluating the
moisture absorption and retention characteristics of a lot of test
cloth by measuring the RMC in a standard extractor at a specified set
of conditions.
AHAM submitted detailed recommendations of changes to the
methodology used for the Standard Extractor RMC Test Procedure included
in the overall clothes washer test procedure. Whirlpool and GE stated
that they support AHAM's recommendations. (AHAM, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 7 at p. 21; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 2; GE, No. 20 at p. 1;
Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 1) DOE largely agrees with AHAM's
recommendations and implemented many of them in the revised test
procedure.
7. Performance Metric
DOE's clothes washer test procedure provides a measure of
representative energy and water use. It does not evaluate cleaning or
rinsing performance or fabric care. AHAM, BSH, GE, and Whirlpool
commented that DOE should add a performance measure, particularly
because at the higher efficiency levels, clothes washers are reaching
the limit where product performance and consumer satisfaction may not
be economically reached. AHAM noted that its clothes washer standard,
ANSI/AHAM HLW-1-2007, ``Performance Evaluation Procedures for Household
Clothes Washers,'' addresses performance and is substantially
harmonized with IEC Standard 60456. Whirlpool also noted that ANSI/AHAM
HLW-1-2007 provides performance measurement. ALS and BSH also
recommended review of IEC Standard 60456 for methods of assessing
performance, and ALS recommended review of the Australian standard AS/
NZS 2040.1. (AHAM, No. 16 at p. 2; ALS, No. 13 at p. 2; BSH, No. 11 at
p. 2; GE, No. 20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 2) ALS stated it had
not yet determined whether it would support a performance metric, or
what a measurement method for measuring performance would be, although
it added that it is concerned that energy conservation standards have
reached the point where higher levels will cause unacceptable
performance, especially for vertical-axis top-loaders. (ALS, No. 13 at
p. 1)
DOE test procedures must be reasonably designed to produce test
results that measure energy efficiency, energy use, water use in
specified instances, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered
product during a representative use cycle or period of use. 42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3). DOE notes that the measurement of energy efficiency or
energy or water use presumes the proper functioning of a

[[Page 32323]]

product. DOE considers utility in setting energy conservation
standards, and DOE may not prescribe a standard that is likely to
result in the unavailability in the United States of performance
characteristics, including reliability. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV),
(o)(4) DOE has considered performance generally in the development of
these standards and does not believe that the standards established in
today's final rule would adversely impact the utility of residential
clothes washers.
8. Standby Power
In the framework document, DOE noted that it considered
incorporating certain provisions of IEC Standard 62301, ``Household
electrical appliances-Measurement of standby power'', First Edition
2005-06 (IEC Standard 62301 (First Edition)) in accordance with
requirements of EISA 2007. DOE further noted that it would consider an
updated version of IEC Standard 62301 in its residential clothes washer
test procedure rulemaking. In response to the framework document, DOE
received comments regarding the inclusion of standby and off mode power
consumption in its clothes washer test procedure and its consideration
of the updated version of IEC Standard 62301.
ALS commented that it supports revising the test procedure to add
provisions for measuring standby power. (ALS, No. 13, No. 1) The
California Utilities stated that DOE should make a determination of the
metrics that it will use for clothes washer energy conservation
standards, because if standby and off mode power is incorporated, MEF
might not be used to regulate clothes washers in this rulemaking.
According to the California Utilities, it would be detrimental to
proceed with the preliminary analysis without finalizing possible
changes to the metric. (California Utilities, No. 19 at p. 1) Whirlpool
stated that standby power should be incorporated into MEF, rather than
addressed as a separate metric. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 2) ASAP, the
California Utilities, the Joint Comment, and NEEP urged DOE to proceed
with the clothes washer test procedure rulemaking without waiting
further for the release of an updated version of IEC Standard 62301.
(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 18; California Utilities,
No. 19 at p. 1; Joint Comment, No. 15 at p. 1; NEEP, No. 21 at p. 1)
ASAP also commented that the mode definitions in IEC Standard 62301 are
not necessarily comparable to DOE's statutory mode definitions, and
that it may not be advisable to use the IEC definitions. (ASAP, Public
Meeting, No. 7 at p. 19)
In the September 2010 TP NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by
reference into the clothes washer test procedure specific provisions
from IEC Standard 62301 (First Edition) regarding test conditions and
test procedures for measuring standby mode and off mode power
consumption. DOE also proposed to adopt certain provisions from the IEC
Standard 62301 Committee Draft for Vote (CDV) version (an earlier draft
version of the IEC 62301 revision), as well as the Final Draft
International Standard (FDIS) version (the draft version developed just
prior to the issuance of the Second Edition). Specifically, DOE
proposed to adopt the 30-minute stabilization and 10-minute measurement
periods as described in the CDV version and the mode definitions for
active, standby and off mode as described in the FDIS version.
In the August 2011 TP SNOPR, DOE evaluated IEC Standard 62301
(Second Edition) and concluded that the application of the provisions
of the Second Edition to all power measurements in standby mode and off
mode for clothes washers would be an improvement over the First Edition
and would not be unduly burdensome to conduct. Therefore, DOE proposed
incorporating by reference the relevant paragraphs of section 4 and
section 5 of IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition) in the clothes washer
test procedure.
In the March 2012 TP final rule, DOE incorporated by reference the
relevant paragraphs of section 4 and section 5 of IEC Standard 62301
(Second Edition) in the clothes washer test procedure. DOE integrated
standby and off mode energy use into its revised clothes washer test
procedure by establishing an IMEF metric based on measurements made
according to certain provisions of this updated IEC standard. 77 FR
13888. Accordingly, DOE based its analysis for clothes washer energy
conservation standards in today's direct final rule on this IMEF
metric.
DOE notes that AHAM provided a related comment in response to the
Request for Information (RFI) issued by DOE to implement Executive
Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (76 FR 6123,
Feb. 3, 2011), opposing any test procedure requirement to measure
separately the energy use of delay start and cycle finished modes.\14\
AHAM stated that the additional burden that would be required to
measure a de minimis amount of energy would not be justified. (AHAM,
IRRR, No. 10 at pp. 5-6) \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Definitions of operating modes, including cycle finished,
delayed start, active washing, inactive, and off modes, are provided
in the March 2012 TP final rule. 77 FR 13888.
\15\ The notation in the form ``AHAM, IRRR, No. 10 at pp. 5-6''
identifies a written comment that DOE has received and has included
in the docket of the Request for Information (RFI) to implement
Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
(76 FR 6123, Feb. 3, 2011). (Docket No. DOE-HQ-2011-0014). This
particular notation refers to a comment (1) submitted by Association
of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), (2) in document number 10 in
the docket of that RFI, and (3) appearing on pages 5-6 of document
number 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on the results of the data presented in the August 2011 TP
SNOPR, DOE believes that including a specific measurement of energy use
of a cycle finished feature that incorporates intermittent tumbling and
air circulation would not significantly impact the total annual energy
consumption. Furthermore, measuring the energy use over the entire
duration of cycle finished mode would increase the test duration by up
to 10 hours, depending on the maximum duration of cycle finished mode
provided on the clothes washer under test. DOE believes this would
represent a significant increase in test burden that would not be
warranted by the minimal additional energy use captured by measuring
cycle finished mode separately or as part of the active washing mode.
Therefore, in the March 2012 TP final rule, DOE did not adopt
provisions to measure cycle finished mode separately or as part of the
active washing mode. DOE believes that measuring power consumption of
each mode separately would introduce significant test burden without a
corresponding improvement in a representative measure of annual energy
use. Therefore, DOE provided in the March 2012 TP final rule for
measuring total energy consumption, in which all low-power mode hours
are allocated to the inactive and off modes, and the low-power mode
power consumption is measured only in the inactive and off modes,
depending on which of these modes is present.
9. Test Cloth
Different lots of energy test cloth used in the clothes washer test
procedure are released to the industry at least once a year, and the
properties of the test cloth must be measured and standardized against
reference historical lots. AHAM and ALS support revisions to the
clothes washer test procedure for improving the process to correlate
new test cloth batches to the historical lots. AHAM provided a proposal
for an industry-developed auditing program, as well as suggested
specifications for test cloth tolerances. GE supports this

[[Page 32324]]

proposal. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at pp. 21-22; AHAM,
No. 16 at p. 2; ALS, No. 13 at p. 1; GE, No. 20 at p. 1) Whirlpool
noted that the test cloth is currently available from one supplier that
has limited capability to meet industry's needs. Whirlpool suggested
that DOE assume responsibility for test cloth procurement and
qualification. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 1) DOE is currently working
with industry, suppliers, and test laboratories to develop an auditing
program that meets industry's needs. Qualification tests are being
conducted at an independent test laboratory as well as at DOE's
Appliance Testing and Evaluation Center (ATEC).
10. Technical Edits
AHAM and GE suggested that DOE remove obsolete sections of the
clothes washer test procedure in guidelines that AHAM submitted to DOE
on September 22, 2008. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p.
21; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 2; GE, No. 20 at p. 1) DOE agreed with these
suggestions and removed the obsolete provisions in the revised test
procedure as part of the residential clothes washer test procedure
rulemaking.
11. Anti-Circumvention
EPCA requires that test procedures be reasonably designed to
produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, water
use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a
representative average use cycle or period of use, as determined by the
Secretary. 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3). This statutory requirement may be
undermined if products are purposefully designed to use controls or
features that produce test results that are so unrepresentative of a
product's actual energy or water consumption as to provide materially
inaccurate comparative data. The Joint Comment stated that DOE should
ensure that the test procedure is not vulnerable to circumvention and
should prohibit any mode or other operating function that is designed
solely or primarily to reduce energy and water consumption during
testing. According to the Joint Comment, sophisticated and inexpensive
electronic controls may detect the DOE testing conditions and minimize
energy and water use under those specific conditions. The Joint Comment
described as an illustrative example a clothes washer with adaptive
fill control that could be programmed to minimize the fill level when
it measured a clothes load size at exactly the weight of the average
DOE test load for that capacity machine. (Joint Comment, No. 15 at p.
3) DOE considered issues of circumvention in its clothes washer test
procedure rulemaking.

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General
In each 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. 10 CFR 430, subpart
C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i).
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, or service; (2) adverse impacts
on product utility or availability; and (3) adverse impacts on health
or safety. Section IV.B of this notice discusses the results of the
screening analysis for residential clothes washers, particularly the
designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the
basis for the efficiency levels considered in this rulemaking. For
further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see
chapter 4 of the direct final rule 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
residential clothes washers, using the design parameters that lead to
the creation of the most efficient products available on the market or
in working prototypes. (See chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD.)
The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are
described in section IV.C.4 of this final rule.

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
DOE used its national impact analysis (NIA) spreadsheet model to
estimate energy savings from amended standards for the products that
are the subject of this rulemaking.\16\ For each TSL, DOE forecasted
energy savings beginning in 2015, the year that manufacturers would be
required to comply with amended standards, and ending in 2044. DOE
quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the
difference in energy consumption between the standards case and the
base case. The base case represents the forecast of energy consumption
in the absence of amended mandatory efficiency standards, and considers
market demand for more efficient products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ The NIA spreadsheet model is described in section IV.G of
this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NIA spreadsheet model calculates the electricity savings in
site energy expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh). Site energy is the
energy directly consumed by appliances at the locations where they are
used. DOE reports national energy savings on an annual basis in terms
of the aggregated source (primary) energy savings, which is the savings
in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site energy.
(See chapter 10 of the direct final rule TSD). To convert site energy
to source energy, DOE derived annual conversion factors from the model
used to prepare the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Annual
Energy Outlook 2010 (AEO2010).
2. Significance of Savings
As noted above, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) prevents DOE from adopting
a standard for a covered product unless such standard would result in
``significant'' energy savings. Although the term ``significant'' is
not defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural Resources
Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985),
indicated that Congress intended ``significant'' energy savings in this
context to be savings that were not ``genuinely trivial.'' The energy
savings for all of the TSLs considered in this rulemaking are
nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE considers them ``significant'' within
the meaning of section 325 of EPCA.

[[Page 32325]]

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
As noted in section II.A, 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)) The
following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven
factors in this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
In determining the impacts of an amended standard on manufacturers,
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 analysis period.
The industry-wide impacts analyzed include industry net present value
(INPV), which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash
flows, cash flows by year, changes in revenue and income, and 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 life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) associated
with new or amended standards. The LCC, which is specified separately
in EPCA as one of the seven factors to be considered in determining the
economic justification for a new or amended standard, 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), is discussed in the following section. For
consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net
present value of the economic impacts throughout the forecast period
applicable to a particular rulemaking.
b. Life-Cycle Costs
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 savings for the considered efficiency levels are
calculated relative to a base case that reflects likely trends in the
absence of amended standards. The LCC analysis requires a variety of
inputs, such as product prices, product energy consumption, energy
prices, maintenance and repair costs, product lifetime, and consumer
discount rates. In its analysis, DOE assumed that consumers will
purchase the considered products in 2015.
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. A distinct advantage
of this approach is that DOE can identify the percentage of consumers
estimated to receive LCC savings or experience an LCC increase, in
addition to the average LCC savings associated with a particular
standard level. In addition to identifying ranges of impacts, DOE
evaluates the LCC impacts of potential standards on identifiable
subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a
national standard.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory
requirement for imposing 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)) DOE uses
the NIA spreadsheet results in its consideration of total projected
energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing classes of products, and in evaluating design
options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE sought to
develop standards for residential clothes washers that would not lessen
the utility or performance of those products. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) DOE believes that the TSLs adopted in today's
direct final rule would not reduce the utility or performance of the
clothes washers under consideration in this rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is
likely to result from standards. It also directs the Attorney General
of the United States (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 direct final rule, together with an
analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) DOE published a NOPR containing energy
conservation standards identical to those set forth in today's direct
final rule and transmitted a copy of today's direct final rule and the
accompanying TSD to the Attorney General, requesting that the
Department of Justice (DOJ) provide its determination on this issue.
DOE will consider DOJ's comments on the rule in determining whether to
proceed with the direct final rule. DOE will also publish and respond
to DOJ's comments in the Federal Register in a separate notice.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
The energy savings from new or amended 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.
Energy savings from the proposed standards also are likely to
result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of
air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with energy production.
DOE reports the environmental effects from today's standards, and from
each TSL it considered, in the emissions analysis contained in chapter
15 in the direct final rule TSD and in section V.B.6 of this notice.
DOE also reports estimates of the economic value of emissions
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs.
g. Other Factors
EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a
standard is economically justified, to consider any other factors that
the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII))
In developing this direct final rule, DOE has also considered the
submission of the Joint Petition, which DOE believes sets forth a
statement by interested persons that are fairly representative of
relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of
covered products, States, and efficiency advocates) and contains
recommendations with respect to an energy conservation standard that
are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). DOE has encouraged the
submission of

[[Page 32326]]

consensus agreements as a way to bring diverse interested parties
together, to develop an independent and probative analysis useful in
DOE standard setting, and to expedite the rulemaking process. DOE also
believes that standard levels recommended in the consensus agreement
may increase the likelihood for regulatory compliance, while decreasing
the risk of litigation.
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 effect potential amended
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.11 of this direct final rule and chapter 8
of the direct final rule TSD.

IV. Methodology and Discussion

DOE used two spreadsheet tools to estimate the impact of today's
direct final rule. The first spreadsheet calculates LCCs and PBPs of
potential new energy conservation standards. The second provides
shipments forecasts and then calculates impacts of potential energy
conservation standards on national energy savings and net present
value. The two spreadsheets are available online at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/clothes_washers.html. The Department also assessed manufacturer
impacts, largely through use of the Government Regulatory Impact Model
(GRIM).
Additionally, DOE estimated the impacts on utilities and the
environment of energy conservation standards for residential clothes
washers. DOE used a version of EIA's National Energy Modeling System
(NEMS) for the utility and environmental analyses. The NEMS model
simulates the energy sector of the U.S. economy. EIA uses NEMS to
prepare its Annual Energy Outlook, a widely known baseline energy
forecast for the United States. For more information on NEMS, refer to
The National Energy Modeling System: An Overview, DOE/EIA-0581 (98)
(Feb. 1998), available at: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/forecasting/058198.pdf.
The version of NEMS used for appliance standards analysis, which
makes minor modifications to the AEO version, is called NEMS-BT.\17\
NEMS-BT offers a sophisticated picture of the effect of standards,
because it accounts for the interactions among the various energy
supply and demand sectors and the economy as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ EIA approves the use of the name ``NEMS'' to describe only
an AEO version of the model without any modification to code or
data. Because the present analysis entails some minor code
modifications and runs the model under various policy scenarios that
deviate from AEO assumptions, the name ``NEMS-BT'' refers to the
model as used here. (BT stands for DOE's Building Technologies
Program.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. General
When beginning an energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE
develops information that provides an overall picture of the market for
the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the
industry structure, and market characteristics. 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 products covered
by the rulemaking, quantities and types of products sold and offered
for sale, retail market trends, product classes and manufacturers,
regulatory and non-regulatory programs, and technology options that
could improve the energy efficiency of the product(s) under
examination. See chapter 3 of the direct final rule TSD for further
discussion of the market and technology assessment.
2. Products Included in This Rulemaking
This subsection addresses whether EPCA covers certain products and
thereby authorizes DOE to adopt standards for those products, and
whether DOE will consider in this rulemaking standards for certain
products that DOE determined are covered under EPCA.
ASAP questioned whether combination washer/dryers are covered
products in this rulemaking. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at
p. 47) ``Clothes washer'' is defined in 10 CFR 430.2 to mean a consumer
product designed to clean clothes using a water solution of soap or
detergent and mechanical agitation or other movement. A combination
washer/dryer meets this definition and also performs a drying function.
As a result, DOE determined that combination washer/dryers are covered
products according to the existing regulatory definition of clothes
washer. DOE notes that combination washer/dryers are currently being
testing by certain manufacturers according to the DOE clothes washer
test procedure and that certification data is available for such
products in, among others, the CEC and ENERGY STAR product databases.
DOE also does not have information that would indicate that, while
operating in clothes washer mode, the energy and water use of such a
machine is inherently different from the energy and water use of a
stand-alone clothes washer.
3. Product Classes
Existing energy conservation standards divide residential clothes
washers into five product classes based on location of access,
capacity, and features such as suds saving. As mentioned previously in
section III.A.1 DOE is not maintaining the top-loading semiautomatic
and suds-saving product classes. DOE is also splitting the front-
loading product class into two separate product classes based on
capacity. Table IV-1 presents the product classes set forth in 10 CFR
430.32(g) and the product classes established in this rulemaking.

Table IV-1--Clothes Washer Product Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product classes established
Product Classes in 430.32(g) in this rulemaking
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Top-loading, compact (less than 1.6 i. Top-loading, compact
cubic feet capacity). (less than 1.6 cubic feet
capacity).
ii. Top-loading, standard (1.6 cubic feet ii. Top-loading, standard
or greater capacity). (1.6 cubic feet or greater
capacity).
iii. Top-loading, semiautomatic........... iii. Front-loading, compact
(less than 1.6 cubic feet
capacity).

[[Page 32327]]

4. Non-Regulatory Programs
As part of the market and technology assessment, DOE reviews non-
regulatory programs promoting energy efficient residential appliances
in the United States. Non-regulatory programs that DOE considers in its
market and technology assessment include ENERGY STAR, a voluntary
labeling program administered jointly by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and DOE. ENERGY STAR identifies energy
efficient products through a qualification process.\18\ To qualify, a
product must exceed Federal minimum standards by a specified amount, or
if no Federal standard exists, a product must exhibit select energy-
saving features. ENERGY STAR specifications currently exist for
residential clothes washers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ For more information, visit www.energystar.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Technology Options
As part of the market and technology assessment, DOE developed a
list of technologies to consider for improving the efficiency of
residential clothes washers. Initially, these technologies encompassed
all those DOE believes would improve energy efficiency and are
technologically feasible. Chapter 3 of the direct final rule TSD
includes the detailed list of all technology options identified for
residential clothes washers.\19\ DOE received multiple comments from
interested parties in response to the technologies proposed for
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ DOE notes that it included two technology options, improved
horizontal axis washer drum design and reduced thermal mass, in its
initial list of options, but later determined in its engineering
analysis that available data did not indicate that these
technologies improved energy efficiency of clothes washers. See
section IV.C.1,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the framework document, interested parties suggested
to DOE various databases from which it could obtain relevant product
features and performance data. ALS recommended that DOE examine the
CEC, FTC, and DOE certification databases, as well as the Web sites
that ALS maintains for its own brands. (ALS, No. 13 at p. 2) The
California Utilities and PG&E noted discrepancies among several
databases, for instance that not all clothes washer models appear in
all relevant lists, and requested that DOE reconcile the differences
among them. (California Utilities, No. 19 at p. 4) DOE collected
information to support this rulemaking from as many publicly available
sources as it could identify, including trade publications, technical
reports, manufacturers' literature, product databases, and inputs from
interested parties. As part of its data collection, DOE reviewed all of
those databases, as well as others that include qualifying product
lists from ENERGY STAR and the CEE. In doing so, DOE evaluated product
data critical to its analysis to ensure that appropriate values were
being used.
ASAP, the Joint Comment, and PG&E stated that the data collection
should include more recent data than for 2007. According to ASAP, more
recent data would capture changes in market share as well as the
effects of manufacturer production tax credits. (ASAP, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 7 at p. 122; Joint Comment, No. 15 at p. 8; PG&E,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 36) DOE attempts to collect the
most comprehensive and recent data available. For today's direct final
rule, DOE used AHAM's residential clothes washer data submission, which
included shipments, shipment-weighted efficiency, and market share
efficiency data through 2008.
The California Utilities recommended that DOE collect data on
sales-weighted clothes washer capacity, preferably in increments of 0.5
cubic feet, because they suggest that capacity has a greater effect on
clothes washer efficiency than do other features. The Joint Comment
also recommended that shipment data be disaggregated by capacity in at
most 0.5-cubic-foot increments, and that such data should identify fill
control type (i.e., adaptive water fill control, manual fill control,
or combination adaptive and manual fill control). The Joint Comment
stated that DOE also should collect shipment data for combination
washer/dryers. (California Utilities, No. 19 at p. 4; Joint Comment,
No. 15 at pp. 4, 8) DOE is unaware of residential clothes washer
shipments data disaggregated to the granularity suggested by the
California Utilities and the Joint Comment. DOE requested that
interested parties provide such data or information on sources to
obtain this information but received no further information.

B. Screening Analysis

DOE uses the following four screening criteria to determine which
technology options are suitable for further consideration.
(1) Technological feasibility. DOE will consider technologies
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes to be
technologically feasible. (The technological feasibility of options was
discussed in the preceding section as part of the market and technology
assessment.)
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If mass
production and reliable installation and servicing of a technology in
commercial products could be achieved on the scale necessary to serve
the relevant market at the time the standard comes into effect, then
DOE will consider that technology practicable to manufacture, install,
and service.
(3) Adverse impacts on product utility or product availability. If
DOE determines a technology would have significant adverse impact on
the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers, or
would 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
consider this technology further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If DOE determines that a
technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety,
it will not consider this technology further.
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, (4)(a)(4) and (5)(b).
Technologies that pass through the screening analysis are referred
to as ``design options'' in the engineering analysis. Details of the
screening analysis are provided in chapter 4 of the direct final rule
TSD.
In the framework document, DOE identified the following initial
technology options that could improve the efficiency of residential
clothes washers, as shown in Table IV-2.

Table IV-2--Initial Technology Options for Residential Clothes Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Adaptive control systems.
2. Added insulation.
3. Advanced agitation concepts for vertical-axis machines.
4. Automatic fill control.
5. Bubble action.
6. Direct-drive motor.
7. Electrolytic disassociation of water.
8. Horizontal-axis design.
9. Horizontal-axis design with recirculation.
10. Hot water circulation loop.
11. Improved fill control.

[[Page 32328]]

12. Improved horizontal-axis washer drum design.
13. Improved water extraction to lower remaining moisture content.
14. Increased motor efficiency.
15. Low-standby-power design.
16. Ozonated laundering.
17. Plastic particle cleaning.
18. Reduced thermal mass.
19. Silver ion injection.
20. Spray rinse or similar water-reducing rinse technology.
20. Steam washing.
21. Thermostatically controlled mixing valves.
22. Tighter tub tolerance.
23. Ultrasonic washing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE received the following specific comments with regard to the
screening analysis for the residential clothes washer technology
options presented in the framework document.
1. Technologies Requiring Clarification or Reclassification
AHAM, BSH, and GE commented that the horizontal-axis, top-loading
clothes washer described in the framework document should be considered
as a horizontal-axis product regardless of loading position. (AHAM,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 53; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 3; BSH,
No. 11 at p. 3; GE, No. 20 at p. 1) ALS commented that one very small
U.S. manufacturer has made a horizontal-axis top-loader, but it has not
been readily accepted by consumers. (ALS, No. 13 at p. 2) As discussed
in section III.A.2, DOE maintains product class distinction by method
of loading for today's final rule. Therefore, DOE considers a
horizontal-axis design as a technology to improve the efficiency of
top-loading clothes washers. DOE notes that such products are currently
on the market in the United States.
Several manufacturers requested additional information on some of
the technology options without further comment. AHAM, GE, and Whirlpool
requested clarification on bubble action, electrolytic disassociation
of water, and improved horizontal-axis washer drum design. AHAM and GE
stated that they sought clarification on increased motor efficiency,
BSH requested clarification on improved horizontal-axis washer drum
design and tighter tub tolerance, and Whirlpool requested clarification
on the reduced thermal mass technology option. ALS stated it would not
offer comment on electrolytic disassociation of water, ozonated
laundering, plastic particle cleaning, and ultrasonic washing until
more information was available on the technology. (AHAM, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 7 at pp. 52-53; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 3; ALS, No. 13 at p.
4; BSH, No. 11 at p. 3; GE, No. 20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 4)
ASAP asked whether the low standby-power design included both standby
and off modes. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 63)
Additional detail on each of these technologies is provided in chapter
3 of the direct final rule TSD.
DOE requested comment in the framework document on whether
additional technology options should be considered. ALS and Whirlpool
stated that they are unaware of additional technologies that should be
considered in DOE's preliminary analysis. (ALS, No. 13 at p. 5;
Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 5) AHAM and GE suggested that DOE add turbidity
sensors to the list of technology options considered. Whirlpool
commented that turbidity sensors have not been proven to provide
adequate stain removal, soil removal, and rinsing performance. (AHAM,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 68; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 4; GE,
No. 20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 5) Multiple manufacturers
stated to DOE during interviews that turbidity sensors have not been
implemented in clothes washers largely due to technical barriers such
as the high foaming properties of U.S. laundry detergents. Therefore,
DOE did not add turbidity sensors as a technology option.
AHAM, GE, Samsung, and SCE stated that DOE should evaluate smart
grid-enabled, demand-responsive clothes washers. AHAM and GE identified
peak load shedding, wherein peak electricity demand is reduced via
voluntary curtailment of clothes washer usage during certain times, as
an important capability of such clothes washers. (AHAM, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 7 at p. 31; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 4; GE, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 7 at p. 31; GE, No. 20 at pp. 1, 3; Samsung, No. 25 at
p. 4; SCE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at pp. 30, 64) DOE is
unaware at this time of any such clothes washers available on the U.S.
market for evaluation in terms of energy and water savings. Therefore,
DOE did not consider smart-grid or other network-enabled technology
options in this rulemaking.
In the framework document, DOE tentatively included steam washing
in the list of residential clothes washer technology options. AHAM, GE,
and Whirlpool noted that steam washing is already available in higher
price point clothes washers. BSH stated that it has found through
laboratory testing that steam washing does not improve cleaning
performance. (AHAM, No. 16 at p, 4; BSH, No. 11 at p. 3; GE, No. 20 at
p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 4) DOE research and testing indicates
that steam generation requires significantly more energy than the
potential energy savings associated with using less hot water during
the wash cycle. Therefore, in the final list of technology options, DOE
did not consider steam washing as a means to reducing energy
consumption.
2. Technological Feasibility
AHAM, BSH, GE, and Whirlpool stated that added insulation would
provide no meaningful energy savings, resulting in a minimal impact on
MEF. BSH also stated that added insulation would be an issue for
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) listing, and that the energy savings
associated with horizontal-axis designs that incorporate recirculation
may be small. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 52; AHAM,
No. 16 at p. 3; BSH, No. 11 at p. 3; GE, No. 20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No.
22 at p. 3) DOE agrees that the energy savings associated with added
insulation would be negligible, particularly as the amount of hot water
used in clothes washers decreases. DOE did not observe insulation
around the tub in any of the units in its test sample, and multiple
manufacturers stated that there was no energy benefit associated with
the use of insulation. Therefore, DOE screened out added insulation.
For horizontal-axis design with recirculation, DOE observes that units
incorporating this design are available on the market, and one
manufacturer stated that it can achieve energy savings of about 5
percent. Therefore, DOE retained horizontal-axis design with
recirculation for its analysis.
AHAM, GE, and Whirlpool commented that standby power accounts for a
small percentage of total energy consumption--AHAM estimates it
accounts for 3 percent of annual energy use--so that designs
incorporating low standby power would have a minimal impact. (AHAM,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 53; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 3; GE,
No. 20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 4) DOE recognizes that standby
power is a relatively small percentage of annual clothes washer energy
consumption. Under EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, however, DOE is
required to integrate standby and off mode energy use into the energy
efficiency metric if technically feasible and consistent with 42 USC
6295(o). Today's final rule includes amendments to include measures for
standby and off mode power consumption for clothes washers.

[[Page 32329]]

DOE received additional comments from interested parties suggesting
that DOE exclude certain technologies proposed in the framework
document from further analysis because they already are in widespread
use. AHAM, BSH, GE, and Whirlpool commented that adaptive control
systems, automatic fill control, improved fill control, spray rinse or
similar water-reducing rinse technologies, and thermostatically
controlled mixing valves are already widely used in residential clothes
washers, although they assumed that improved fill control was the same
technology as adaptive fill controls. AHAM, GE, and Whirlpool stated
that direct-drive motors, horizontal-axis designs with recirculation,
and hot water circulation loops also are widely used. AHAM and GE
further stated that the widespread use of direct-drive motors currently
applies only to top-loaders, although the technology is also available
for front-loaders. Whirlpool added that horizontal-axis design is
widely used. According to Whirlpool, the efficiency gains from these
technology options are being recognized already. AHAM, BSH, and GE
further commented that reduced thermal mass is already in widespread
use for horizontal-axis clothes washers. AHAM, BSH, GE, and Whirlpool
also stated that current products are nearing the maximum possible
centrifugal force levels, so that no additional energy savings could be
achieved by improved water extraction to lower remaining moisture
content. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 53; AHAM, No. 16
at pp. 3-4; BSH, No. 11 at p. 3; GE, No. 20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22
at pp. 3-4) DOE evaluated each of these technologies as part of its
reverse-engineering and manufacturer interviews, and determined that
baseline clothes washers are available that meet current Federal
standards without the use of such designs, each of which represents a
potential means to improve energy efficiency. DOE does not consider
level of commercialization in itself to be an indicator of whether a
technology should be screened out. Therefore DOE retained all the above
mentioned technology options for its analysis.
According to Whirlpool, it routinely pursues increased motor
efficiency in its product development. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 4)
Because this technology option meets DOE's screening criteria, it was
retained for further analysis.
3. Practicability to Manufacture, Install, and Service/Adverse Impacts
on Product Utility or Availability
AHAM, BSH, GE, and Whirlpool commented that advanced agitation
concepts already exist in high efficiency top-loading residential
clothes washers. Whirlpool stated that the cost of this technology
option limits its adoption to higher-priced models. (AHAM, No. 16 at p.
3; BSH, No. 11 at p. 3; GE, No. 20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 3)
DOE considers costs of the design options necessary to achieve each
efficiency level as part of the LCC and PBP analysis. Therefore, DOE
retained advanced agitation concepts for top-loading machines for its
analysis.
For ozonated laundering, AHAM and GE commented that they are aware
of such technology only for expensive stand-alone units. According to
those commenters, it is unclear how ozonated laundering could be
implemented into the more price-conscious residential market. (AHAM,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 53; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 3; GE,
No. 20 at p. 1) Whirlpool stated that ozonated laundering offers poor
cleaning performance and is quite costly. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 4)
ASAP, AWE, and the Joint Comment noted that residential clothes washers
using ozonated laundry technology currently are on the market in Japan.
AWE specifically mentioned the Sanyo Aqua Ozone combination washer/
dryer and stated that ozone is also used by multiple manufacturers for
commercial laundry. ASAP and the Joint Comment stated that ozonated
laundry allows significant reductions in water and energy use. (ASAP,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 63; AWE, No. 12 at p. 2; Joint
Comment, No. 15 at p. 4) Because no such residential clothes washers
have been produced or demonstrated for the U.S. market, DOE does not
believe this technology would be practicable to manufacture, install,
and service on the scale necessary to serve the U.S. residential
clothes washer market at the time of the effective date of an amended
standard. Also, because implementation of this technology in a
residential application is so limited, DOE is unable to adequately
assess the impacts on consumer health or utility. For these reasons,
DOE screened out ozonated laundry.
AHAM, BSH, GE, and Whirlpool stated that plastic particle cleaning
does not provide effective wash performance. BSH added that other
concerns include the manufacture, maintenance, and disposal of the
plastic particles. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 54;
AHAM, No. 16 at p. 4; BSH, No. 11 at p. 3; GE, No. 20 at p. 1;
Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 4) Samsung commented that plastic particle
cleaning would have to be evaluated with consideration of wash and
rinse performance. (Samsung, No. 25 at p. 3) Though clothes washers
using plastic particle cleaning exist in working prototypes, this
technology has not yet been commercialized, and thus consumer utility
has yet to be thoroughly evaluated in terms of cleaning performance, as
well as handling of the plastic particles. In addition, because no
clothes washer manufacturer is currently producing such a machine, and
because the reliability and consumer habits associated with using
plastic particles are as yet unknown, DOE believes that it would not be
practicable to manufacture, install, and service this technology on the
scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the
effective date of an amended standard. For these reasons, DOE screened
out plastic particle cleaning.
Whirlpool commented that tighter tub tolerance can be achieved, but
the technology option is costly enough to limit its adoption to higher
price-point clothes washers because a stronger structure is required.
(Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 4) Because DOE accounts for the cost
associated with each design option necessary to achieve a certain
efficiency level, it did not screen out tighter tub tolerance on this
basis and retained this design option for consideration in the
engineering analysis.
AHAM, BSH, GE, and Whirlpool stated that ultrasonic washing is not
a proven technology for residential clothes washers. Whirlpool further
stated that this technology has not been proven to provide adequate
stain removal, soil removal, or rinsing performance. (AHAM, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 54; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 4; BSH, No. 11
at p. 3; GE, No. 20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 4) DOE's research
supports these comments, indicating that ultrasonic washing has not
been shown to remove soil from clothes adequately. In addition, bubble
cavitations caused by standing ultrasonic waves potentially could
damage fragile clothing or clothing fasteners, further reducing product
utility. For these reasons, DOE screened out ultrasonic washing.
DOE understands that bubble action has been incorporated into
commercially available residential clothes washers in Europe and Asia.
Because production is nonexistent in the U.S., however, DOE does not
believe that this technology would be practicable to manufacture,
install, and

[[Page 32330]]

service on the scale necessary to serve the residential market at
compliance date of new standards. For these reasons, DOE screened out
bubble action.
4. Adverse Impacts on Health or Safety
ALS stated that it was not aware of any technologies that should be
removed from consideration due to safety concerns. (ALS, No. 13 at p.
4)
ASAP and the Joint Comment stated that DOE should retain silver ion
injection because it provides a deodorizing action in cold water
washing and currently is available in the U.S. residential clothes
washer market. According to the Joint Comment, such technology may
encourage consumers to use fewer warm and hot water cycles. (ASAP,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 63; Joint Comment, No. 15 at p.
4) Whirlpool acknowledged that some manufacturers have incorporated
silver ion technology as a means of disinfection, but stated that
silver has an adverse impact on the environment. Whirlpool commented
that the U.S. EPA requires that silver used for such a purpose be
reported and tracked under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 5) The EPA reporting
requirement for clothes washers incorporating silver does not prevent
commercialization of such technology, and DOE is not aware that any
adverse impacts on health or safety have been demonstrated for this
technology. Therefore DOE retained this option for consideration in the
engineering analysis.
5. Additional Screening Criteria
DOE received a number of comments from interested parties
recommending that it use additional criteria for screening technology
options besides the four listed in 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix
A at 4(a)(4). AHAM, BSH, GE, and Whirlpool commented that technology
options also should be evaluated on the basis of wash performance,
rinse performance, and fabric care (damage, fraying, etc.). (AHAM, No.
16 at p. 4; BSH, No. 11 at p. 3; GE, No. 20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22
at p. 5) Miele, Inc. (Miele) questioned whether DOE would be evaluating
each technology option on the basis of adequate wash performance.
(Miele, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 65) For this rulemaking,
DOE used the screening criteria set forth in its regulations.
Technologies are evaluated in the screening analysis to determine
whether they have an adverse impact on product utility or availability.
Because DOE believes that the general utility of a clothes washer
includes the ability to clean clothing adequately, DOE screened out
those technologies that it believes have not been demonstrated to
achieve adequate cleaning (i.e., ultrasonic washing, as discussed
previously).
Based on comments received regarding the initial technology
options, DOE retained the design options shown in Table IV-3 for its
subsequent engineering analysis. These remaining design options met all
of the screening criteria listed above.

Table IV-3--Design Options Retained for Engineering Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Adaptive control systems.
2. Advanced agitation concepts for top-loading machines.
3. Automatic water fill control.
4. Direct-drive motor.
5. Horizontal-axis design.
6. Horizontal-axis design with recirculation.
7. Hot water circulation loop.
8. Improved fill control.
9. Improved horizontal-axis washer drum design.
10. Improved water extraction to lower remaining moisture content.
11. Increased motor efficiency.
12. Low-standby-power electronic controls.
13. Reduced thermal mass.
14. Silver ion injection.
15. Spray rinse or similar water-reducing rinse technology.
16. Thermostatically controlled mixing valves.
17. Tighter tub tolerance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Engineering Analysis

In the engineering analysis, DOE evaluates a range of product
efficiency levels and their associated manufacturing costs. The purpose
of the analysis is to estimate the incremental manufacturer production
costs (MPCs) associated with increasing efficiency levels above that of
the baseline model in each product class. The engineering analysis
considers technologies not eliminated in the screening analysis,
although certain technologies are not analyzed if data does not exist
to evaluate the energy efficiency characteristics of the technology;
available data suggest that the efficiency benefits of the technology
are negligible; or for reasons stated in the March 2012 TP final rule,
DOE did not amend the test procedure to measure the energy impact of
these technologies. DOE considers the remaining technologies,
designated as design options, in developing cost-efficiency curves,
which subsequently are used for the LCC and PBP analyses.
DOE has identified the following three methodologies for generating
the manufacturing costs needed for the engineering analysis: (1) The
design-option approach, which provides the incremental costs of adding
to a baseline model design options that will improve its efficiency;
(2) the efficiency-level approach, which provides the relative costs of
achieving increases in energy efficiency levels, without regard to the
particular design options used to achieve such increases; and (3) the
cost-assessment (or reverse-engineering) approach, which provides
``bottom-up'' manufacturing cost assessments for achieving various
levels of increased efficiency, based on detailed data regarding costs
for parts and material, labor, shipping/packaging, and investment for
models that operate at particular efficiency levels.
DOE conducted the engineering analyses for the top-loading standard
and front-loading standard product classes using a combination of the
cost-assessment approach and the efficiency-level approach. The cost-
assessment approach provides an accurate means for estimating a single
manufacturer's incremental manufacturing costs for achieving various
levels of increased efficiency. This approach involved physically
disassembling commercially available products to develop cost-
efficiency relationships for each manufacturer's product lines. Because
each manufacturer may choose a different path to achieve higher levels
of efficiency, an efficiency-level approach produces an industry-wide
cost-efficiency relationship for each product class. DOE developed
cost-efficiency relationships for the top-loading standard and front-
loading standard product classes by calculating the market-weighted
average of the individual cost-efficiency relationships it developed
for each manufacturer.
Because less data was available for the top-loading compact and
front-loading compact product classes, DOE used the design-option
approach to develop the cost-efficiency relationships for these product
classes. For the top-loading compact product class, DOE developed the
cost-efficiency relationship by estimating the incremental costs of
adding specific design options to a baseline model that would provide
sufficient improvement in efficiency to achieve the higher efficiency
levels considered for the analysis. For the front-loading compact
product class, DOE estimated the efficiency of a baseline product by
extrapolating the rated efficiencies of front-loading clothes washers
with capacities nearing those that delineate the compact product class
(i.e., 1.6 to 3.0 cubic feet). DOE then estimated the incremental cost
of adding specific design options to

[[Page 32331]]

this baseline model that would improve its efficiency enough to achieve
the higher efficiency level considered for the analysis.
The efficiency levels that DOE considered in the engineering
analysis are attainable using technologies currently available on the
market for residential clothes washers. In addition, to provide
interested parties with additional information about DOE's assumptions
and results and the ability to perform independent analyses for
verification, DOE associated each efficiency level with specific
technologies that manufacturers might use. Chapter 5 of the direct
final rule TSD describes the methodology and results of the efficiency
level analysis used to derive the cost-efficiency relationships.
AHAM, ALS, GE, Samsung, and Whirlpool commented that they support
the use of an efficiency-level approach for the analysis. (AHAM, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 81; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 5; ALS, No. 13
at p. 9; GE, No. 20 at p. 1; Samsung, No. 25 at p. 4; Whirlpool, No. 22
at p. 6) The Joint Comment stated that it supports a design-option
approach, with the most significant design options evaluated separately
rather than aggregated with other measures to help ensure transparency
of the analysis. (Joint Comment, No. 15 at p. 5) The California
Utilities stated that DOE should give greater weight to its reverse-
engineering approach to isolate the cost premium of features on higher-
efficiency clothes washers that may not contribute to or may even
adversely affect efficiency. (California Utilities, No. 19 at p. 4) As
discussed earlier, and as described in further detail in chapter 5 of
the direct final rule TSD, DOE used a combination of these approaches,
as appropriate, to develop the cost-efficiency relationships for each
product class. The cost-efficiency relationships for each product class
reflect only those design options that enable higher efficiencies, and
exclude other non-efficiency related features that may contribute
additional cost to higher-efficiency products. Details of the features
and technologies associated with each efficiency level are also
provided in chapter 5.
1. Other Technologies Not Analyzed
In performing the engineering analysis, DOE did not consider
certain technologies that could not be evaluated for one or more of the
following reasons: (1) Data are not available to evaluate the energy
efficiency characteristics of the technology; (2) available data
suggested that the efficiency benefits of the technology would be
negligible; and (3) for the reasons stated in the March 2012 TP final
rule, DOE did not amend the test procedure to measure the energy impact
of these technologies. In its final analysis, DOE did not include the
following design options:
a. Adaptive Control Systems
In the September 2010 TP NOPR, DOE stated that it was aware of
multiple clothes washer models available on the market that use
adaptive control technologies to respond to measured or inferred load
size and fabric mix. However, as described in the August 2011 TP SNOPR,
these models have since been discontinued, and DOE is unaware of any
other residential clothes washers currently on the market offering
adaptive controls other than adaptive fill control. Adaptive controls
could allow a clothes washer to sense the fabric mix and soil level of
a wash load, for example, and then adjust wash parameters such as the
number of rinses, cycle time, and water temperatures accordingly. DOE
is aware that many dishwashers incorporate adaptive controls by means
of a turbidity sensor that adjusts the number and duration of wash and
rinse cycles. The dishwasher test procedure accounts for this feature
through the use of soiled dishware loads. 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendix C.
DOE is aware of other industry and international clothes washer
test procedures that use a soiled wash load to determine wash
performance, including AHAM HLW-1, ``Performance Evaluation Procedures
for Household Clothes Washers''; IEC 60456, ``Clothes washing machines
for household use-Methods for measuring the performance''; and
Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand (AS/NZS) 2040.1,
``Performance of household electrical appliances-Clothes washing
machines-Methods for measuring performance, energy and water
consumption.'' \20\ Because of the lack of commercially available
clothes washers with adaptive features, however, DOE did not amend the
test procedure in the March 2012 TP final rule to include provisions
for measuring the energy consumption of clothes washers offering
adaptive controls other than adaptive fill control. For these reasons,
DOE did not include adaptive controls in its engineering analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ AHAM and AS/NZS standards are available online at http://webstore.ansi.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Improved Horizontal-Axis Washer Drum Design
Although several manufacturers have claimed improved wash
performance and greater utility from improved drum designs for front-
loading clothes washers, DOE is unaware of any publicly available data
to corroborate a decrease in cycle time or water consumption or an
increase in energy efficiency as a result of implementing this design
option in residential clothes washers. Therefore, DOE did not include
this design option in its analysis.
c. Reduced Thermal Mass
Reduced thermal mass describes minimizing the amount of energy
consumed by heating the wash tub to the temperature of the wash water.
DOE research suggests that manufacturers typically already use tubs
with low thermal mass for all clothes washers and that there is no
practicable way to manufacture clothes washers with significantly lower
thermal mass beyond the current practice. DOE is unaware of any data
available regarding efficiency improvements related to further
decreasing the thermal mass of wash tubs, and therefore did not
consider this technology in its analysis.
d. Silver Ion Injection
Silver ion injection provides an alternative to the traditional
method of sanitizing clothes using a hot water wash. Silver ion
injection works by electrolyzing pure silver during the wash and rinse
cycles, and releasing the ions into the wash basket to sanitize the
basket and wash load. While this technology option appears to offer an
efficiency improvement by eliminating the need for high wash water
temperatures, the current DOE test procedure does not capture this
efficiency gain. Additionally, DOE lacks data on the reduction in warm
and hot water cycles associated with silver ion injection and is not
aware of any test procedures that could be used to measure any energy
savings resulting from the use of silver ion injection. Because of
this, DOE was unable to consider silver ion injection for further
analysis.
e. Tighter Tub Tolerance
The tighter tub tolerance technology option reduces the annular
volume between the inner wash basket and the outer tub and hence
reduces the total amount of water required for a fill cycle. As a
result of discussions with manufacturers, DOE believes that this
technology option has reached its limit for efficiency gains.
Decreasing the space between the wash basket and the tub any further
could create problems such as ``suds lock,'' whereby suds remain
between the wash basket and

[[Page 32332]]

tub; improper draining during the spin cycle; noise; and vibration,
thereby negatively impacting product utility. Therefore, DOE did not
consider this design option in its engineering analysis.
Table IV-4 shows the final list of design options that DOE retained
for the engineering analysis.

Table IV-4--Retained Design Options for Residential Clothes Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Advanced agitation concepts for top-loading machines.
2. Automatic water fill control.
3. Direct-drive motor.
4. Horizontal-axis design.
5. Horizontal-axis design with recirculation.
6. Hot water circulation loop.
7. Improved fill control.
8. Improved water extraction to lower remaining moisture content.
9. Increased motor efficiency.
10. Low-standby-power electronic controls.
11. Spray rinse or similar water-reducing rinse technology.
12. Thermostatically controlled mixing valves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Baseline Efficiency Levels
In the framework document, DOE proposed baseline efficiency levels
in active mode for top-loading standard, top-loading compact, and
front-loading clothes washers. DOE did not consider front-loading
compact models in the framework document. The Joint Petition, however,
proposed standard levels for a front-loading compact product classes.
In today's final rule, DOE defined baseline efficiency levels and
higher efficiency levels for each of the four product classes to
conduct its engineering analyses. DOE defined a baseline efficiency
level of 1.60 MEF/8.5 WF for the front-loading compact product class,
as well as an updated baseline efficiency level of 0.77 MEF/14.0 WF for
the top-loading compact product class. Chapter 5 of the direct final
rule TSD provides further details on the development of these baseline
efficiency levels.
In the framework document, DOE based the baseline level for top-
loading standard units on the MEF specified by current Federal energy
conservation standards and the water factor (WF) requirement
established by EISA 2007, which became effective for residential
clothes washers manufactured on or after January 1, 2011. The top-
loading compact MEF similarly was based on existing standards, with the
WF scaled from the top-loading standard-size value by the ratio of MEFs
for the two product classes. Because DOE understands that all
commercially available front-loading clothes washers have efficiencies
that meet or exceed the existing Federal standards and the former
ENERGY STAR level of 1.72 MEF and 8.0 WF, effective prior to July 2009,
DOE applied the former ENERGY STAR level to characterize the baseline
unit efficiency for front-loading clothes washers.
AHAM, ALS, and BSH stated that they support the proposed baseline
efficiency levels for top-loading standard (1.26 MEF/9.5 WF), top-
loading compact (0.65 MEF/18.4 WF), and front-loading standard (1.72
MEF/8.0 WF) product classes. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at
p. 72; AHAM, No. 24 at p. 2; ALS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at
p. 73; ALS, No. 13 at p. 5; BSH, No. 11 at p. 4) Whirlpool commented
that it supports the proposed baseline efficiency levels for the top-
loading standard and front-loading standard product classes.
(Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 5) The Joint Comment stated that DOE should
determine the WF of baseline top-loading compact clothes washers
through sampling rather than by scaling the standard-size baseline
value. (Joint Comment, No. 15 at p. 5) For the direct final rule
analysis, DOE defined the baseline efficiency levels for the standard
product classes, both top-and front-loading, as they were defined in
the framework document. DOE defined the baseline efficiency level of
0.77 MEF/14.0 WF for the top-loading compact product class based on a
survey of products currently available on the market. This baseline
represents an improvement over the 0.65 MEF/18.4 WF baseline defined in
the framework document.
Samsung stated that because it does not support separate classes
based on washer axis, it recommends a single baseline efficiency level.
(Samsung, No. 25 at p. 4) For the reasons discussed in III.A.2 DOE has
retained separate product classes based on method of access and
capacity, and thus continued to use separate baseline efficiency levels
for each product class.
BSH suggested including a front-loading compact product class, with
a baseline efficiency level of 1.63 MEF/8.5 WF, based on data from the
CEC residential clothes washer product database. (BSH, No. 11 at p. 4)
The Joint Petition also included a front-loading compact product class.
DOE defined a baseline efficiency level of 1.60 MEF/8.5 WF for the
front-loading compact product class, based on an extrapolation of the
rated efficiencies of front-loading clothes washers with capacities
nearing those that delineate the compact product class (i.e., 1.6 to
3.0 cubic feet). Chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD provides
further details of on the development of the baseline efficiency level
for the front-loading compact product class.
AHAM, ALS, GE, and Samsung stated that no baseline efficiency
levels need to be defined for top-loading semi-automatic and suds-
saving product classes, since these product classes should be
eliminated. (AHAM, No. 16 at p. 4; ALS, No. 13 at p. 5; GE, No. 20 at
p. 1; Samsung, No. 25 at p. 4) Because DOE eliminated the top-loading
semi-automatic and suds-saving product classes, DOE did not define
corresponding baseline efficiency levels.
3. Higher Efficiency Levels
a. Efficiency Levels Proposed in Framework Document
In the framework document, DOE considered efficiency levels higher
than baseline levels based on specifications prescribed by ENERGY STAR
and CEE's Super-Efficient Home-Appliances Initiative. The highest
efficiency levels were defined by the maximum available technology that
DOE could identify on the market. Where the increments between adjacent
efficiency levels were large, DOE proposed to add an intermediate
``gap-fill'' level. Table IV-5 through Table IV-7 show the efficiency
levels proposed in the framework document, based on MEF and WF.

Table IV-5--Efficiency Levels Proposed in the Framework Document for Top-
Loading Standard Residential Clothes Washer Framework Document
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level
Efficiency -------------------------
Level level WF (gal/
description MEF (ft\3\/ cycle/
kWh/cycle) ft\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline..................... DOE Standard... 1.26 9.50

[[Page 32333]]

1............................ Gap Fill....... 1.40 9.50
2............................ Former ENERGY 1.72 8.00
STAR (pre-July
2009).
3............................ Former ENERGY 1.80 7.50
STAR (pre-Jan
2011), also
CEE Tier 1.
4............................ Current ENERGY 2.00 6.00
STAR (Jan
2011), also
CEE Tier 2.
5............................ Max Available.. 2.26 4.48
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table IV-6--Efficiency Levels Proposed in the Framework Document for Top-
Loading Compact Residential Clothes Washer Framework Document
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level
Efficiency -------------------------
Level level WF (gal/
description MEF (ft\3\/ cycle/
kWh/cycle) ft\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline..................... DOE Standard... 0.65 18.40
1............................ Max Available.. 0.78 13.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table IV-7--Efficiency Levels Proposed in the Framework Document for
Front-Loading Residential Clothes Washer Framework Document
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level
Efficiency -------------------------
Level level WF (gal/
description MEF (ft\3\/ cycle/
kWh/cycle) ft\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline..................... Former ENERGY 1.72 8.00
STAR (pre-July
2009).
1............................ Former ENERGY 1.80 7.50
STAR (pre-Jan
2011), also
CEE Tier 1.
2............................ Current ENERGY 2.00 6.00
STAR (Jan
2011), also
CEE Tier 2).
3............................ CEE Tier 3..... 2.20 4.50
4............................ Gap Fill....... 2.40 4.20
5............................ Max Available.. 2.89 3.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE received a number of comments on the efficiency levels and
provides responses to those comments and changes made to the efficiency
levels for today's direct final rule in the paragraphs that follow. The
efficiency levels analyzed for today's final rule are set forth in
section IV.C.3.b (Table IV-8 through Table IV-11).
Whirlpool stated that it supports the efficiency levels proposed in
the framework document. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 6) PG&E asked how DOE
will prioritize MEF and WF when determining efficiency levels. As noted
previously, efficiency levels were based primarily on levels defined by
the ENERGY STAR and CEE voluntary programs. DOE subsequently added gap-
fill levels based on data for available products, selecting
combinations of MEF and WF that were achieved by a significant number
of existing clothes washers and that also reasonably spanned the
incremental changes in both metrics between the next-lowest and next-
highest efficiency levels.
BSH proposed one additional efficiency level for a newly created
front-loading compact product class above the baseline efficiency level
it proposed--2.31 MEF/4.4 WF. BSH identified this as the maximum
available technology level. (BSH, No. 11 at p. 6) The Consensus
Agreement submitted by the Joint Petitioners includes efficiency
standards for front-loading compact clothes washers of 1.72 MEF and 8.0
WF. As described previously, DOE defined a baseline efficiency level of
1.60 MEF and 8.5 WF for the front-loading compact product class. DOE
defined one additional efficiency level at 1.72 MEF and 8.0 WF based on
the standard level proposed in the Consensus Agreement.
ASAP, Earthjustice, and the Joint Comment stated that DOE should
modify its proposed efficiency levels to harmonize them for standard-
capacity top-loaders and front-loaders. In particular, those interested
parties stated that DOE should set the highest efficiency level for the
top-loading standard product class to CEE's Tier 3 level. (ASAP, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 87-88; Earthjustice, No. 17 at p. 7;
Joint Comment, No. 15 at p. 5) The CEE Tier 3 level is 2.20 MEF/4.5 WF,
which is slightly less stringent in MEF but slightly more stringent in
WF than the maximum technologically feasible level for this product
class identified in the framework document, 2.26 MEF/4.48 WF. Under
EPCA, DOE is required to analyze the max-tech level for each product
class. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)) In the framework document, DOE based its
max-tech level for top-loading standard residential clothes washers on
the maximum performance of products available on the market in the
United States at that time. Since publication of the framework
document, DOE became aware of a new max-tech unit on the market rated
at 2.47 MEF and 3.6 WF. Therefore, in the direct final rule analysis,
DOE created a new max-tech efficiency level corresponding to these
efficiency ratings.

[[Page 32334]]

AHAM and ASAP questioned the gap-fill level identified as
Efficiency Level 4 for front-loading clothes washers. ASAP recommended
that Efficiency Level 4 be specified as having a WF of 4.0 rather than
the value of 4.2 proposed in the framework document. (AHAM, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 89; ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 7 at p. 89) DOE proposed Efficiency Level 4 for front-loading
clothes washers--2.40 MEF/4.20 WF--based on performance metrics
represented in a number of models in the CEC and ENERGY STAR databases.
Therefore, DOE retained Efficiency Level 4 at a WF of 4.2.
In addition, DOE's reverse engineering suggested that an additional
gap-fill level between Efficiency Level 4 (gap-fill) and Efficiency
Level 5 (max available) was warranted (see chapter 5 of the direct
final rule TSD for more information). Based on a review of available
products, DOE defined a second gap-fill level at 2.60 MEF/3.8 WF. DOE
notes a small incremental span in WF between ASAP's proposed Efficiency
Level 4 (4.0 WF) and DOE's additional gap-fill level (3.8 WF). DOE
found no meaningful differences in technology options required to
achieve either water consumption level. Therefore, DOE retained a WF of
3.8 for the additional gap-fill level.
b. Efficiency Levels Used in Final Analysis
Table IV-8 through Table IV-11 show the efficiency levels used in
the final analysis according to the test procedure in appendix J1 as
well as the revised test procedure in appendix J2.

Table IV-8--Efficiency Levels for Top-Loading Standard Residential Clothes Washer Final Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level-- Integrated efficiency
appendix J1 level--appendix J2
Efficiency level ---------------------------------------------------
Level description WF (gal/ IWF (gal/
MEF (ft\3\/ cycle/ IMEF (ft\3\/ cycle/
kWh/cycle) ft\3\) kWh/cycle) ft\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline............................ DOE Standard + 0 W 1.26 9.5 0.84 9.9
Standby.
1................................... Gap Fill + 0 W Standby 1.40 9.5 0.98 9.9
2................................... Former ENERGY STAR 1.72 8.0 1.29 8.4
(pre-2009) + 0 W
Standby [Consensus
Agreement 2015].
3 *................................. Former ENERGY STAR 1.80 7.5 1.34 7.9
(pre-2011) + 2.3 W
Standby.
5................................... Former ENERGY STAR 1.80 7.5 1.37 7.9
(pre-2011) + 0.08 W
Standby.
6................................... Current ENERGY STAR 2.00 6.0 1.57 6.5
(Jan 2011) + 0.08 W
Standby [Consensus
Agreement 2018].
7................................... Max Available (at time 2.26 4.5 1.83 5.0
of Framework
Document) + 0.08 W
Standby.
8................................... Current Max Available 2.47 3.6 2.04 4.1
+ 0.08 W Standby.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE also analyzed design options that would meet an efficiency level 4, represented by ``Former ENERGY STAR
(pre-2011) + 1.7 W Standby''; however, this efficiency level has the same IMEF and IWF as the efficiency level
represented by Former ENERGY STAR (pre-2011) + 2.3 W Standby and is therefore not included in the table.

Table IV-9--Efficiency Levels for Front-Loading Standard Residential Clothes Washer Final Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level-- Integrated efficiency
appendix J1 level--appendix J2
Efficiency level ---------------------------------------------------
Level description WF (gal/ IWF (gal/
MEF (ft\3\/ cycle/ IMEF (ft\3\/ cycle/
kWh/cycle) ft\3\) kWh/cycle) ft\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline............................ Former ENERGY STAR 1.72 8.0 1.37 8.3
(pre-2009) + 2.3 W
Standby.
1................................... Former ENERGY STAR 1.72 8.0 1.39 8.3
(pre-2009) + 1.7 W
Standby.
2................................... Former ENERGY STAR 1.72 8.0 1.41 8.3
(pre-2009) + 0.08 W
Standby.
3................................... Former ENERGY STAR 1.80 7.5 1.49 7.8
(pre-2011) + 0.08 W
Standby.
4................................... Current ENERGY STAR 2.00 6.0 1.66 6.3
(Jan 2011) + 0.08 W
Standby.
5................................... CEE Tier 3 + 0.08 W 2.20 4.5 1.84 4.7
Standby [Consensus
Agreement 2015].
6................................... Gap Fill + 0.08 W 2.40 4.2 2.02 4.4
Standby.
7................................... Gap Fill + 0.08 W 2.60 3.8 2.20 4.0
Standby.
8................................... Max Available + 0.08 W 2.89 3.2 2.46 3.4
Standby.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 32335]]

Table IV-10--Efficiency Levels for Top-Loading Compact Residential Clothes Washer Final Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level-- Integrated efficiency
appendix J1 level--appendix J2
Efficiency level ---------------------------------------------------
Level description WF (gal/ IWF (gal/
MEF (ft\3\/ cycle/ IMEF (ft\3\/ cycle/
kWh/cycle) ft\3\) kWh/cycle) ft\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline............................ Baseline product on 0.77 14.0 0.59 14.4
the market.
1................................... Consensus Agreement 1.26 14.0 0.86 14.4
(2015 Proposed
Standard).
2................................... Consensus Agreement 1.81 11.6 1.15 12.0
(2018 Proposed
Standard).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table IV-11--Efficiency Levels for Front-Loading Compact Residential Clothes Washer Final Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level-- Integrated efficiency
appendix J1 Level--appendix J2
Efficiency level ---------------------------------------------------
Level description WF (gal/ IWF (gal/
MEF (ft\3\/ cycle/ IMEF (ft\3\/ cycle/
kWh/cycle) ft\3\) kWh/cycle) ft\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline............................ DOE-estimated baseline 1.60 8.5 1.03 8.8
level.
1................................... Consensus Agreement 1.72 8.0 1.13 8.3
(2015 Proposed
Standard).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed in III.B, DOE recently published a revised test
procedure, designated appendix J2, use of which will be required as of
the compliance date of the 2015 standard in this direct final rule,
absent adverse comment that results in withdrawal of today's direct
final rule pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). 77 FR 13888. The revised
test procedure establishes an IMEF metric that incorporates energy use
in standby and off mode, and an IWF metric that incorporates water
usage from all cycles included in the energy test cycle.
DOE included the impacts of new provisions in the amended test
procedure in developing the IMEF/IWF efficiency levels in today's DFR.
To perform this translation, DOE tested a wide range of both top-
loading and front-loading clothes washers according to the test
procedure at appendix J1 and the revised test procedure at appendix J2.
Based on these tests, DOE developed correlation curves relating MEF to
IMEF and WF to IWF. Chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD provides
additional detail on the method DOE used to convert from MEF/WF levels
to IMEF/IWF levels.
Because the revised standards for residential clothes washers are
required by EPCA to incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use
(42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)), DOE created efficiency levels for the top-
loading standard and front-loading standard product classes that
incorporate reduced standby power options into the MEF efficiency
levels where DOE determined them to be most cost effective. In
residential clothes washers, only units with electronic controls
consume standby power; units with electromechanical controls consume no
standby or off-mode power.
For the top-loading standard product class, standby power is likely
to be added at Efficiency Level 3 in Table IV-8. This corresponds to
the efficiency level at which electronic controls would be required.
Because reduced standby power design options are more cost-effective
than most other available design options, they are likely to be one of
the first design options used by manufacturers to achieve higher IMEF
ratings in units above Efficiency Level 3. DOE identified three
distinct standby power design options, which are incorporated at
Efficiency Level 3, Efficiency Level 4, and Efficiency Level 5.
Efficiency Levels 6-8 incorporate the standby design option in
Efficiency Level 5, which has the lowest energy use.
For the front-loading standard product class, DOE is unaware of any
units that do not use electronic controls. Therefore, standby power is
experienced at all efficiency levels. As with top-loading clothes
washers, reduced standby power design options are more cost-effective
than most other available design options, and they are likely to be one
of the first design options used by manufacturers to achieve higher
IMEF ratings in units above the baseline level. Therefore, as shown in
Table IV-9, DOE incorporated the three distinct standby power design
options at the Baseline Level, Efficiency Level 1, and Efficiency Level
2. Efficiency Levels 3-8 incorporate the standby design option in
Efficiency Level 2, which has the lowest energy use.
Chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD provides detailed
descriptions of the design options associated with each efficiency
level, including details of the active mode and standby mode efficiency
levels for each product class.
For the front-loading standard product class, DOE introduced a
second gap fill level in the final analysis at 2.6 MEF/3.8 WF (EL 7).
During the reverse-engineering analysis, DOE observed specific
technology options employed at this efficiency level, and thus
determined that an additional gap fill at this level is appropriate.
For the top-loading compact product class, DOE defined the baseline
efficiency level based on a survey of units currently available on the
market, as described previously in section IV.C.2. Efficiency Level 1
and Efficiency Level 2 represent the standard levels proposed in the
Consensus Agreement for 2015 and 2018, respectively. Chapter 5 of the
direct final rule TSD provides detailed descriptions of the design
options manufacturers are likely to use to achieve the higher
efficiency levels.
For the front-loading compact product class, DOE defined the
baseline efficiency level based on an extrapolation of the rated
efficiencies of front-loading clothes washers with capacities nearing
those that delineate the compact product class (i.e., 1.6 to 3.0 cubic
feet), as described in section IV.C.2. Efficiency Level 1 represents
the 2015 standard level proposed in the Consensus Agreement.
Chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD provides further details of
the analysis

[[Page 32336]]

performed on the efficiency levels for this product class. As discussed
in more detail in chapter 5, manufacturers indicated during
manufacturer interviews that the efficiency levels chosen by DOE would
not result in an increased cycle time for units within any of the
product classes established in today's direct final rule, an assertion
that is supported by DOE analysis of test data and published product
literature. DOE seeks comment on this issue in section II.B.3.
4. Maximum Technologically Feasible Efficiency Levels
In the framework document, DOE based its max-tech level for top-
loading standard and front-loading standard residential clothes washers
on the maximum performance of products currently on the market in the
United States, based on its review of various product databases. DOE
considered several models in each product class to determine max-tech
values that best represent optimal performance of IMEF and IWF for
clothes washers on the market. DOE sought comment on whether the
``maximum available'' efficiency levels, shown in Table IV-12,
represented max-tech efficiency.

Table IV-12--Proposed Maximum Technologically Feasible Efficiency Levels
Proposed in the Framework Document for Residential Clothes Washers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max-tech levels
Product class ---------------------
MEF WF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Top-loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft\3\ 0.78 13.90
capacity)........................................
2. Top-loading, Standard.......................... 2.26 4.48
3. Front-loading.................................. 2.89 3.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The American Water Works Association (AWWA), the California
Utilities, the Joint Comment, and PG&E objected to the use of ``maximum
available'' efficiency levels as a substitute for max-tech. AWWA, the
California Utilities, and the Joint Comment stated that DOE must survey
available technologies to determine the maximum achievable levels.
(AWWA, No. 14 at p. 1; California Utilities, No. 19 at p. 5; Joint
Comment, No. 15 at p. 5; PG&E, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p.
90) Whirlpool stated that it believes that it manufactures the model
that is the basis for the maximum available level for top-loading
clothes washers. Whirlpool stated that this maximum available level is
at or near the max-tech limit. Even so, Whirlpool stated that the
platform is relatively costly (with a suggested retail price of $1099-
$1299), so that it would not be an economically justified standard
level. ALS commented that the max-tech efficiency level should not
represent a niche product, a product with low-end capacity, or some
proprietary design. SCE asked whether an efficiency-level approach
would limit how DOE develops its max-tech levels. (ALS, No. 13 at p. 9;
Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 91, Whirlpool, No. 22
at p. 6; SCE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 90)
Under EPCA, DOE is required to consider the maximum technologically
feasible level. DOE 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 also
considers consumer utility and availability of features, which may be
met by a niche product, as required by EPCA.
As described previously, DOE became aware of a new top-loading
standard clothes washer with a higher MEF and lower WF than the max-
tech level considered in the framework document. This new max-tech
efficiency level was added for the direct final rule analysis. For
front-loading standard clothes washers, DOE did not identify any other
designs or combinations of technologies beyond the ``maximum
available'' that would lead to a different max-tech level without
requiring proprietary designs. For top-loading compact clothes washers,
DOE used the 2018 standard level proposed in the Consensus Agreement as
the max-tech level, as described previously. For front-loading compact
clothes washers, DOE used the 2015 standard level proposed in the
Consensus Agreement as the max-tech level.
Finally, DOE has observed that the max-tech units on the market use
a combination of significantly reduced water volumes, reduced water
temperatures, extended cycle times, and extremely high spin speeds.
(See chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD). DOE is not aware of any
additional design options that could be used to increase the efficiency
beyond the max-tech levels without causing potential negative effects
on consumer utility. Nor is DOE aware of any working prototype clothes
washers that exceed the efficiency levels of the max-tech units on the
market in the United States. Therefore, DOE believes the ``max
available'' efficiency levels for residential clothes washers
correspond to the maximum technologically feasible efficiency levels.
Accordingly, DOE does not believe that using an efficiency-level
approach would limit how it develops its max-tech levels.
Table IV-13 shows the max-tech levels used for the final analysis.

Table IV-13--Maximum Technologically Feasible Efficiency Levels for
Residential Clothes Washers Final Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max tech levels--
appendix J2
Product class ---------------------
IMEF IWF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-loading, Standard............................. 2.04 4.1
Front-loading, Standard........................... 2.46 3.4
Top-loading, Compact.............................. 1.15 12.0
Front-loading, Compact............................ 1.13 8.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Proprietary Designs
In its engineering and economic analyses DOE considers all design
options that are commercially available or present in a working
prototype, including proprietary designs and technologies. DOE will
consider a proprietary design in the subsequent analyses only if the
achieved efficiency level can also be reached using other
nonproprietary design options. If the proprietary design is the only
approach available to achieve a given efficiency level, then DOE will
reject that efficiency level to avoid impacts on competition that would
likely result.
AHAM, GE, and Whirlpool stated that they are not aware of any
proprietary designs or technologies that would impact this rulemaking.
(AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 93; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 5;
GE, No. 20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 7) Earthjustice commented
that DOE must evaluate the maximum technologically feasible standards
for clothes washers, including those that use proprietary technology.
According to Earthjustice, DOE's unqualified rejection of efficiency
levels incorporating proprietary technologies repeats the errors that
DOE made over 25 years ago in refusing to analyze efficiency levels
incorporating technologies available only in prototypes. In that
rulemaking, Earthjustice stated that the D.C. Circuit wrote that DOE
``conclusively assume[d] that manufacturers cannot incorporate any
prototypes for any product type or class into all appliances of that
type or class [by the effective date of the

[[Page 32337]]

standard].'' Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d
1355, 1396 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Earthjustice believes that DOE's approach
in the current clothes washer rulemaking would similarly exclude a
technology without any analysis of technological feasibility or
economic justification. Earthjustice also stated that Congress clearly
intended for DOE to carefully consider the impact of adopting standards
that depend on the use of proprietary technologies, as it required in
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) that DOE consider the impact on
competition in weighing the economic justification for a given standard
level. Earthjustice concluded that DOE cannot lawfully exclude
proprietary technologies from its analysis without a justification that
complies with EPCA. (Earthjustice, No. 17 at pp. 9-10)
DOE considers in its analysis technologies that have been
incorporated into working prototypes, consistent with the D.C. Circuit
decision discussed above. DOE also considers proprietary technologies
if the efficiency levels that can be met using those technologies can
also be met using other, non-proprietary technologies. DOE does not
consider proprietary technologies when such technologies provide the
only means to reach a given efficiency level because of the potential
market barriers and impacts on competition.
6. Reverse Engineering
ASAP and Samsung stated that they support DOE's reverse
engineering. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 74; Samsung,
No. 25 at p. 4) The California Utilities requested that DOE explore how
to make pertinent manufacturer cost data available to the public while
protecting manufacturer confidentiality. (California Utilities, No. 19
at p. 5) To supplement and validate the AHAM data submittals, DOE
conducted interviews with manufacturers. Cost information supplied to
DOE by the manufacturers was aggregated or otherwise incorporated into
the analysis to protect confidentiality. Data developed by DOE during
the teardowns and subsequent analysis are detailed in chapter 5 of the
direct final rule TSD.
AHAM, ALS, BSH, and Whirlpool suggested that DOE complete its
reverse-engineering analysis on the following four product types:
Conventional agitator top-loading;
High efficiency agitator top-loading;
High efficiency non-agitator top-loading; and
Standard-size front-loading.
AHAM, GE, and Whirlpool also recommended that DOE reverse-engineer
compact top-loading clothes washers. BSH recommended adding both
compact top-loading and compact front-loading clothes washers. (AHAM,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 81; AHAM, No. 16 at p. 5; ALS,
No. 13 at p. 9; BSH, No. 11 at p. 4; GE, No. 20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No.
22 at p. 6) DOE's test sample for its reverse engineering analysis
included representative residential clothes washers from all of these
categories. DOE modeled the likely construction of a compact front-
loading clothes washer by extrapolating from front-loading clothes
washers with capacities nearing those delineating the compact product
class (i.e., between 1.6 and 3.0 cubic feet in capacity).
ASAP stated that, when DOE evaluates the characteristics of
baseline models, no extraneous features and amenities should be
included that do not contribute to energy and water performance. (ASAP,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 74) DOE's cost models
disaggregate total manufacturing costs by sub-assemblies and individual
components, thereby allowing DOE to identify only those specific design
options contributing to incremental efficiency improvements.
Based on product teardowns and cost modeling, DOE developed overall
cost-efficiency relationships for all four residential clothes washer
product classes. Table IV-14 through Table IV-17 show DOE's estimates
of incremental manufacturing cost for improvement of clothes washer
efficiency above the baseline. As mentioned previously in section
IV.C.3.b, DOE applied the correlation curves it developed to translate
MEF into IMEF and WF into IWF. Chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD
provides details on DOE's engineering analysis, including the
development of the cost-efficiency curves and correlation curves.

Table IV-14--Cost-Efficiency Relationship for Top-Loading Standard Residential Clothes Washers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level--appendix J1 Integrated efficiency level--
-------------------------------------- appendix J2 Incremental
Efficiency level -------------------------------------- manufacturing
MEF (ft\3\/kWh/ WF (gal/cycle/ IMEF (ft\3\/kWh/ IWF (gal/cycle/ cost (2010$)
cycle) ft\3\) cycle) ft\3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................................. 1.26 9.5 0.84 9.9 $0.00
EL 1..................................................... 1.40 9.5 0.98 9.9 3.11
EL 2..................................................... 1.72 8.0 1.29 8.4 8.44
EL 3 *................................................... 1.80 7.5 1.34 7.9 13.06
EL 5..................................................... 1.80 7.5 1.37 7.9 14.24
EL 6..................................................... 2.00 6.0 1.57 6.5 25.29
EL 7..................................................... 2.26 4.5 1.83 5.0 60.65
EL 8..................................................... 2.47 3.6 2.04 4.1 69.79
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EL4 is not included in the table because it has the same IMEF and IWF as EL 3. The incremental manufacturing cost for EL 4 is $16.98.

Table IV-15--Cost-Efficiency Relationship for Front-Loading Standard Residential Clothes Washers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level--appendix J1 Integrated efficiency level--
-------------------------------------- appendix J2 Incremental
Efficiency level -------------------------------------- manufacturing
MEF (ft\3\/kWh/ WF (gal/cycle/ IMEF (ft\3\/kWh/ IWF (gal/cycle/ cost (2010$)
cycle) ft\3\) cycle) ft\3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................................. 1.72 8.0 1.37 8.3 $0.00
EL 1..................................................... 1.72 8.0 1.39 8.3 3.92
EL 2..................................................... 1.72 8.0 1.41 8.3 1.18
EL 3..................................................... 1.80 7.5 1.49 7.8 3.18
EL 4..................................................... 2.00 6.0 1.66 6.3 6.20
EL 5..................................................... 2.20 4.5 1.84 4.7 17.25

[[Page 32338]]

EL 6..................................................... 2.40 4.2 2.02 4.4 40.36
EL 7..................................................... 2.60 3.8 2.20 4.0 53.88
EL 8..................................................... 2.89 3.2 2.46 3.4 73.51
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table IV-16--Cost-Efficiency Relationship for Top-Loading Compact Residential Clothes Washers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level--appendix J1 Integrated efficiency level--
-------------------------------------- appendix J2 Incremental
Efficiency level -------------------------------------- manufacturing
MEF (ft\3\/kWh/ WF (gal/cycle/ IMEF (ft\3\/kWh/ IWF (gal/cycle/ cost (2010$)
cycle) ft\3\) cycle) ft\3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................................. 0.77 14.0 0.59 14.4 $0.00
EL 1..................................................... 1.26 14.0 0.86 14.4 5.00
EL 2..................................................... 1.81 11.6 1.15 12.0 45.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table IV-17--Cost-Efficiency Relationship for Front-Loading Compact Residential Clothes Washers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level--appendix J1 Integrated efficiency level--
-------------------------------------- appendix J2 Incremental
Efficiency level -------------------------------------- manufacturing
MEF (ft\3\/kWh/ WF (gal/cycle/ IMEF (ft\3\/kWh/ IWF (gal/cycle/ cost (2010$)
cycle) ft\3\) cycle) ft\3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................................. 1.60 8.5 1.03 8.8 $0.00
EL 1..................................................... 1.72 8.0 1.13 8.3 3.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Markups Analysis

The markups analysis develops appropriate markups in the
distribution chain to convert the estimates of manufacturer cost
derived in the engineering analysis to consumer prices. At each step in
the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product to
cover business costs and profit margin. For clothes washers, the main
parties in the distribution chain are manufacturers and retailers.
DOE developed an average manufacturer markup by examining the
annual Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports filed by
publicly traded manufacturers primarily engaged in appliance
manufacturing and whose combined product range includes residential
clothes washers.
For retailers, DOE developed separate markups for baseline products
(baseline markups) and for the incremental cost of more efficient
products (incremental markups). Incremental markups are coefficients
that relate the change in the manufacturer sales price of higher-
efficiency models to the change in the retailer sales price. DOE relied
on economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate average
baseline and incremental markups.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ U.S. Census, 2002 Business Expenditure Survey (BES),
Electronics and Appliance Stores sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chapter 6 of the direct final rule TSD provides details on DOE's
development of markups for residential clothes washers.

E. Energy and Water Use Analysis

DOE's energy and water use analysis estimated the energy and water
use of clothes washers in the field, i.e., as they are actually used by
consumers. The energy and water use analysis provided 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 DOE's adoption of amended standards. In contrast to
the DOE test procedure, which provides standardized results that can
serve as the basis for comparing the performance of different
appliances used under the same conditions, the energy and water use
analysis seeks to capture the range of operating conditions for clothes
washers in U.S. homes.
To determine the field energy and water use of products that would
meet possible amended standard levels, DOE used data from the Energy
Information Administration (EIA)'s 2005 Residential Energy Consumption
Survey (RECS), which was the most recent such survey available at the
time of DOE's analysis.\22\ 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. RECS
provides sufficient information to establish the type (product class)
of clothes washer used in each household. As a result, DOE was able to
develop household samples for each of the considered product classes.
RECS is the only source that provides a nationally representative
household sample that includes estimates of usage by clothes washers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ For information on RECS, see www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For each sample household, DOE estimated the field-based annual
energy and water use of front- and top-loading standard-capacity
clothes washers 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 of the washer (including the energy used to heat water and
remove moisture from clothing, and standby and off-mode energy use.
During the framework document public meeting, Whirlpool stated that
although RECS has its limitations, there

[[Page 32339]]

is no alternative for characterizing the annual energy use of clothes
washers. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 7) AHAM, ALS, and GE expressed
support for DOE's plan to use RECS as a primary source of information
for estimating the energy consumption of clothes washers. (AHAM, No. 16
at p. 6; ALS, No. 13 at p. 10; GE, No. 20 at p. 1)
A more detailed description of DOE's energy and water use analysis
for clothes washers is contained in chapter 7 of the direct final rule
TSD.
1. Clothes Washer Usage
Commenting on the framework document, AWE said that average wash
cycles per year are decreasing. (AWE, No. 12 at p. 3) AHAM stated that
DOE should reduce the assumed average number of loads to reflect
current data. (AHAM, No. 7 at p. 115) The Joint Comment said that DOE
must update the average number of use cycles based on current data.
(Joint Comment, No. 15 at p. 5)
Data collected from the 2005 RECS indicate that the frequency of
clothes washer use has decreased compared to the assumptions
incorporated in DOE's previous test procedure. The average usage value
obtained from RECS is 295 cycles per year.\23\ Data collected by DOE
from the AHAM Fact Book 2005, American Housing Survey (AHS) 2007, and
2006 data provided by Proctor and Gamble \24\ confirmed the data on
average wash cycles from RECS. More recent nationally-representative
data were not available. It is important to note that DOE uses the
actual usage for each household sampled in its energy use analysis, not
the average usage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ In the TP final rule, DOE changed the representative number
of wash cycles per year from 392 to 295 based on the 2005 RECS data.
(77 FR 13888)
\24\ Procter and Gamble. Study US064358: Drying Habits.
Unpublished PowerPoint Deck. Procured through personal communication
with author Cindy Garner, 7/21/2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AWE said that DOE should consider that average washer capacity is
increasing. (AWE, No. 12 at p. 3) The new DOE test procedure, which was
used for estimating per cycle clothes washer energy use, considers
recent data on the clothes load in calculating energy use to remove
moisture from clothing. The load is a weighted average that depends on
load usage factors and the capacity of the clothes washer.
2. Rebound Effect
In calculating energy consumption of residential clothes washers,
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. Samsung, AHAM, and GE said that they are unaware of a rebound
effect for residential clothes washers. (Samsung, No. 25 at p. 5; AHAM,
No. 16 at p. 6; GE, No. 20 at p. 1) Whirlpool stated that it is unaware
of any data indicating that consumers would purchase a larger clothes
washer than their needs dictated. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 7)
A recent review of empirical estimates of the direct rebound effect
\25\ found one study of direct rebound effects for clothes washing.
This study found that the demand for clean clothes (measured as weight
of clothes) increased by 5.6% after consumers received new (more
efficient) washers.\26\ This rebound effect results in part from
savings in water and detergent costs. If the estimate was based solely
on the savings in the energy costs of the service, the estimated effect
would be smaller. DOE does not believe that this study supports include
a rebound effect in today's direct final rule, however, because the
study used field data from participants who received high-efficiency
clothes washers free of charge and was short-term in nature--roughly 3
months of use with the new washers. These factors could contribute to
the increase in clothes washed. Lastly, the field trial was in a very
small town and included 103 participants, which may not be
representative of the U.S. household population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ S. Sorrell, J. Dimitropoulos, and M. Sommerville, Empirical
estimates of the direct rebound effect: a review, Energy Policy 37
(2009), pp. 1356-71.
\26\ L.W. Davis, Durable Goods and Residential Demand for Energy
and Water: Evidence from a Field Trial, Department of Economics,
University of Michigan (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on the above considerations and the comments by
manufacturers, DOE did not include a direct rebound effect in its
analysis of residential clothes washer energy and water use. However,
DOE did perform a sensitivity analysis assuming a 5-percent rebound
effect.

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
clothes washers. The LCC is the total consumer expense over the life of
a product, consisting of purchase and installation costs plus operating
costs (expenses for energy 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 (normally higher) due to a more
stringent standard by the change in average annual operating cost
(normally lower) that results from the standard.
For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the PBP and the change
in LCC relative to an estimate of the base-case appliance efficiency
levels. The base-case estimate reflects the market in the absence of
new or amended energy conservation standards, including the market for
products that exceed the current energy conservation standards.
For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE
calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of
housing units. For the analysis for today's rule, DOE developed
household samples from the 2005 RECS. For each sample household, DOE
determined the energy consumption for the clothes washer and the
appropriate electricity price. By developing a representative sample of
households, the analysis captured the variability in energy consumption
and energy prices associated with the use of residential clothes
washers.
Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost
of the product--which includes manufacturer costs, manufacturer
markups, retailer and distributor markups, and sales taxes--and
installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses
include annual energy consumption, energy and water prices and price
projections, repair and maintenance costs, product lifetimes, discount
rates, and the year that compliance with standards is required. DOE
created distributions of values for product lifetime, discount rates,
and sales taxes, with probabilities attached to each value, to account
for their uncertainty and variability.
The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC and PBP, which
incorporates Crystal Ball (a commercially available software program),
relies on a Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and
variability into the analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly

[[Page 32340]]

sample input values from the probability distributions and clothes
washer user samples. The model calculated the LCC and PBP for products
at each efficiency level for 10,000 housing units per simulation run.
Several interested parties supported DOE's use of Monte Carlo
simulation to account for variability and uncertainty in inputs to the
LCC and PBP analysis. (AHAM, No. 16 at p. 6; ALS, No. 13 at p. 10; GE,
No. 20 at p. 1; Samsung, No. 25 at p. 5; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 8)
Table IV-18 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
and its appendices of the direct final rule TSD.

Table IV-18--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis
*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Cost................. Derived by multiplying manufacturer cost
by manufacturer and retailer markups and
sales tax, as appropriate. Used
historical data to derive a price
scaling index to forecast product costs.
Installation Costs........... Assumed no change with efficiency level.
Annual Energy Use............ Used DOE test procedure with data on
cycles from the 2005 RECS, market data
on RMC, and load weights from test
procedure.
Used IMEF and IWF to account for self-
cleaning, steam cleaning and non-active
mode power usage.
Energy and Water Prices...... Electricity: Based on EIA's Form 861 data
for 2008.
Variability: Regional energy prices
determined for 13 regions.
Water: Based on 2008 AWWA/Raftelis
Survey.
Variability: By census region.
Energy and Water Price Trends Energy: Forecasted using Annual Energy
Outlook 2010 (AEO2010) price forecasts.
Water: Forecasted using BLS historic
water price index information.
Repair and Maintenance Costs. Assumed no change with efficiency level.
Product Lifetime............. Estimated using survey results from RECS
(1990, 1993, 1997, 2001, 2005) and the
U.S. Census American Housing Survey
(2005, 2007), along with historic data
on appliance shipments.
Variability: Characterized using Weibull
probability distributions.
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 SCF ** for 1989,
1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004 and 2007.
Compliance Date.............. 2015.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided
in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the direct
final rule TSD.
** Survey of Consumer Finances.

1. Product Cost
To calculate consumer product costs, DOE multiplied the
manufacturer selling prices developed in the engineering analysis by
the supply-chain markups described above (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. ALS supported DOE's
approach, as it was employed for estimating future retail prices in
other appliance rulemakings. (ALS, No. 13 at p. 10)
Examination of historical price data for a number of appliances
that have been subject to energy conservation standards indicates that
an assumption of constant real prices and costs may overestimate long-
term trends in appliance prices. Economic literature and historical
data suggest that the real costs of these products may in fact trend
downward over time according to ``learning'' or ``experience'' curves.
On February 22, 2011, DOE published a Notice of Data Availability
(NODA, 76 FR 9696) stating that DOE may consider improving regulatory
analysis by addressing equipment price trends. In the NODA, DOE
proposed that when sufficiently long-term data are available on the
cost or price trends for a given product, it would analyze the
available data to forecast future trends.
Many commenters were supportive of DOE moving from an assumption-
based equipment price trend forecasting method to a data-driven
methodology for forecasting price trends. Other commenters were
skeptical that DOE could accurately forecast price trends given the
many variables and factors that can complicate both the estimation and
the interpretation of the numerical price trend results and the
relationship between price and cost. DOE evaluated these concerns and
determined that retaining the assumption-based approach of a constant
real price trend was not consistent with the historical data available
for residential clothes washers.
In its analysis for today's notice, DOE performed an exponential
fit on historical Producer Price Index (PPI) data for household laundry
equipment from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS). (PPI data
specific to residential clothes washers were not available.) The PPI
data used cover the period 1991-2010. An inflation-adjusted price index
for household laundry equipment was calculated by dividing the PPI
series by the GDP price deflator for the same years. DOE forecast a
price factor index using this exponential model.\27\ The value for 2015
used in the LCC and PBP analysis is 0.882. Thus, product prices
forecast for the LCC and PBP analysis are equal to 0.882 times the 2010
values for each efficiency level in each product class. DOE's forecast
of product prices for clothes washers is described in further detail in
appendix 8-E of the direct final rule TSD.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ For the NIA, DOE also considered several alternative price
trends consistent with the available data as sensitivity cases (see
section IV.G.4).
\28\ DOE recognizes that its price trend forecasting methods are
likely to be modified as more data and information becomes available
to enhance the statistical certainty of the trend estimate and the
completeness of the model. Additional data should enable an improved
evaluation of the potential impacts of more of the factors that can
influence product price trends over time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 32341]]

2. Installation Cost
Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous
materials and parts needed to install the product. DOE found no
evidence that installation costs would be impacted with increased
efficiency levels, so it did not include installation costs in its
analysis.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
For each sampled household, DOE determined the energy consumption
for a clothes washer at different efficiency levels using the approach
described above in section IV.E.
4. Energy Prices
DOE derived average annual energy prices for 13 geographic areas
consisting of the nine U.S. Census divisions, with four large states
(New York, Florida, Texas, and California) treated separately. For
Census divisions containing one of those large states, DOE calculated
the regional average excluding the data for the large state.
DOE calculated average residential electricity prices for each of
the 13 geographic areas using data from EIA's Form EIA-861 database
(based on ``Annual Electric Power Industry Report'').\29\ DOE
calculated an average annual regional residential price by: (1)
Estimating an average residential price for each utility (by dividing
the residential revenues by residential sales); and (2) weighting each
utility by the number of residential consumers it served in that
region. The final rule analysis used the data for 2008, the most recent
data available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ Available at: www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Joint Comment stated that DOE should consider using regionally
based, top-tier residential electricity prices rather than average
rates because energy savings would occur at the highest rate the
consumer might pay. The California Utilities stated that DOE's analysis
should capture the value of energy over time. They pointed to
California's use of time-dependent valuation of savings (TDV), which
places a high value on energy savings that occur during high cost times
of the day and year. (California Utilities, No. 19 at p. 6) ALS
supported DOE's approach because has been employed for estimating
current and forecasted energy prices in other appliance rulemakings.
(ALS, No. 13 at p. 10)
DOE did not use marginal (i.e., top-tier) electricity prices in the
current analysis, because for an appliance such as a residential
clothes washer, there is little difference between marginal and average
electricity prices. The effect of ascending block rates, used by many
utilities, is offset by two other features of rate structures: (1)
Residential consumers tend to pay relatively high fixed charges, which
raises the average price relative to the marginal energy price; and (2)
seasonal rates also are common, with summer rates typically higher, and
winter rates lower, than the average (this may be reversed in winter-
peaking regions). Because clothes washer energy use is not seasonal,
over the year the rate differences average out. DOE's analysis of the
Edison Electric Institute's Typical Bills and Average Rates Reports for
summer and winter 2008 confirms that, when averaged over the year and
over a wide consumer base, as is appropriate for clothes washers,
marginal and average rates are approximately equal.
5. Energy Price Projections
To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the
average regional energy prices discussed in section IV. F.4 by the
forecasts of annual average residential energy price changes in the
Reference case from AEO2010, which has an end year of 2035.\30\ To
estimate price trends after 2035, DOE applied the average annual rate
of change in the AEO2010 forecasts from 2020 to 2035. The rates used
were 1.14 percent for electricity price and 1.16 percent for natural
gas price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy
Outlook 2010. Washington, DC. April 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Water and Wastewater Prices
For today's direct final rule, DOE obtained data on water and
wastewater prices for 2010 from the Water and Wastewater Rate Survey
conducted by Raftelis Financial Consultants and the water utility
association, AWWA. The survey, which analyzes each industry separately,
covers approximately 308 water utilities and 228 wastewater utilities.
The water survey includes, for each utility, the cost to consumers of
purchasing a given volume of water or treating a given volume of
wastewater. The data provide a division of the total consumer cost into
fixed and volumetric charges. DOE's calculations use only the
volumetric charge to calculate water and wastewater prices, because
only this charge is affected by a change in water use. Average water
and wastewater prices were estimated for each of four census regions.
Each RECS household was assigned a water and wastewater price depending
on its census region location.
Commenting on the framework document, AWWA stated that the Water
and Wastewater Survey conducted by Raftelis and AWWA is the best
available national survey of water and wastewater rates. AWWA also
noted additional steps that DOE can take to make its incorporation of
available water and sewer rates more robust. These include considering
base charges that are embedded in the cost of customer service;
capturing differences in rate structures at the community level; and
accounting for variability in rate structures due to asset management
systems at some utilities. (AWWA, No. 14 at p. 3)
In response, DOE believes, as stated above, that using only the
volumetric charge to calculate water and wastewater prices is
appropriate, because only this charge is affected by a change in water
use. DOE was not able to capture differences and variability in rate
structures to the degree suggested by AWWA because the Water and
Wastewater Rate Survey does not have a large enough number of utilities
to allow DOE to develop prices at a level more detailed than the Census
region.
AWWA stated that while it is difficult to fully capture the true
future cost of water in a national analysis, reliance on a simple
extrapolation of current rate structures alone is inadequate. It
suggested that DOE account for the need of water and wastewater systems
to increase rates in the next 30 to 50 years as systems age. (AWWA, No.
14 at p. 2-3) DOE is not aware of any national-level long-term
forecasts of water and wastewater prices. To forecast water and
wastewater price trends, DOE used a price index for water and sewerage
maintenance from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and then
adjusted the index for inflation using the Consumer Price Index. DOE
developed a price trend based on 45 years of BLS data from 1975 to
2010.
DOE also used price information for households that use well water
and a septic tank from the National Ground Water Association, as well
as national cost data on residential septic systems from the National
Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association (NOWRA).
Chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD provides more detail about
DOE's approach to developing water and wastewater prices.
7. Maintenance and Repair Costs
Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing components
that have failed in an appliance; maintenance costs are associated with
maintaining the operation of the product. Typically, small incremental

[[Page 32342]]

increases in product efficiency produce no, or only minor, changes in
repair and maintenance costs compared to baseline efficiency products.
In its preliminary analysis, DOE did not have information suggesting
that those costs would change with higher efficiency levels.
AHAM and GE stated that information obtained from clothes washer
manufacturers indicates that where higher efficiencies are provided via
a different configuration (horizontal axis compared to vertical axis),
the costs of maintenance and repair increase. (AHAM, No. 16 at p. 7;
GE, No. 20 at p. 1) BSH stated that because front-loading units often
are installed stacked with the dryer on top of the washer or built into
cabinetry, a greater effort is required to access the appliances to
perform service. (BSH, No. 11 at p. 6) Miele stated that there can be a
higher repair cost for apartment-size front-loaders because they must
be removed from the stacked installation to do the repair. (Miele,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 130) ALS suggested that high
efficiency technologies may have greater frequency of maintenance.
(ALS, No. 13 at p. 10) Whirlpool said that maintenance, repair, and
installation costs could be twice current levels if exotic new
technologies are required to meet new efficiency levels. (Whirlpool,
No. 22 at p. 8) ASAP said that claims of significantly higher repair
costs for front-loading machines must be evaluated critically and that
recent data for front-loaders should be used. (ASAP, No. 14 at p. 6)
Samsung agreed with the view that there is negligible difference in
maintenance, repair, and installation costs for baseline and high
efficiency units. (Samsung, No. 25 at p. 6)
DOE does not have any data indicating increases in maintenance and
repair costs associated with the efficiency levels within each of the
product classes considered in its analysis. (Differences in such costs
between top- and front-loading washers are not relevant to the LCC
analysis.) Therefore, DOE did not assume that more efficient washers in
each product class would have greater repair or maintenance costs.
8. Product Lifetime
Because the lifetime of appliances varies depending on utilization
and other factors, DOE develops a distribution of lifetimes from which
specific values are assigned to the appliances in the samples. In the
previous rulemaking for clothes washers, DOE estimated an average
product lifetime of 14.1 years. 66 FR 3314.
Commenting on the framework document, AHAM and GE stated that DOE's
estimate of 14 years overstates the average useful life of horizontal-
axis products. They stated that, based on AHAM data, the average useful
life of top-loading configurations is 14 years, while that of front-
loading configurations is 11 years. (AHAM, No. 16 at p. 7; GE, No. 20
at p. 1) Samsung supported using DOE's estimated useful life of 14.1
years. (Samsung, No. 25 at p. 6) Whirlpool stated that the September
2008 issue of Appliance magazine cites an average life of 11 years,
which is consistent with their experience. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 8)
ALS supported using an average product lifetime of 14 years, but for
only the traditional top-loading models. They said that front-loading
and new high efficiency top-loading designs may have shorter lifetimes
because of greater design complexity, electronic components that are
more expensive to repair, complaints about mold in door boot/seals, and
issues concerning out-of-balance spin. (ALS, No. 13 at p. 11) The Joint
Comment said that claims of substantially shorter product lifetimes for
front-loaders must be evaluated critically. (Joint Comment, No. 15 at
p. 6)
To substantiate the estimates for residential clothes washer
lifetimes in the literature, DOE conducted an analysis of standard-
capacity residential clothes washer lifetimes in the field based on a
combination of shipments data and RECS 2005 data on the ages of the
clothes washer products reported in the household stock. As described
in chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD, the analysis yielded an
estimate of mean age for standard-capacity residential clothes washers
of approximately 14.2 years. It also yielded a survival function that
DOE incorporated as a probability distribution in its LCC analysis.
Because the RECS data do not indicate whether the washer has top-
loading or front-loading configuration, DOE was not able to derive
separate lifetime estimates for these two product classes. DOE did not
receive any data or analysis to support separate lifetimes for the
different product classes.
See chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD for further details on
the method and sources DOE used to develop product lifetimes.
9. Discount Rates
In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates to estimate
the present value of future operating costs. DOE estimated separate
distributions of residential discount rates for clothes washers
purchased as replacements and for washers purchased in new homes. To
establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE
identified all debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase
clothes washers, including household assets that might be affected
indirectly. It estimated the average percentage shares of the various
debt or asset classes for the average U.S. household using data from
the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) for 1989,
1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, and 2007. Using the SCF and other
sources, DOE then developed a distribution of rates for each type of
debt and asset 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 inflation-adjusted rate across all types of household debt
and equity, weighted by the shares of each class, is 5.1 percent. DOE
used the same approach for today's direct final rule. See chapter 8 in
the direct final rule TSD for further details on the development of
consumer discount rates.
10. Compliance Date of Amended Standards
In the context of EPCA, the compliance date is the future date when
parties subject to the requirements of a new standard must comply. If
no adverse comments are received in response to the direct final rule
that may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal under 42 U.S.C.
6295(o) or other applicable law, compliance with amended standards for
residential clothes washers will be required on March 7, 2015. DOE
calculated the LCC and PBP for clothes washers as if consumers would
purchase new products in 2015. In the case of TSL 3, which includes a
second set of standards for top-loading standard clothes washers that
would require compliance on January 1, 2018, DOE calculated separate
LCC and PBP for clothes washers meeting these standards and purchased
in 2018.
11. Base-Case Efficiency Distribution
To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be
affected by a standard at a particular efficiency level, DOE's LCC
analysis considered the projected distribution of product efficiencies
that consumers purchase under the base case (i.e., the case without new
energy efficiency standards). DOE refers to this distribution of
product efficiencies as a base-case efficiency distribution. DOE relied
on data submitted by AHAM to

[[Page 32343]]

estimate the base-case efficiency distributions for each of the product
classes that were analyzed in the LCC and PBP analysis. To project the
efficiency distributions in 2015, DOE considered the 2006-2008 trends
and the potential effect of programs such as ENERGY STAR.
For front-loading clothes washers, the data from AHAM show some
increase in the share of higher efficiency levels between 2006 and
2008. However, by 2008 over 95 percent of the front-loading clothes
washer market was already at or above the 2011 ENERGY STAR criteria
(Efficiency Level 4). Therefore, DOE believes that the ENERGY STAR
qualification requirements are likely to have a limited impact in
further expanding the market shares of higher efficiency front-loading
clothes washers. Based on the above considerations, DOE assumed that
the 2008 market shares would remain constant through 2015.
For top-loading clothes washers, the data from AHAM show an
increase in the share of medium- and high-efficiency levels (Efficiency
Levels 2-8) from 6.3 percent in 2006 to 8.5 percent in 2008. To
estimate a trend from 2008 to 2015, DOE fit an exponential curve to the
three data points that suggests the growth in share would level off at
around 20 percent. The estimated total share of the medium- and high-
efficiency levels in 2015 is 19.2 percent. DOE then disaggregated this
total share into shares of specific levels using assumptions described
in chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD.
Table IV-19 shows the 2015 base-case efficiency distribution for
top-loading and front-loading clothes washers.

Table IV-19--Base-Case Efficiency Distribution by Product Class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-loading Front-loading Top-loading Front-loading
Efficiency level standard size standard size compact size compact size
(percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................ 40.4 0.0 100.0 100.0
1....................................... 40.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
2....................................... 2.8 0.0 0.0 ................
3....................................... 0.9 4.3 ................ ................
4....................................... 0.9 24.0 ................ ................
5....................................... 0.9 48.9 ................ ................
6....................................... 9.1 11.4 ................ ................
7....................................... 4.6 11.4 ................ ................
8....................................... 0.0 0.0 ................ ................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis
The payback period is the amount of time it takes the consumer to
recover the additional installed cost of more efficient products,
compared to baseline products, through energy cost savings. Payback
periods are expressed in years. 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 are the total installed cost of
the product to the customer for each efficiency level and the average
annual operating expenditures for each efficiency level. The PBP
calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, except that
discount rates are not needed.
13. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Period
As noted above, EPCA, as amended, 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 (and, as applicable, water) savings
during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the
standard, as calculated under the test procedure in place for that
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered efficiency
level, DOE determined the value of the first year's energy and water
savings by calculating the quantity of those savings in accordance with
the applicable DOE test procedure, and multiplying that amount by the
average energy and water price forecast for the year in which
compliance with the amended standard would be required. The results of
the rebuttable payback period analysis are summarized in section
V.B.1.c of this notice.

G. National Impact Analysis--National Energy Savings and Net Present
Value Analysis

The national impact analysis (NIA) assesses the national energy
savings (NES) and the national net present value (NPV) 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 and NPV based on projections of annual appliance
shipments, along with the annual energy consumption and total installed
cost data from the energy use and LCC analyses. For the present
analysis, DOE forecasted the energy savings, operating cost savings,
product costs, and NPV of consumer benefits for products sold from 2015
through 2044.
DOE evaluates the impacts of new and amended standards by comparing
base-case projections with standards-case projections. The base-case
projections characterize energy use and consumer costs for each product
class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards.
DOE compares these projections with projections characterizing the
market for each product class if DOE adopted new or amended standards
at specific energy efficiency levels (i.e., the TSLs or standards
cases) for that class. For the base-case forecast, DOE considers
historical trends in efficiency and various forces that are likely to
affect the mix of efficiencies over time. For the standards cases, DOE
also considers how a given standard would likely affect the market
shares of efficiencies greater than the standard.
DOE uses an MS Excel spreadsheet model to calculate the energy
savings and the national consumer costs and savings from each TSL. The
TSD and other documentation that DOE provides during the rulemaking
help explain the models and how to use them, and 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.
For the results presented in today's notice, DOE used projections
of energy prices and housing starts from the AEO2010 Reference case.
The Joint Comment stated that electricity prices

[[Page 32344]]

should be subject to a sensitivity analysis and forecasts other than
AEO. (Joint Comment, No. 15 at p. 5) As part of the NIA, DOE analyzed
scenarios that used inputs from the AEO2010 Low Economic Growth and
High Economic Growth cases. Those cases have higher and lower energy
price trends compared to the Reference case, as well as higher and
lower housing starts, which result in higher and lower appliance
shipments to new homes. NIA results based on these cases are presented
in appendix 10-A of the direct final rule TSD. The range of forecasts
in AEO2010 is sufficiently broad that using other long-range energy
forecasts would not provide added value to the sensitivity analysis.
Table IV-20 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA
analysis for the direct final rule. Discussion of these inputs and
methods follows the table. See chapter 10 of the direct final rule TSD
for further details.

Table IV-20--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact
Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Method
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments.......................... Annual shipments from
shipments model.
Compliance Date of Standard........ 2015.*
Base-Case Forecasted Efficiencies.. Efficiency distributions
are maintained unchanged
during the forecast period.
Standards-Case Forecasted Used a ``roll-up'' scenario
Efficiencies. for most efficiency levels
and a ``shift'' scenario
for highest efficiency
levels.
Annual Energy Consumption per Unit. Annual weighted-average
values as a function of
IMEF.**
Total Installed Cost per Unit...... Annual weighted-average
values as a function of
IMEF.**
Incorporates forecast of
future product prices
based on historical data.
Annual Energy Cost per Unit........ Annual weighted-average
values as a function of
the annual energy
consumption per unit and
energy prices.
Repair and Maintenance Cost per Annual values as a function
Unit. of efficiency level.
Energy Prices...................... AEO2010 forecasts (to 2035)
and extrapolation through
2044.
Energy Site-to-Source Conversion Varies yearly and is
Factor. generated by NEMS-BT.
Discount Rate...................... Three and seven percent
real.
Present Year....................... Future expenses discounted
to 2011, when the final
rule will be published.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For TSL 3, which includes two sets of standards for top-loading
standard clothes washers, the compliance date for the second set of
standards is in 2018.
** IMEF = integrated modified energy factor, which includes the energy
used in the active, standby, and off modes.

1. Shipments
Forecasts of product shipments are needed to calculate the national
impacts of standards on energy and water use, NPV, and future
manufacturer cash flows. DOE develops shipment forecasts based on an
analysis of key market drivers for residential clothes washers. In
DOE's shipments model, shipments of products are driven by new
construction and stock replacements. The shipments model takes an
accounting approach, tracking market shares of each product class and
the vintage of units in the existing 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. DOE also considers the impacts on shipments
from changes in product purchase price and operating cost associated
with higher energy efficiency levels.
To forecast shipments under the base case, DOE utilized historical
shipments data submitted by AHAM disaggregated by product class. AHAM
and GE noted that they could not provide data on compact top-loading
products given the few manufacturers and the resulting inability to
aggregate the data. (AHAM, No. 16 at p. 8; GE, No. 20 at p. 1)
AWE suggested that DOE consider the trend in multi-family housing
toward in-unit washers and away from common-area clothes washers. (AWE,
No. 12 at p. 3) DOE considered trends away from common-area clothes
washers in multi-family housing by looking at changes in the numbers of
households with clothes washers. DOE used the data contained in the
2005 RECS to characterize ownership of residential clothes washers and
usage in households of various types, including multi-family housing.
For future trends, DOE captured in-unit washers within multi-family
housing by estimating future clothes washer saturations in all new
residential construction, including multi-family housing.
To estimate the effects on product shipments from increases in
product price projected to accompany amended standards at higher
efficiency levels, DOE applied a cross-price elasticity. Cross-price
impacts measure the change in the market share of one washer
configuration (e.g., top loaders) caused by a change in the price of
the other washer configuration (e.g., front loaders). DOE estimated a
logistic regression model equation that derives the relative
probability of the market share of top- and front- loading clothes
washers as a function of the monthly sales-weighted average price of
top-loaders and front-loaders and the ratio of the monthly sales-
weighted average of front-loader tub volume to the monthly sales-
weighted average of top-loader tub volume. The equation indicates that
front loader market share is positively correlated with top loader
price and size and negatively correlated with front loader price. The
regression results were used to derive the cross price impact of a
change in the top-loading washer price on the front-loader market share
(and vice versa).
DOE also applied a price elasticity parameter to estimate the
effect of standards on each product class by itself. DOE estimated the
price elasticity parameter using a regression analysis that used
purchase price and efficiency data specific to residential clothes
washers, as well as residential refrigerators and dishwashers, during
1980-2002. The estimated ``relative price elasticity'' incorporates the
impacts from purchase price, operating cost, and household income, and
it also declines over time. DOE estimated shipments in each standards
case using the relative price elasticity along with

[[Page 32345]]

the change in the relative price between a standards case and the base
case.
For details on the shipments analysis, see chapter 9 of the direct
final rule TSD.
2. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case and Standards Cases
A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency
forecasted for the base case (without new or amended standards) and
each of the standards cases. Section IV.F.11 described how DOE
developed a base-case energy efficiency distribution (which yields a
shipment-weighted average efficiency) for each of the considered
product classes for the first year of the forecast period. To project
the trend in efficiency over the entire forecast period, DOE considered
recent trends and the potential effect of programs such as ENERGY STAR.
As discussed in section IV.F.11, DOE did not find a basis for
projecting an increase in the average efficiency of front-loading
clothes washers. For top-loading clothes washers, DOE assumed that the
growth in share of the medium- and high-efficiency levels would level
off at around 20 percent. Although there is room for the shares of the
higher efficiency levels to grow, DOE believes that the growth will be
constrained by the likelihood that consumers with a strong interest in
energy efficiency will purchase front-loading clothes washers instead
of top-loading clothes washers.
The historical record suggests that the likely market response to
new or amended standards is that lower efficiency baseline models will
roll up to the standard efficiency level, and some products will exceed
the minimum requirements. To estimate efficiency trends in the
standards cases, DOE has used ``roll-up'' and/or ``shift'' scenarios in
its standards rulemakings. Under the ``roll-up'' scenario, DOE assumes:
(1) Product efficiencies in the base case that do not meet the standard
level under consideration would ``roll-up'' to meet the new standard
level; and (2) product efficiencies above the standard level under
consideration would not be affected. Under the ``shift'' scenario, DOE
re-orients the distribution above the new minimum energy conservation
standard.
For the direct final rule, DOE primarily used a roll-up scenario to
establish the distribution of efficiencies for the year that compliance
with revised standards would be required and for subsequent years. It
also considered the potential impacts of the ENERGY STAR program.
Because ENERY STAR criteria in 2011 consist of an MEF >=2.00 and a WF
<=6.0, DOE assumed that the ENERGY STAR program would not affect the
front-loader or top-loader market for any new standards set at levels
less efficient than the 2011 ENERGY STAR requirements. As a result, for
standards set at top-loader efficiency levels 1 through 5 and front-
loader efficiency levels 1 through 3, DOE estimated that efficiency
distributions would remain unchanged from 2015 through 2044. For any
new standards set at efficiency levels that meet the 2011 ENERGY STAR
requirements, DOE assumed that the market share of efficiency levels
beyond the standard will increase. The level of increase was set equal
to the market share change from 2006 to 2008 for the efficiency level
directly preceding the standard. Using the above criteria, DOE assumed
that from 2015 to 2022 the shipment weighted integrated modified energy
factor (SWIMEF) market share would grow linearly. In all cases, because
DOE has insufficient information on which to forecast changes in the
market beyond 2022, DOE assumed that after 2022 the market would remain
unchanged through 2044.
The details of DOE's approach to forecast efficiency trends are
described in chapter 10 of the direct final rule TSD.
3. Total Installed Cost per Unit
As discussed in section IV.F.1, in the analysis for today's notice,
DOE developed a price trend based on historical PPI data for household
laundry equipment. It used this trend to forecast the prices of clothes
washers sold in each year in the forecast period (2015-2044). DOE
applied the same values to forecast prices for each product class at
each considered efficiency level.
To evaluate the impact of the uncertainty of the price trend
estimates, DOE investigated the impact of different product price
forecasts on the consumer net present value for the considered TSLs for
residential clothes washers. DOE considered three product price
forecast sensitivity cases: (1) A trend based on the experience curve
approach;\31\ (2) a trend based on the ``chained price index--other
consumer durable goods except ophthalmic'' that was forecasted for
AEO2010; and (3) constant prices at 2010 levels. The results of these
sensitivity cases are described in appendix 10-C of the direct final
rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ In the experience curve method, the real product price (or
proxy thereof) is related to the cumulative production or
``experience'' with a product. As experience accumulates, the cost
of producing the next unit decreases. The percentage reduction in
cost that occurs with each doubling of cumulative production is
known as the learning or experience rate. In typical experience
curve formulations, the experience rate parameter is derived using
two historical data series: Price (or cost) and cumulative
production, which is a function of shipments during a long time
span.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. National Energy and Water Savings
For each year in the forecast period, DOE calculates the national
energy and water savings (NES) for each standard level by multiplying
the stock of products affected by the energy conservation standards by
the per-unit annual energy savings. Cumulative energy and water savings
are the sum of the NES for each year.
To estimate the national energy savings expected from appliance
standards, DOE uses a multiplicative factor to convert site energy
consumption (at the home) into primary or source energy consumption
(the energy required to convert and deliver the site energy). These
conversion factors account for the energy used at power plants to
generate electricity and losses in transmission and distribution. The
conversion factors vary over time because of projected changes in
generation sources (i.e., the power plant types projected to provide
electricity to the country). The factors that DOE developed are
marginal values, which represent the response of the system to an
incremental decrease in consumption associated with appliance
standards. For today's rule, DOE used annual site-to-source conversion
factors based on the version of NEMS that corresponds to AEO2010, which
provides energy forecasts through 2035. For 2036-2044, DOE used
conversion factors that remain constant at the 2035 values.
Section 1802 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) directed
DOE to contract a study with the National Academy of Science (NAS) to
examine whether the goals of energy efficiency standards are best
served by measuring energy consumed, and efficiency improvements, at
the actual point of use or through the use of the full-fuel-cycle,
beginning at the source of energy production. (Pub. L. 109-58 (August
8, 2005)). NAS appointed a committee on ``Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-
Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy Efficiency Standards'' to
conduct the study, which was completed in May 2009. The NAS committee
defined full-fuel-cycle energy consumption as including, in addition to
site energy use: Energy consumed in the extraction, processing, and
transport of primary fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas; energy
losses in thermal combustion in power generation plants; and energy
losses in transmission and distribution to homes and commercial
buildings.

[[Page 32346]]

In evaluating the merits of using point-of-use and full-fuel-cycle
measures, the NAS committee noted that DOE uses what the committee
referred to as ``extended site'' energy consumption to assess the
impact of energy use on the economy, energy security, and environmental
quality. The extended site measure of energy consumption includes the
energy consumed during the generation, transmission, and distribution
of electricity but, unlike the full-fuel-cycle measure, does not
include the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting
primary fuels. A majority of the NAS committee concluded that extended
site energy consumption understates the total energy consumed to make
an appliance operational at the site. As a result, the NAS committee
recommended that DOE consider shifting its analytical approach over
time to use a full-fuel-cycle measure of energy consumption when
assessing national and environmental impacts, especially with respect
to the calculation of greenhouse gas emissions. The NAS committee also
recommended that DOE provide more comprehensive information to the
public through labels and other means, such as an enhanced Web site.
For those appliances that use multiple fuels (e.g., water heaters), the
NAS committee indicated that measuring full-fuel-cycle energy
consumption would provide a more complete picture of energy consumed
and permit comparisons across many different appliances, as well as an
improved assessment of impacts.
In response to the NAS committee recommendations, DOE issued a
notice of proposed policy for incorporating a full-fuel cycle analysis
into the methods it uses to estimate the likely impacts of energy
conservation standards on energy use and emissions. 75 FR 51423 (Aug.
20, 2010). Specifically, DOE proposed to use full-fuel-cycle (FFC)
measures of energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, rather than the
primary (extended site) energy measures it currently uses.
Additionally, DOE proposed to work collaboratively with the Federal
Trade Commission to make FFC energy and GHG emissions data available to
the public to enable consumers to make cross-class comparisons. On
October 7, 2010, DOE held an informal public meeting to discuss and
receive comments on its planned approach. The notice, a transcript of
the public meeting, and all public comments received by DOE are
available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-
NOA-0028. DOE intends to develop a final policy statement on the
subject and then take steps to begin implementing that policy in
rulemakings and other activities.
a. Accounting for Other Energy Impacts
In the framework document for residential clothes washers, DOE
requested comment on the issue of embedded energy (i.e., the energy
required for water treatment and delivery). Earthjustice maintained
that DOE's legal justification for not considering embedded energy
``ignores that EPCA not only provides ample authority for DOE to
consider this impact, but actually commands its consideration in
weighing the economic justification for efficiency standards.''
(Earthjustice, No. 17 at p. 10) The California Utilities said that DOE
should attempt to address the issue of embedded energy in water in its
rulemaking analyses. (California Utilities, No. 19 at p. 5)
In response, DOE notes that EPCA directs DOE to consider (when
determining whether a standard is economically justified) ``the total
projected amount of energy, or as applicable, water, savings likely to
result directly from the imposition of the standard.'' 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III) DOE interprets ``directly from the imposition of
the standard'' to include energy used in the generation, transmission,
and distribution of fuels used by appliances. In addition, DOE is
evaluating the full-fuel-cycle measure, which includes the energy
consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels.
Unlike the energy used for water treatment and delivery, both DOE's
current accounting of primary energy savings and the full-fuel-cycle
measure are directly linked to the energy used by appliances.
Several interested parties commented that DOE's calculation of
energy consumption should include the energy used in the manufacture,
distribution, and ultimate recycling of residential clothes washers.
(AWE, No. 12 at p. 2; Joint Comment, No. 15 at p. 6; Earthjustice, No.
17 at pp. 9-10) Both DOE's current accounting of primary energy savings
and the full-fuel-cycle measure are directly linked to the energy used
by appliances. The imposition of an energy efficiency standard for
residential clothes washers would not lead directly to energy savings
in the manufacture, distribution and recycling of clothes washers. DOE
believes that any such savings would be both indirect and difficult to
determine. Thus, DOE did not consider such energy use in the NIA
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III).
5. Net Present Value of Consumer Benefit
The inputs for determining the net present value (NPV) of the total
costs and benefits experienced by consumers of considered appliances
are: (1) Total annual installed cost, (2) total annual savings in
operating costs, and (3) a discount factor. DOE calculates net savings
each year as the difference between the base case and each standards
case in total savings in operating costs and total increases in
installed costs. DOE calculates operating cost savings over the life of
each product shipped during the forecast period.
In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For
today's direct final rule, DOE estimated the NPV of appliance 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.\32\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ OMB Circular A-4 (Sept. 17, 2003), section E, ``Identifying
and Measuring Benefits and Costs. Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03-21.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The California Utilities stated that because 3 percent is closer to
the OMB's current estimated 30-year real discount rate, DOE should give
primary weight to calculations based on the 3-percent real rate.
(California Utilities, No. 19 at p. 6)
DOE notes that OMB Circular A-4 references an earlier Circular A-
94, which states that a real discount rate of 7 percent should be used
as a base case for regulatory analysis. The 7-percent rate is an
estimate of the average before-tax rate of return on private capital in
the U.S. economy. It approximates the opportunity cost of capital and,
according to Circular A-94, is the appropriate discount rate whenever
the primary effect of a regulation is to displace or alter the use of
capital in the

[[Page 32347]]

private sector. In preparing Circular A-4, OMB found that the average
rate of return on capital remains near the 7-percent rate estimated
earlier. Circular A-4 also states that when a regulation primarily and
directly affects private consumption, a lower discount rate (the social
rate of time preference) is appropriate. It suggests that the real rate
of return on long-term government debt may provide a fair approximation
of the social rate of time preference, and states that during the past
30 years, this rate has averaged about 3 percent in real terms on a
pre-tax basis. Circular A-4 concludes that ``for regulatory analysis,
[agencies] should provide estimates of net benefits using both 3
percent and 7 percent.'' Consistent with the OMB guidance, for today's
rule DOE provided and considered results derived using discount rates
of 3 percent and 7 percent.
6. Benefits From Effects of Standards on Energy Prices
Reduction in electricity consumption associated with amended
standards for residential clothes washers could reduce the electricity
prices charged to consumers in all sectors of the economy and thereby
reduce their electricity expenditures.
Commenting on the framework document, the California Utilities
stated that the electricity price mitigation effects produced by new
standards for clothes washers should be documented and the value of
reduced electricity bills to all consumers quantified as a benefit.
(California Utilities, No. 19 at p. 6)
For the direct final rule, DOE used NEMS-BT to assess the impacts
of the reduced need for new electric power plants and infrastructure
projected to result from clothes washer standards. In NEMS-BT, changes
in power generation infrastructure affect utility revenue requirements,
which in turn affect electricity prices. DOE estimated the impact on
electricity prices associated with each considered TSL. Although the
aggregate benefits for electricity users are potentially large, there
may be negative effects on some of the actors involved in electricity
supply, such as actors involved in power plant construction and fuel
suppliers. Because there is uncertainty about the extent to which the
benefits for electricity users from reduced electricity prices would be
a transfer from actors involved in electricity supply to electricity
consumers, DOE is continuing to investigate the extent to which
electricity price changes projected to result from standards represent
a net gain to society.

H. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended standards on
consumers, DOE evaluates the impact on identifiable subgroups of
consumers (e.g., low-income households) that may be disproportionately
affected by a national standard. DOE evaluates impacts on particular
subgroups of consumers primarily by analyzing the LCC impacts and PBP
for those particular consumers from alternative standard levels.
Chapter 11 in the direct final rule TSD describes the consumer subgroup
analysis.
In response to the framework document, interested parties requested
that DOE consider a number of subgroups for analysis. The Joint Comment
said that renters and disabled homeowners should be considered as LCC
subgroups. (Joint Comment, No. 15 at p. 6) AHAM and Whirlpool stated
that DOE should consider low-income households as a consumer subgroup,
because they are affected by the cost increases engendered by
efficiency increases. (AHAM, No. 24 at p. 3; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 9)
ALS supported considering subgroups comprising low-income households
and senior citizens. (ALS, No. 13 at p. 12) Whirlpool said that DOE
should consider a consumer subgroup comprising families with young
children. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 9)
For this rule, DOE analyzed the impacts of the considered standard
levels on low-income households and senior-only households. DOE did not
examine renters as a subgroup. DOE notes that, in most cases, renters
pay the electricity bill but do not own the clothes washer in their
home. To some extent, the higher cost of a more-efficient clothes
washer incurred by the building owner would likely be passed on to the
renter through increased rent. Because DOE is not aware of information
that would allow it to reliably assess the extent to which such ``pass-
through'' would occur, it was not able to quantitatively analyze the
impacts of alternative standard levels on renters. DOE did not consider
families with children as a subgroup. To the extent such families have
low income, they are already included in the analysis of low-income
households. DOE had no information to support the contention that
families with children would otherwise be negatively affected by a
standard. Lastly, DOE did not have any information with which to
analyze disabled people as a subgroup.

I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

The following sections address the various steps taken to analyze
the impacts of the amended standards on manufacturers. These steps
include conducting a series of analyses, interviewing manufacturers,
and evaluating the comments received from interested parties during
this rulemaking.
1. Overview
In determining whether an amended energy conservation standard for
residential clothes washers subject to this rulemaking is economically
justified, DOE is required to consider ``the economic impact of the
standard on the manufacturers and on the consumers of the products
subject to such standard.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)) The statute
also calls for an assessment of the impact of any lessening of
competition as determined by the Attorney General that is likely to
result from the adoption of a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V))
DOE conducted the MIA to estimate the financial impact of amended
energy conservation standards on manufacturers, and to assess the
impacts of such standards on employment and manufacturing capacity.
The MIA is both a quantitative and qualitative analysis. The
quantitative part of the MIA relies on the Government Regulatory Impact
Model (GRIM), an industry cash-flow model customized for the
residential clothes washers covered in this rulemaking. See section
IV.I.2 below, for details on the GRIM analysis. The qualitative part of
the MIA addresses factors such as product characteristics,
characteristics of particular firms, and market trends. The complete
MIA is discussed in chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD. DOE
conducted the MIA in the three phases described below.
a. Phase 1, Industry Profile
In Phase 1 of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of the residential
clothes washer industry based on the market and technology assessment
prepared for this rulemaking. Before initiating the detailed impact
studies, DOE collected information on the present and past market
structure and characteristics of the industry, tracking trends in
market share, product attributes, product shipments, manufacturer
markups, and the cost structure for various manufacturers.
The profile also included a top-down analysis of manufacturers in
the industry using Security and Exchange

[[Page 32348]]

Commission 10-K filings,\33\ Standard & Poor's stock reports,\34\ and
corporate annual reports released by both public and privately held
companies. DOE used this and other publicly available information to
derive preliminary financial inputs for the GRIM (e.g., revenues, cost
of goods sold, depreciation, SG&A, and research and development (R&D)
expenses).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ Available online at www.sec.gov.
\34\ Available online at www2.standardandpoors.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Phase 2, Industry Cash Flow Analysis
Phase 2 focused on the financial impacts of potential amended
energy conservation standards on the industry as a whole. Amended
energy conservation standards can affect manufacturer cash flows in
three distinct ways: (1) By creating a need for increased investment,
(2) by raising production costs per unit, and (3) by altering revenue
due to higher per-unit prices and/or possible changes in sales volumes.
DOE used the GRIM to model these effects in a cash-flow analysis of the
residential clothes washer industry. In performing this analysis, DOE
used the financial values derived during Phase 1 and the shipment
assumptions from the NIA.
c. Phase 3, Sub-Group Impact Analysis
Using average cost assumptions to develop an industry-cash-flow
estimate may not adequately assess differential impacts of amended
energy conservation standards among manufacturer subgroups. For
example, small businesses, manufacturers of niche products, or
companies exhibiting a cost structure that differs significantly from
the industry average could be more negatively affected. During the
manufacturer interviews, DOE discussed financial topics specific to
each manufacturer and obtained each manufacturer's view of the industry
as a whole. DOE reports the MIA impacts of amended energy conservation
standards by grouping together the impacts on manufacturers of certain
product classes. While DOE did not identify any other subgroup of
manufacturers of residential clothes washers that would warrant a
separate analysis, DOE specifically investigated impacts on small
business manufacturers. See section VI.B for more information.
The MIA also addresses the direct employment impacts in
manufacturing of clothes washers. DOE uses census data and information
gained through manufacturer interviews in conjunction with the GRIM to
estimate the domestic labor expenditures and number of domestic
production workers in the base case and at each TSL from 2011 to 2044.
2. GRIM Analysis
DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flow that result
in a higher or lower industry value. The GRIM analysis is a standard,
annual cash-flow analysis that incorporates manufacturer costs,
markups, shipments, and industry financial information as inputs, and
models changes in costs, distribution of shipments, investments, and
manufacturer margins that could result from amended energy conservation
standards. The GRIM spreadsheet uses the inputs to arrive at a series
of annual cash flows, beginning with the base year of the analysis,
2011 (which accounts for the investments needed to bring products into
compliance), and continuing to 2044. DOE calculated INPVs by summing
the stream of annual discounted cash flows during this period. DOE uses
the industry average weighted average cost of capital (WACC) of 8.5
percent, as this represents the minimum rate of return necessary to
cover the debt and equity obligations manufacturers use to finance
operations.
DOE used the GRIM to compare INPV in the base case with INPV at
various TSLs (the standards cases). The difference in INPV between the
base and standards cases represents the financial impact of the amended
standard on manufacturers. DOE collected this information from a number
of sources, including publicly available data and interviews with a
number of manufacturers. Additional details about the GRIM can be found
in chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.
a. GRIM Key Inputs
Manufacturer Production Costs
Changes in the manufacturer production costs (MPCs) of residential
clothes washers can affect revenues, gross margins, and cash flow of
the industry, making these product cost data key GRIM inputs for DOE's
analysis. DOE used the MPCs calculated in the engineering analysis for
each efficiency level, as described in section IV.C above, and further
detailed in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD. DOE used the AHAM
data submittal to determine the MPCs at most efficiency levels for top-
loading and front-loading standard product classes. To supplement the
AHAM submittal and calculate max-tech MPCs for these product classes,
DOE also conducted product tear downs to generate MPCs using a
manufacturing cost model. DOE created separate cost curves for top-
loading and front-loading compact product classes using data from tear-
downs to develop baseline MPCs and applied the incremental costs that
correspond to the proposed design options from the standard product
classes. The cost model also disaggregated the MPCs into material,
labor, overhead, and depreciation.
Base-Case Shipments Forecast
The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total unit
shipment forecasts and the distribution of these values by efficiency
level and product class. Changes in the efficiency mix at each standard
level affect manufacturer finances. For this analysis, the GRIM uses
the NIA shipments forecasts from 2011 to 2044, the end of the analysis
period.
To calculate shipments, DOE developed a single shipment model for
all residential clothes washers and disaggregated total shipments into
front-loading and top-loading clothes washers, and assigned shipments
to both the standard and compact product classes. In the base case, DOE
forecasted change in market share of each product class by utilizing
historical shipments data submitted by AHAM.
Product and Capital Conversion Costs
Amended energy conservation standards will cause manufacturers to
incur conversion costs to bring their production facilities and product
designs into compliance. For the MIA, DOE classified these costs into
two major groups: (1) Product conversion costs and (2) capital
conversion costs. Product conversion costs are investments in research,
development, testing, marketing, and other non-capitalized costs
focused on making product designs comply with the amended energy
conservation standard. Capital conversion costs are investments in
property, plant, and equipment to adapt or change existing production
facilities so that new product designs can be fabricated and assembled.
DOE based the conversion cost estimates required to meet each TSL
on the AHAM data submittal for all product classes. Using the AHAM data
submittal for both the product and capital conversion costs ensures
that the costs required to meet amended energy conservation standards
are consistent with the incremental costs to reach those efficiencies.
DOE validated these costs in manufacturer interviews and through the
product teardown analysis.
At each top-loading and front-loading standard efficiency level,
DOE matched

[[Page 32349]]

the IMEF efficiency level to the corresponding MEF metric and used the
aggregated total industry capital and product conversion cost from the
May 2010 AHAM submittal. DOE multiplied each aggregated capital and
product conversion total for these product classes by 1.05 to account
for the non-AHAM member shipments. For the new max-tech levels revised
using the AHAM data submittal, DOE scaled the aggregated total
conversion costs at the next lowest efficiency level by the same
percentage increase in production costs. DOE did not increase the
required product and capital conversion costs for efficiency levels
that do not contribute to a change in active mode efficiency to ensure
that the costs required are consistent with the incremental costs to
meet amended energy conservation standards and because, as described in
section IV.C.3, the standby power technology options would require
minimal product development.
For the top-loading compact product class, DOE scaled the top-
loading standard conversion costs for the same efficiency level by the
relative number of compact platforms. DOE did not include conversion
costs for the front-loading compact product classes because the design
options analyzed to improve efficiency would require minimal changes to
baseline products.
DOE took a number of steps to analyze the conversion costs in the
AHAM data submittal. DOE reviewed the AHAM conversion costs during
manufacturer interviews to understand the magnitude and cost of the
required conversions for individual manufacturers. DOE also reviewed
public information in the CEC, ENERGY STAR, and CEE product databases
as well as manufacturer Web sites to understand which product lines
manufacturers would need to upgrade at each efficiency level. DOE also
reviewed the AHAM submittal in conjunction with the technology options
and information learned during product teardowns for multiple product
lines.
DOE's estimates of the total capital conversion and production
conversion costs by TSL can be found in section V.B.2 of today's direct
final rule. The estimates of the total capital conversion and product
conversion costs by product class and efficiency level can be found in
chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.
b. GRIM Scenarios
Standards-Case Shipment Forecasts
The MIA results presented in section V.B.2 all use shipments from
the reference NIA scenario in the GRIM. To determine efficiency
distributions in the standards case for the reference NIA scenario, DOE
analyzed the roll-up scenario. In this scenario, DOE assumed that
product efficiencies in the base case that did not meet the standard
would roll up to meet the new standard in the compliance year. See
section IV.G.2 for a description of the standards case efficiency
distribution. For standards-case shipments, DOE used a relative price
elasticity that considers the possibility of higher first costs
lowering total shipments. The reference NIA scenario also accounted for
cross-price elasticity between top-loading and front-loading products
to analyze the respective market share of each product class as prices
change relative to one another.
The reference NIA scenario used historical data to derive a price
scaling index to forecast product costs. The MPCs and MSPs in the GRIM
use the default price forecast for all scenarios. See section IV.G.4
for a discussion of DOE's price forecasting methodology.
Markup Scenarios
MSP is equal to MPC times a manufacturer markup. The MSP includes
direct manufacturing production costs (i.e., labor, material, 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 baseline manufacturer markup, DOE evaluated
publicly available financial information for manufacturers of major
household appliances whose product offerings include residential
clothes washers. DOE also received feedback supporting the 1.22
baseline manufacturer markup during manufacturer interviews. In the
base case for all three GRIM markup scenarios, DOE assumed that the
products that meet the January 2011 ENERGY STAR criteria earn a
moderately higher manufacturer markup than ``baseline'' products that
fall below those efficiencies. Additionally, products that meet the CEE
Tier 2 and Tier 3 criteria earn an incrementally higher markup than
those that meet the 2011 ENERGY STAR criteria.
For the MIA, DOE modeled three standards-case markup scenarios to
represent the uncertainty regarding the potential impacts on prices and
profitability for manufacturers following the implementation of amended
energy conservation standards: (1) A no commoditization markup
scenario, (2) a tiered markup scenario, and (3) and a tiered markup
with margin pressure scenario. Modifying these markups from the base
case to the standards cases yields different sets of impacts on
manufacturers' changing industry revenue and cash flow.
The no commoditization scenario assumes that the base-case markup
structure (with baseline, ENERGY STAR, and CEE Tier 2 and Tier 3
markups) is maintained in the standards case. This scenario represents
the upper bound of industry profitability because manufacturers are
able to fully pass through additional costs from amended standards to
their customers. In addition to fully passing through higher production
costs, manufacturers continue to earn premium markups after standards
for products that are no longer differentiated by the ENERGY STAR and
CEE programs.
The tiered markup scenario also starts with the three different
product markups in the base case (baseline, ENERGY STAR, and CEE Tier 2
and Tier 3 markups). In the standards case, the tiered markup scenario
considers the situation in which the breadth of a manufacturer's
portfolio of products shrinks and amended standards result in higher-
tier products moving to lower tiers. As a result, higher efficiency
products that previously commanded the ENERGY STAR and CEE Tier 2 and
Tier 3 markups are assigned the ENERGY STAR and baseline markups,
respectively. This scenario models a reduction in markups that
manufacturers may experience as standards increase and reflects one of
the industry's key concerns about product commoditization at higher
efficiency levels as efficiency differentiators are eliminated.
DOE also modeled a lower bound profitability scenario. In the
tiered markup with margin pressure scenario, the markups of products
that exceed the minimum energy conservation standards similarly move to
lower efficiency tiers as standards eliminate current efficiency
differentiators. In this scenario, the manufacturer markups at the new
minimum standard are also lowered. For both top-loading and front-
loading clothes washers, manufacturers are able to maintain only the
operating profit of the baseline product in absolute dollars. For
products at the new minimum energy conservation standards, the higher
production costs and the investments required to comply with the
amended energy conservation standard do not yield additional operating
profit. This scenario models concerns that higher production costs for
minimally compliant products could greatly hurt manufacturer
profitability because a large segment of the market is greatly impacted
by increases in first costs and there would be tremendous

[[Page 32350]]

pressure to keep entry level products close to today's prices.
3. Discussion of Comments
During the framework public meeting, interested parties commented
on the assumptions and results of the manufacturer impacts presented in
the framework document. Commenters discussed several topics, including
the cumulative regulatory burden on manufacturers, manufacturer tax
credits, and manufacturer subgroups. DOE addresses these comments
below.
a. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
DOE requested comment in the framework document on other
regulations that it should consider in its examination of cumulative
regulatory burden. DOE received a number of comments from interested
parties.
AHAM stated that the International Association of Plumbing and
Manufacturing Officials (IAPMO) recently released a draft version of
``The Green Plumbing and Mechanical Model Supplement'' for comment. The
draft suggests that local municipalities may adopt a requirement for a
WF of 5.0 or less. AHAM commented that if this proposal moves forward,
it will introduce substantial additional regulatory burden for clothes
washer manufacturers, as these requirements are substantially lower
than 2011 ENERGY STAR levels. (AHAM, No. 15 at p. 5) Whirlpool stated
that the proliferation of green building standards from entities such
as the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), EPA, National Association
of Home Builders (NAHB), and now IAPMO, creates an additional burden on
manufacturers. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 7) Conversely, ASAP argued that
the IAPMO specifications referred to by AHAM are voluntary codes that
local communities can consider. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7
at p. 96) ASAP also commented that misapplying voluntary criteria in an
attempt to write local standards is a hazard regardless of efficiency
standards. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 96)
AHAM and GE stated that CEE Tiers continue to be raised in response
to DOE standards levels, and local municipalities may require a CEE
Tier rating for various incentives. In general, CEE Tiers are some
percentage of a DOE standard and do not have strong data to support the
levels. AHAM and GE commented that CEE Tiers may push the technology
beyond practical performance and/or price points. (AHAM, No. 16 at p.
5; AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 95; GE, No. 20 at p. 1)
ASAP commented that DOE is concerned with outside regulatory changes,
and the CEE Tiers Program is not a regulatory program. (ASAP, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 96)
For the cumulative regulatory burden, DOE attempts to quantify or
describe the impacts of other Federal regulations that have a
compliance date within approximately three years of the compliance date
of this rulemaking. While DOE describes voluntary programs that
influence the efficiency of clothes washers in the cumulative burden
and acknowledges that these programs can impact the product offerings
of residential clothes washer manufacturers, DOE does not quantify the
costs to comply with future voluntary programs because they are outside
the scope of the cumulative regulatory burden. DOE notes that a WF of
5.0 or less considered by IAPMO corresponds to the front-loading
standard size standards in the direct final rule and in the Joint
Petition for 2015. DOE also notes that 42 U.S.C. 6297 describes EPCA's
preemption of state and local regulation of appliance efficiency,
including such requirements in State or local building codes.
ALS commented on the cumulative regulatory burden of the
Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive already existing
in Europe and similar legislation that has been proposed in some states
in the United States. (ALS, No. 13 at p. 12) Whirlpool stated that DOE
should consider the increasing regulation of materials and RoHS
proposals in its analysis of residential clothes washers. (Whirlpool,
No. 22 at p. 7) AHAM commented that RoHS, and other hazardous substance
issues are substantial regulatory burdens that are accumulating on
manufacturers. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 165)
Most manufacturers of residential clothes washers that sell
products in the United States also sell products in the European Union
and must comply with the RoHS directive for those products sold in the
European Union. While the potential restrictions of other hazardous
substances and the potential for states to implement similar bans are
also concerns for manufacturers, there is currently no corresponding
Federal ban on many of the substances found in the RoHS directive.
Therefore, DOE does not account for RoHS compliance costs in its
calculation of product conversion costs.
AHAM stated that EPA is requiring the transition away from
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), a shift to which the home appliance
industry must devote resources. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7
at p. 165) In response, DOE notes that residential clothes washers do
not use HCFCs, and none of the design options analyzed by DOE would
require changes to clothes washers due to the EPA phase-out.
Several manufacturers commented on the burden imposed by UL
standards. ALS stated that a cumulative regulatory burden is imposed by
the revision of UL Standard 2158 for clothes dryer safety, which
requires fire containment test compliance by March 20, 2013. (ALS, No.
13 at p. 12) Whirlpool is concerned with the cumulative regulatory
burden of new UL standards on entrapment for both clothes washers and
dishwashers, new UL fire containment standards for clothes dryers, and
a number of other safety standards for both products and components
that are propagated by UL. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 7) AHAM stated that
there are several UL safety and functional standards that draw
resources from manufacturers. BSH stated that UL 2157 and UL 2158 have
been revised and present a regulatory burden to laundry appliance
manufacturers. (BSH, No. 11 at p. 5) Miele stated that UL 2157 may
require redesign of door lock mechanisms to prevent child entrapment,
and that a similar effort is underway for dishwashers. UL 2158 was just
revised, which, according to Miele will also cause a major redesign for
fire containment in clothes dryer manufacturers. (Miele, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 7 at p. 165)
In the clothes dryer rulemaking, DOE accounted for the conversion
costs for manufacturers to comply with the revisions to UL 2158 as
mentioned in the comments from interested parties. DOE notes that the
UL 2157 and 2158 are not Federal regulations. In contrast to the RoHS
Directive requirements discussed previously, UL certification is a de
facto requirement for selling products in the U.S. because many local
building codes require all installed products to meet safety
regulations. DOE has included the UL certification costs for both UL
2157 and UL 2158 as a sensitivity scenario in the GRIM, but does not
include the UL conversion costs in the main MIA results. Refer to
chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD for more information about how
DOE calculated the UL conversion costs.
AHAM, ALS, GE, and Whirlpool stated that the existing DOE
rulemakings for commercial clothes washer and residential clothes dryer
minimum standards represent a cumulative regulatory burden. Some of
these commenters added that the DOE refrigerator and room air
conditioner

[[Page 32351]]

rulemaking result in additional regulatory burdens. (AHAM, No. 16 at p.
6; AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 96; ALS, No. 13 at p.
12; GE, No. 20 at p. 1; Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 7)
DOE agrees that these rulemakings are a part of the cumulative
regulatory burden on manufacturers. DOE has attempted to quantify the
impact of the other DOE energy conservation standards that have a
compliance date within approximately three years of the compliance date
of this rulemaking in chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.
AHAM added that cumulative regulatory burden is made even more
demanding by the current economic conditions, and this rulemaking
should explicitly consider cumulative regulatory impact in the economic
justification analysis. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p.
96) PG&E stated that its understanding is that DOE compares the
standards-case impacts to the base-case impacts, so that events such as
the recession and other regulatory burdens that are independent of this
rulemaking would not be considered. (PG&E, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 7 at p. 167) ASAP questioned how DOE intends to deal with the
effects of the economic downturn and the potential recovery on shipment
forecasts, and whether there is some sort of consistent approach DOE is
considering with its other rulemakings. (ASAP, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 7 at p. 101)
DOE considers the cumulative regulatory burden on manufacturers as
part of its statutory criteria to justify any energy conservation
standard--the economic impact on manufacturers and consumers (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)). DOE considers the cumulative regulatory burden in
the qualitative part of its MIA analysis, though it attempts to
quantify the cumulative regulatory burden whenever possible. In the
MIA, DOE also modeled the impacts of amended energy conservation
standards on residential clothes washer manufacturers from base year to
the end of the analysis period (2011-2044). DOE used the most current
information that is publicly available in many of its estimates and
analyses, inputs that take the current economic downturn into
consideration. For example, DOE used financial parameters like standard
R&D to model the cash-flow impacts on the industry. To calculate the
estimates of the financial parameters used in the GRIMs, DOE examined
the latest six years of SEC 10-K data. These estimates were meant to
reflect the parameters that are representative of each industry over
the long-term and are not specifically attributable to current economic
conditions.
As in other rulemakings, DOE used AHAM data for historical
shipments. That data reflects the economic downturn for residential
products including clothes washers. DOE also considers standards-case
impacts with respect to the base case as part of the NIA (see section
IV.G.2).
b. Manufacturer Tax Credits
DOE requested input on any ``market pull'' programs, such as
manufacturer tax credits, that promote the adoption of more efficient
residential clothes washers.
ASAP stated that DOE should find an effective way to address the
effects of manufacturer tax incentives on conversion costs and the
production credits available under current law for the production of
high efficiency machines. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p.
83) The Joint Comment stated that DOE must fully account for the
effects of Federal production tax credits in the MIA. Federal
production tax credits for manufacturers of high efficiency appliances,
including residential clothes washers, were first enacted in 2005 and
then extended and expanded in 2008. The Joint Comment further stated
that production tax credits provided manufacturers with a substantial
incentive to continue to increase production of efficient front-loaders
and top-loaders through 2010. According to the Joint Comment, these tax
credits should substantially off-set the conversion capital
requirements and product conversion expenses of meeting higher
standards that are key inputs to the MIA. (Joint Comment, No. 15 at p.
7) Earthjustice commented that it would seem inconsistent to consider
the tax credits for purposes of the MIA, and not to also consider that
the tax credits may have an impact on the price of the product.
(Earthjustice, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 83) SCE
questioned whether DOE captures any positive manufacturer impacts due
to the standards rulemaking. (SCE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at
p. 166)
DOE considers all relevant manufacturer impacts, both positive and
negative. For example, DOE's analysis includes the effects of any
manufacturer production tax credits that may benefit certain
manufacturers. ASAP and the Joint Comment above refer to tax credits
that applied to residential clothes washers. However, these tax credits
expired in 2010. Because 2011 is the base year to which industry cash
flows are discounted on this rulemaking, any Federal production tax
credits received by the industry fall outside of the analysis period
and are not considered in the INPV analysis. While there are tax
credits in proposed legislation, DOE is not aware of any existing
Federal production tax credits that would substantially offset the
required conversion costs for manufacturers. Federal production tax
credits and other market pull programs such as ENERGY STAR and the CEE
Tiers have helped spur the development and acceptance of more efficient
products which DOE has accounted for in the market distribution of
current products in the base case. However, such tax credits and other
market pull programs would not substantially defray the capital
conversion costs required if all products were required to meet the
given efficiency.
c. Manufacturer Subgroups
DOE requested comment on appropriate manufacturer subgroups, if
any, that DOE should consider in its manufacturer subgroup analysis for
residential clothes washers. ALS suggested that low-volume
manufacturers with less than 5 percent market share, including itself,
be considered a manufacturer subgroup. (ALS, No. 13 at p. 12) ALS also
stated that it is a highly leveraged small company that doesn't have
the resources that the three major residential clothes washer
manufacturers do. (ALS, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 165)
AHAM stated that smaller niche manufacturers should be considered as a
manufacturer subgroup. AHAM commented that these manufacturers often
have less access to the newer technologies, and, in this economic
climate, have fewer resources available for research and development of
products. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 163) Whirlpool
stated that it is unaware of any manufacturer subgroups that would be
impacted differently from other manufacturers under this rulemaking.
(Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 10)
In the commercial clothes washers (CCW) final rule, DOE described
the disproportionate impacts on the Low Volume Manufacturer (LVM) in
the NOPR and TSD. DOE considered this manufacturer to be low-volume
because its annual shipments in the combined residential and CCW market
were significantly lower than those of its larger competitors. However,
unlike its larger rivals, most of the LVM's unit shipments were in the
CCW market, where the LVM had significant market share. Historically,
this company derived 22 percent of its total revenue from the sale of
front- and top-loading

[[Page 32352]]

clothes washers and 87 percent of that revenue was from the commercial
market. As a result, DOE believed that the LVM could be affected
disproportionately by any rulemaking concerning CCWs compared to its
competitors, for whom CCWs represent less than 2 percent of total
clothes washer sales. 75 FR 1122, 1137 (Jan. 8, 2010). However, DOE
does not believe that a Low Volume subgroup is warranted for
residential clothes washers because the CCW LVM has a small presence in
the residential clothes washer market and residential clothes washers
represent a small portion of overall clothes washer sales and a smaller
portion of total revenue. DOE also notes that ALS, AHAM, and many other
manufacturers signed the Joint Petition that included residential
clothes washer standards identical to those in today's direct final
rule. DOE also describes the potential impacts on the small business
manufacturer it identified in section VI.B but does not report impacts
on any other subgroups of manufacturers.
d. Miscellaneous
ASAP asked whether and how overseas manufacturers are engaged in
the manufacturer interview process. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 7 at p. 108)
DOE invited as many domestic and international clothes washer
manufacturers that sell products in the U.S. as it could identify to
participate in the rulemaking process. DOE considered inputs from and
interviewed the two international manufacturers that responded to its
requests for participation. DOE notes that one of these manufacturers
has domestic production.
4. Manufacturer Interviews
DOE interviewed manufacturers representing more than 80 percent of
residential clothes washer sales. These interviews were in addition to
those DOE conducted as part of the engineering analysis. DOE used these
interviews to tailor the GRIM to incorporate unique financial
characteristics of the industry. All interviews provided information
that DOE used to evaluate the impacts of potential amended energy
conservation standards on manufacturer cash flows, manufacturing
capacities, and employment levels. See appendix 12-A of the direct
final rule TSD for additional information on the MIA interviews. The
following sections describe the most significant issues identified by
manufacturers.
a. Potentially Large Conversion Costs
Manufacturers indicated that they were greatly concerned about the
potential for this rulemaking to require significant product and
capital conversion costs. Introducing new residential clothes washer
platforms involves very large upfront costs. These capital and product
development costs can be justified because a basic platform typically
undergoes incremental changes over a number design cycles and the
initial investment can be at least partially spread over all these
shipments. Many of the existing residential clothes washer platforms
have some designs options available that would necessitate only these
incremental types of changes. Substantially higher efficiencies,
however, could potentially necessitate a drum or cabinet capacity
change. In this case, rather than requiring alteration of the current
platform, the required changes would likely require design of a
completely new platform. A new platform would require replacing most
production equipment at a very large capital cost. Manufacturers also
indicated that these initial costs for a new basic platform could
result in a substantial shift in employment. Some manufacturers were
also concerned that devoting resources to efficiency improvements could
hurt their products in the market because these efforts could come at
the expense of other features.
b. Product Classes
Manufacturers were divided on the need to retain top-loading and
front-loading standard-size product classes. In general, manufacturers
who produce top-loading clothes washers favored retaining the two
distinct product classes. Manufacturers who produce only front-loading
clothes washers were less concerned with maintaining the method of
access as a product class distinction.
While all manufacturers agreed front-loading clothes washers are an
important product offering, many manufacturers also stated that top-
loading clothes washers are an important option for consumers because
they have lower cycle times, lower price points, lower installation
costs because they do not require a pedestal, are easier to load, are
easier to add garments mid-cycle, and have less vibration. Some
manufacturers in favor of maintaining the separate product classes also
stated that eliminating top-loading clothes washers would harm lower-
income customers who typically purchase baseline clothes washers. In
addition, because front-loading clothes washers are mature in the
marketplace, consumers are aware of the benefits of top-loading clothes
washers, high efficiency top-loading products, and front-loading
clothes washers and have the ability to choose higher efficiency
products in either configuration.
c. Wash Performance
Manufacturers were concerned that efficiency gains over time have
limited the potential to improve efficiency without negatively
impacting wash performance (and the consumer). Many manufacturers were
concerned that a test procedure that did not take a minimum wash
performance into consideration, coupled with a more stringent energy
conservation standard, could force manufacturers to limit water to a
level that would harm consumers. For example, over-sudsing could be
more commonplace. Also, water levels could be reduced to the point
where cold water would no longer sufficiently clean clothes. Either one
of these issues would result in lost energy savings as consumers either
rewashed clothes or no longer selected cold water wash cycles.
Consequently, many manufacturers supported adding a performance metric
to the test procedure to ensure that consumers would genuinely benefit
from improved efficiency.
d. Tub Capacity Measurement
Many manufacturers mentioned that different companies use
inconsistent approaches in measuring tub capacity. While manufacturers
offered slightly different suggestions for how to measure capacity,
most were supportive of eliminating the ambiguity. Manufacturers hoped
this issue would be resolved before the implementation of these amended
energy conservation standards because the modified energy factor and
water factor calculations are dependent on measured capacity.
e. ENERGY STAR
Manufacturers stated that the ENERGY STAR program is also a part of
their overall energy strategy. To be competitive, many manufacturers
must take ENERGY STAR levels into consideration when designing new
clothes washers. One manufacturer mentioned that the costs associated
with designing new products to meet ENERGY STAR levels were not
reflected in DOE's incremental cost tables.
Another manufacturer mentioned that ENERGY STAR is an important
purchasing decision, especially in the front-loading clothes washer
market. The manufacturer expressed concern

[[Page 32353]]

that standards that are too aggressive could put the future of the
ENERGY STAR program for residential clothes washers in jeopardy. In
turn, that could impact local rebates that enable manufacturers to
offer products that meet the minimum efficiency standards.

J. Employment Impact Analysis

DOE considers employment impacts in the domestic economy as one
factor in selecting a proposed standard. Employment impacts include
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 jobs created or eliminated in the national economy,
other than in the manufacturing sector being regulated, due to: (1)
Reduced spending by end users on energy; (2) reduced spending on new
energy supply by the utility industry; (3) increased consumer spending
on the purchase of new products; 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.\35\ 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, based
on the BLS data alone, DOE believes net national employment may
increase because of shifts in economic activity resulting from amended
standards for clothes washers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ See Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Multipliers: A
User Handbook for the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS
II). Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the standard levels considered in today's direct final rule,
DOE estimated indirect national employment impacts using an input/
output model of the U.S. economy called Impact of Sector Energy
Technologies version 3.1.1 (ImSET). 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 the 187 sectors. ImSET's national economic I-O
structure is based on a 2002 U.S. benchmark table, specially aggregated
to the 187 sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, and
residential building energy use. DOE notes that ImSET is not a general
equilibrium forecasting model. Given the relatively small change to
expenditures due to energy conservation standards and the resulting
small changes to employment, however, DOE believes that the size of any
forecast error caused by using ImSET will be small.
For more details on the employment impact analysis, see chapter 13
of the direct final rule TSD.

K. Utility Impact Analysis

The utility impact analysis estimates several important effects on
the utility industry of the adoption of new or amended standards. For
this analysis, DOE used the NEMS-BT model to generate forecasts of
electricity consumption, electricity generation by plant type, and
electric generating capacity by plant type, that would result from each
TSL. DOE obtained the energy savings inputs associated with efficiency
improvements to considered products from the NIA. DOE conducts the
utility impact analysis as a scenario that departs from the latest AEO
Reference case. In the analysis for today's rule, the estimated impacts
of standards are the differences between values forecasted by NEMS-BT
and the values in the AEO2010 Reference case.
As part of the utility impact analysis, DOE used NEMS-BT to assess
the impacts on electricity prices of the reduced need for new electric
power plants and infrastructure projected to result from the considered
standards. In NEMS-BT, changes in power generation infrastructure
affect utility revenue requirements, which in turn affect electricity
prices. DOE estimated the change in electricity prices projected to
result over time from each TSL. For further discussion, see section
IV.G.5. For more details on the utility impact analysis, see chapter 14
of the direct final rule TSD.
In the framework document, DOE requested comment on the utility
impact analysis, and in response received several comments from
efficiency advocates and utilities. The California Utilities
recommended that DOE evaluate how the standard will affect water and
wastewater utilities, including their water infrastructure
requirements. (California Utilities, No. 19 at p. 6) The Joint Comment
stated that a new standard has the potential to have a substantial
impact on the capital and operating cost profiles of water and
wastewater utilities over the thirty-year period of analysis. (Joint
Comment, No. 15 at p. 8)
DOE acknowledges that clothes washer standards could affect water
and wastewater utilities. However, to analyze water and wastewater
utility impacts, an analytical tool comparable to NEMS would be needed
to account properly for the nationwide effects of standards on water
and wastewater delivery and treatment. At this time, DOE does not have
such a tool or access to any other means to quantify the water and
wastewater utility impacts from potential clothes washer standards.

L. Emissions Analysis

In the emissions analysis, DOE estimated the reduction in power
sector emissions of CO2, NOX, and Hg from amended
energy conservation standards for clothes washers. DOE used the NEMS-BT
computer model, which is run similarly to the AEO NEMS, except that
clothes washer energy use is reduced by the amount of energy saved (by
fuel type) due to each TSL. The inputs of national energy savings come
from the NIA spreadsheet model, while the output is the forecasted
physical emissions. The net benefit of each TSL is the difference
between the forecasted emissions estimated by NEMS-BT at each TSL and
the AEO2010 Reference Case. NEMS-BT tracks CO2 emissions
using a detailed module that provides results with broad coverage of
all sectors and inclusion of interactive effects. For today's rule, DOE
used the version of NEMS-BT based on AEO2010, which incorporated
projected effects of all emissions regulations promulgated as of Jan.
31, 2010.

[[Page 32354]]

SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units
(EGUs) are subject to nationwide and regional emissions cap and trading
programs, and DOE has determined that these programs create uncertainty
about the impact of energy conservation standards on SO2
emissions. 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 (DC). SO2 emissions from 28 eastern
States and DC are also limited under the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR, 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), which created an allowance-based
trading program that would gradually replace the Title IV program in
those States and DC. Although CAIR was remanded to EPA by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit),
see North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008), it remained
in effect temporarily, consistent with the D.C. Circuit's earlier
opinion in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On
July 6, 2010, EPA issued the Transport Rule proposal, a replacement for
CAIR. 75 FR 45210 (Aug. 2, 2010). On July 6, 2011 EPA issued a
replacement for CAIR, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. 76 FR 48208
(August 8, 2011). (See http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/). On December
30, 2011, however, the D.C. Circuit stayed the new rules while a panel
of judges reviews them, and told EPA to continue enforcing CAIR (see
EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, No. 11-1302, Order at *2 (D.C. Cir.
Dec. 30, 2011)). The AEO2010 NEMS-BT used for today's direct final rule
assumes the implementation of CAIR.
The attainment of emissions caps typically is flexible among EGUs
and is enforced through the use of emissions allowances and tradable
permits. Under existing EPA regulations, any excess SO2
emissions allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand caused
by the imposition of an efficiency standard could be used to permit
offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by any regulated EGU.
However, if the standard resulted in a permanent increase in the
quantity of unused emissions allowances, there would be an overall
reduction in SO2 emissions from the standards. While there
remains some uncertainty about the ultimate effects of efficiency
standards on SO2 emissions covered by the existing cap-and-
trade system, the NEMS-BT modeling system that DOE uses to forecast
emissions reductions currently indicates that no physical reductions in
power sector emissions would occur for SO2.
As discussed above, the AEO2010 NEMS-BT used for today's NOPR
assumes the implementation of CAIR, which established a cap on
NOX emissions in 28 eastern States and the District of
Columbia. With CAIR in effect, the energy conservation standards for
clothes washers are expected to have little or no physical effect on
NOX emissions in those States covered by CAIR, for the same
reasons that they may have little effect on SO2 emissions.
However, the standards would be expected to reduce NOX
emissions in the 22 States not affected by CAIR. For these 22 States,
DOE used the NEMS-BT to estimate NOX emissions reductions
from the standards considered in today's direct final rule.
On December 21, 2011, EPA announced national emissions standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs) for mercury and certain other
pollutants emitted from coal and oil-fired EGUs. 76 FR 24976. The
NESHAPs do not include emissions caps and, as such, DOE's energy
conservation standards would likely reduce Hg emissions. For the
emissions analysis for this rulemaking, DOE estimated mercury emissions
reductions using NEMS-BT based on AEO2010, which does not incorporate
the NESHAPs. DOE expects that future versions of the NEMS-BT model will
reflect the implementation of the NESHAPs.

M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

As part of the development of this direct final rule, DOE
considered the estimated monetary benefits likely to result from the
reduced emissions of CO2 and NOX that are
expected to result from each of the considered TSLs. In order to make
this calculation similar 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 forecast period for each TSL.
This section summarizes the basis for the monetary values used for each
of these emissions and presents the benefits estimates considered.
For today's direct final rule, DOE is relying on a set of values
for the social cost of carbon (SCC) that was developed by an
interagency process. A summary of the basis for these values is
provided below, and a more detailed description of the methodologies
used is provided in appendix 15-A of the direct final rule TSD.
1. Social Cost of Carbon
Under Executive Order 12866, agencies must, to the extent permitted
by law, ``assess both the costs and the benefits of the intended
regulation and, recognizing that some costs and benefits are difficult
to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs.'' The purpose of the SCC estimates presented here is to allow
agencies to incorporate the monetized social benefits of reducing
CO2 emissions into cost-benefit analyses of regulatory
actions that have small, or ``marginal,'' impacts on cumulative global
emissions. The estimates are presented with an acknowledgement of the
many uncertainties involved and with a clear understanding that they
should be updated over time to reflect increasing knowledge of the
science and economics of climate impacts.
As part of the interagency process that developed these SCC
estimates, technical experts from numerous agencies met on a regular
basis to consider public comments, explore the technical literature in
relevant fields, and discuss key model inputs and assumptions. The main
objective of this process was to develop a range of SCC values using a
defensible set of input assumptions grounded in the existing scientific
and economic literatures. In this way, key uncertainties and model
differences transparently and consistently inform the range of SCC
estimates used in the rulemaking process.
a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
The SCC is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an
incremental increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is
intended to include (but is not limited to) changes in net agricultural
productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk,
and the value of ecosystem services. Estimates of the SCC are provided
in dollars per metric ton of carbon dioxide.
When attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of
carbon dioxide emissions, the analyst faces a number of serious
challenges. A recent report from the National Research Council \36\
points out that any assessment will suffer from uncertainty,
speculation, and lack of information about (1) future emissions of
greenhouse gases, (2) the effects of past and future emissions on the
climate system, (3) the impact of changes in climate on the physical
and biological environment,

[[Page 32355]]

and (4) the translation of these environmental impacts into economic
damages. As a result, any effort to quantify and monetize the harms
associated with climate change will raise serious questions of science,
economics, and ethics and should be viewed as provisional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ National Research Council. Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced
Consequences of Energy Production and Use. National Academies Press:
Washington, DC. 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite the serious limits of both quantification and monetization,
SCC estimates can be useful in estimating the social benefits of
reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Consistent with the directive quoted
above, the purpose of the SCC estimates presented here is to make it
possible for agencies to incorporate the social benefits from reducing
carbon dioxide emissions into cost-benefit analyses of regulatory
actions that have small, or ``marginal,'' impacts on cumulative global
emissions. Most Federal regulatory actions can be expected to have
marginal impacts on global emissions.
For such policies, the agency can estimate the benefits from
reduced (or costs from increased) emissions in any future year by
multiplying the change in emissions in that year by the SCC value
appropriate for that year. The net present value of the benefits can
then be calculated by multiplying each of these future benefits by an
appropriate discount factor and summing across all affected years. This
approach assumes that the marginal damages from increased emissions are
constant for small departures from the baseline emissions path, an
approximation that is reasonable for policies that have effects on
emissions that are small relative to cumulative global carbon dioxide
emissions. For policies that have a large (non-marginal) impact on
global cumulative emissions, there is a separate question of whether
the SCC is an appropriate tool for calculating the benefits of reduced
emissions. This concern is not applicable to this notice, and DOE does
not attempt to answer that question here.
At the time of the preparation of this notice, the most recent
interagency estimates of the potential global benefits resulting from
reduced CO2 emissions in 2010, expressed in 2010$, were
$4.9, $22.3, $36.5, and $67.6 per metric ton avoided. For emission
reductions that occur in later years, these values grow in real terms
over time. Additionally, the interagency group determined that a range
of values from 7 percent to 23 percent should be used to adjust the
global SCC to calculate domestic effects,\37\ although preference is
given to consideration of the global benefits of reducing
CO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ It is recognized that this calculation for domestic values
is approximate, provisional, and highly speculative. There is no a
priori reason why domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of
net global damages over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is important to emphasize that the interagency process is
committed to updating these estimates as the science and economic
understanding of climate change and its impacts on society improves
over time. Specifically, the interagency group has set a preliminary
goal of revisiting the SCC values within 2 years or at such time as
substantially updated models become available, and to continue to
support research in this area. In the meantime, the interagency group
will continue to explore the issues raised by this analysis and
consider public comments as part of the ongoing interagency process.
b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in Past Regulatory Analyses
To date, economic analyses for Federal regulations have used a wide
range of values to estimate the benefits associated with reducing
carbon dioxide emissions. In the final model year 2011 CAFE rule, the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) used both a ``domestic'' SCC
value of $2 per ton of CO2 and a ``global'' SCC value of $33
per ton of CO2 for 2007 emission reductions (in 2007$),
increasing both values at 2.4 percent per year.\38\ DOT also included a
sensitivity analysis at $80 per ton of CO2. See Average Fuel
Economy Standards Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Model Year 2011, 74
FR 14196 (March 30, 2009) (Final Rule); Final Environmental Impact
Statement Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and
Light Trucks, Model Years 2011-2015 at 3-90 (Oct. 2008) (Available at:
www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy). A domestic SCC value is meant to reflect
the value of damages in the United States resulting from a unit change
in carbon dioxide emissions, while a global SCC value is meant to
reflect the value of damages worldwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ Throughout this section, references to tons of
CO2 refer to metric tons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A 2008 regulation proposed by DOT assumed a domestic SCC value of
$7 per ton of CO2 (in 2006$) for 2011 emission reductions
(with a range of $0-$14 for sensitivity analysis), also increasing at
2.4 percent per year. See Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger
Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2011-2015, 73 FR 24352 (May 2, 2008)
(Proposed Rule); Draft Environmental Impact Statement Corporate Average
Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years
2011-2015 at 3-58 (June 2008) (Available at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy). A regulation for packaged terminal air conditioners and
packaged terminal heat pumps finalized by DOE in October of 2008 used a
domestic SCC range of $0 to $20 per ton CO2 for 2007
emission reductions (in 2007$), 73 FR 58772, 58814 (Oct. 7, 2008). In
addition, EPA's 2008 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for
Greenhouse Gases identified what it described as ``very preliminary''
SCC estimates subject to revision. See Regulating Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Under the Clean Air Act, 73 FR 44354 (July 30, 2008). EPA's
global mean values were $68 and $40 per ton CO2 for discount
rates of approximately 2 percent and 3 percent, respectively (in 2006$
for 2007 emissions).
In 2009, an interagency process was initiated to offer a
preliminary assessment of how best to quantify the benefits from
reducing carbon dioxide emissions. To ensure consistency in how
benefits are evaluated across agencies, the Administration sought to
develop a transparent and defensible method, specifically designed for
the rulemaking process, to quantify avoided climate change damages from
reduced CO2 emissions. The interagency group did not
undertake any original analysis. Instead, it combined SCC estimates
from the existing literature to use as interim values until a more
comprehensive analysis could be conducted. The outcome of the
preliminary assessment by the interagency group was a set of five
interim values: Global SCC estimates for 2007 (in 2006 dollars) of $55,
$33, $19, $10, and $5 per ton of CO2. These interim values
represent the first sustained interagency effort within the U.S.
government to develop an SCC for use in regulatory analysis. The
results of this preliminary effort were presented in several proposed
and final rules and were offered for public comment in connection with
proposed rules, including the joint EPA-DOT fuel economy and
CO2 tailpipe emission proposed rules.
c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions
Since the release of the interim values, the interagency group
reconvened on a regular basis to generate improved SCC estimates, which
were used in this direct final rule. Specifically, the group considered
public comments and further explored the technical literature in
relevant fields. The interagency group relied on three integrated
assessment models (IAMs) commonly used to estimate the SCC: The FUND,
DICE, and PAGE

[[Page 32356]]

models.\39\ These models are frequently cited in the peer-reviewed
literature and were used in the last assessment of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Each model was given equal
weight in the SCC values that were developed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ The models are described in appendix 15-A of the direct
final rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Each model takes a slightly different approach to model how changes
in emissions result in changes in economic damages. A key objective of
the interagency process was to enable a consistent exploration of the
three models while respecting the different approaches to quantifying
damages taken by the key modelers in the field. An extensive review of
the literature was conducted to select three sets of input parameters
for these models: Climate sensitivity, socio-economic and emissions
trajectories, and discount rates. A probability distribution for
climate sensitivity was specified as an input into all three models. In
addition, the interagency group used a range of scenarios for the
socio-economic parameters and a range of values for the discount rate.
All other model features were left unchanged, relying on the model
developers' best estimates and judgments.
The interagency group selected four SCC values for use in
regulatory analyses. Three values are based on the average SCC from
three integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5
percent. The fourth value, which represents the 95th percentile SCC
estimate across all three models at a 3-percent discount rate, is
included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from temperature
change further out in the tails of the SCC distribution.

Table IV-21--Social Cost of CO2, 2010-2050
[In 2007 dollars per metric ton]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Avg 3% Avg 2.5% Avg 3% 95th
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010.................................... 4.7 21.4 35.1 64.9
2015.................................... 5.7 23.8 38.4 72.8
2020.................................... 6.8 26.3 41.7 80.7
2025.................................... 8.2 29.6 45.9 90.4
2030.................................... 9.7 32.8 50.0 100.0
2035.................................... 11.2 36.0 54.2 109.7
2040.................................... 12.7 39.2 58.4 119.3
2045.................................... 14.2 42.1 61.7 127.8
2050.................................... 15.7 44.9 65.0 136.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is important to recognize that a number of key uncertainties
remain, and that current SCC estimates should be treated as provisional
and revisable since they will evolve with improved scientific and
economic understanding. The interagency group also recognizes that the
existing models are imperfect and incomplete. The National Research
Council report mentioned above points out that there is tension between
the goal of producing quantified estimates of the economic damages from
an incremental ton of carbon and the limits of existing efforts to
model these effects. There are a number of concerns and problems that
should be addressed by the research community, including research
programs housed in many of the agencies participating in the
interagency process to estimate the SCC.
DOE recognizes the uncertainties embedded in the estimates of the
SCC used for cost-benefit analyses. As such, DOE and others in the U.S.
Government intend to periodically review and reconsider those estimates
to reflect increasing knowledge of the science and economics of climate
impacts, as well as improvements in modeling. In this context,
statements recognizing the limitations of the analysis and calling for
further research take on exceptional significance.
In summary, in considering the potential global benefits resulting
from reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the most recent values
identified by the interagency process, adjusted to 2010$ using the GDP
price deflator. For each of the four cases specified, the values used
for emissions in 2010 were $4.9, $22.3, $36.5, and $67.6 per metric ton
avoided (values expressed in 2010$).\40\ To monetize the CO2
emissions reductions expected to result from amended standards for
clothes washers, DOE used the values identified in Table A1 of the
``Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive
Order 12866,'' which is reprinted in appendix 16-A of the direct final
rule TSD, appropriately adjusted to 2010$. 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 SCC values in each case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ Table A1 presents SCC values through 2050. For DOE's
calculation, it derived values after 2050 using the 3-percent per
year escalation rate used by the interagency group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenting on the framework document, Whirlpool stated that
CO2 emissions should not be monetized because the market
value cannot be readily determined, the impact is negligible, and it is
already included in energy savings. (Whirlpool, No. 22 at p. 6) DOE
acknowledges that the market value of future CO2 emissions
reductions is uncertain, and for this reason it uses a wide range of
potential values, as described above. The impact of revised standards
clothes washers on future CO2 emissions, described in
section V.B.6 of this notice, is not negligible. In addition, the value
of CO2 emissions reductions is not included in energy cost
savings because the energy prices that DOE used to calculate those
savings do not include any taxes or other charges to account for the
CO2 emissions associated with the use of electricity or
natural gas by residential clothes washers.
2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions
DOE investigated the potential monetary benefit of reduced
NOX emissions from the TSLs it considered. As noted above,
amended energy conservation standards would reduce NOX
emissions in those 22 States that are not affected by the CAIR, in
addition to the reduction in site NOX emissions nationwide.
DOE estimated the monetized value of NOX emissions

[[Page 32357]]

reductions resulting from each of the TSLs considered for today's
direct final rule based on environmental damage estimates from the
literature. Available estimates suggest a very wide range of monetary
values, ranging from $370 per ton to $3,800 per ton of NOX
from stationary sources, measured in 2001$ (equivalent to a range of
$450 to $4,623 per ton in 2010$).\41\ In accordance with OMB guidance,
DOE conducted two calculations of the monetary benefits derived using
each of the economic values used for NOX, one using a real
discount rate of 3 percent and another using a real discount rate of 7
percent.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ For additional information, refer to U.S. Office of
Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
2006 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal
Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal
Entities. 2006. Washington, DC.
\42\ OMB, Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 17, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE is aware of multiple agency efforts to determine the
appropriate range of values used in evaluating the potential economic
benefits of reduced Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await further
guidance regarding consistent valuation and reporting of Hg emissions
before it once again monetizes Hg in its rulemakings.

V. Analytical Results

The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses
with respect to potential energy conservation standards for residential
clothes washers of this rulemaking. It addresses the TSLs examined by
DOE, the projected impacts of each of these levels if adopted as energy
conservation standards for clothes washers, and the standards levels
that DOE sets forth in today's direct final rule. Additional details
regarding DOE's analyses are contained in the publicly available direct
final rule TSD supporting this notice.

A. Trial Standard Levels

DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of a number of TSLs for
residential clothes washers, the products that are the subject of
today's direct final rule. Each TSL DOE analyzed is described below.
DOE attempted to limit the number of TSLs considered for the final rule
by excluding efficiency levels that do not exhibit significantly
different economic and/or engineering characteristics from the
efficiency levels already selected as a TSL. Although DOE presents the
results for only those efficiency levels in TSL combinations in today's
final rule, DOE presents the results for all efficiency levels that it
analyzed in the final rule TSD.
Table V-1 presents the TSLs and the corresponding product class
efficiency levels for clothes washers.
For standard-size products, TSL 1 consists of the efficiency levels
that are two levels above the baseline levels (which are considered
Efficiency Level 0). TSL 2 represents an intermediary point between the
efficiency levels chosen for TSL 1 and the efficiency levels
recommended in the Joint Petition. TSL 3 consists of the efficiency
levels recommended in the Joint Petition. In the case of TSL 3, for
top-loading standard clothes washers, one set of values would apply
starting in 2015, and another set would apply starting in 2018. TSL 4
consists of the efficiency levels that are one level below the max-tech
efficiency levels. TSL 5 consists of the max-tech efficiency levels.
For top-loading compacts, TSL 1, TSL 2 and the 2015 level of TSL 3
consists of Efficiency Level 1, and TSL 4 and TSL 5 and the 2018 level
of TSL 3 consist of Efficiency Level 2. For front-loading compacts, all
TSLs consist of Efficiency Level 1.

Table V-1--Trial Standard Levels for Residential Clothes Washers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-loading standard Front-loading standard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL Efficiency IMEF ft\3\/kWh/ Efficiency IMEF ft\3\/kWh/
level cycle Standby W level cycle Standby W
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... 2 1.29 0.00 2 1.41 0.08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2....................................................... 5 1.37 0.08 4 1.66 0.08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 *..................................................... 2 1.29 0.00 5 1.84 0.08
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 **.................................................... 6 1.57 0.08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4....................................................... 7 1.83 0.08 7 2.20 0.08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5....................................................... 8 2.04 0.08 8 2.46 0.08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-loading compact
Front-loading compact
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... 1 0.86 0.00 1 1.13 0.08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2....................................................... 1 0.86 0.00 1 1.13 0.08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 *..................................................... 1 0.86 0.00 1 1.13 0.08
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 **.................................................... 2 1.15 2.30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4....................................................... 2 1.15 2.30 1 1.13 0.08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5....................................................... 2 1.15 2.30 1 1.13 0.08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 2015 levels.
** 2018 levels.

[[Page 32358]]

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Consumers affected by new or amended standards usually experience
higher purchase prices and lower operating costs. Generally, the
impacts on individual consumers are best captured by changes in life-
cycle cost (LCC) and by the payback period (PBP). Therefore, DOE
calculated the LCC and PBP analyses for the potential standard levels
considered in this rulemaking. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses provided key
outputs for each TSL, which are reported by clothes washer product
class in Table V-2 through Table V-5. Each table includes the average
total LCC and the average LCC savings, as well as the fraction of
product consumers for which the LCC will decrease (net benefit),
increase (net cost), or exhibit no change (no impact) relative to the
base-case forecast. The last column in the tables contains the median
PBP for the consumer purchasing a design that complies with the TSL.
DOE presents the median PBP because it is the most statistically robust
measure of the PBP. The results for each potential standard level are
relative to the efficiency distribution in the base case (no amended
standards). DOE based the LCC and PBP analyses on the range of energy
consumption under conditions of actual product use.

Table V-2--LCC and PBP Results for Top-Loading Standard Clothes Washers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost 2010$ LCC Savings Payback
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- period
TSL IMEF Discounted Average Percent of households that experience years
Installed operating LCC savings ---------------------------------------------------
cost cost 2010$ Net cost No impact Net benefit Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................. 1.29 425 1,317 1,743 268 0.7 19.5 79.8 0.4
2.................................. 1.37 433 1,340 1,773 243 5.6 15.1 79.3 0.7
3 *................................ 1.29 425 1,317 1,743 268 0.7 19.5 79.8 0.4
3 **............................... 1.57 448 1,182 1,630 366 3.4 14.1 82.5 0.9
4.................................. 1.83 496 1,003 1,499 491 8.1 4.6 87.4 1.8
5.................................. 2.04 508 958 1,466 524 9.5 0.0 90.5 1.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 2015 levels.
** 2018 levels.

Table V-3--LCC and PBP Results for Front-Loading Standard Clothes Washers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost 2010$ LCC Savings Payback
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- period
TSL IMEF Discounted Average Percent of households that experience years
Installed operating LCC savings ---------------------------------------------------
cost cost 2010$ Net cost No impact Net benefit Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................. 1.41 867 1,214 2,081 0 0.0 100.0 0.0 NA
2.................................. 1.66 874 1,088 1,961 2.2 0.1 96.0 3.9 0.9
3.................................. 1.84 888 946 1,835 37 1.5 72.4 26.1 1.3
4.................................. 2.20 938 900 1,838 35 45.1 11.6 43.3 9.2
5.................................. 2.46 964 807 1,771 102 29.6 0.0 70.4 5.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table V-4--LCC and PBP Results for Top-Loading Compact Clothes Washers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost 2010$ LCC Savings Payback
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- period
TSL IMEF Discounted Average Percent of households that experience years
Installed operating LCC savings ---------------------------------------------------
cost cost 2010$ Net cost No impact Net benefit Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................. 0.86 426 988 1,414 159 1.5 0.0 98.5 0.5
2.................................. 0.86 426 988 1,414 159 1.5 0.0 98.5 0.5
3 *................................ 0.86 426 988 1,414 159 1.5 0.0 98.5 0.5
3 **............................... 1.15 480 781 1,261 312 12.6 0.0 87.4 2.1
4.................................. 1.15 480 781 1,261 312 12.6 0.0 87.4 2.1
5.................................. 1.15 480 781 1,261 312 12.6 0.0 87.4 2.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 2015 levels.
** 2018 levels.

Table V-5--LCC and PBP Results for Front-Loading Compact Clothes Washers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost 2010$ LCC Savings Payback
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- period
TSL IMEF Discounted Average Percent of households that experience years
Installed operating LCC savings ---------------------------------------------------
cost cost 2010$ Net cost No impact Net benefit Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................. 1.13 865 694 1,559 54 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.8
2.................................. 1.13 865 694 1,559 54 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.8
3.................................. 1.13 865 694 1,559 54 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.8
4.................................. 1.13 865 694 1,559 54 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.8

[[Page 32359]]

5.................................. 1.13 865 694 1,559 54 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Consumer Sub-Group Analysis
As described in section IV.H, DOE determined the impact of the
considered TSLs on low-income households and senior-only households.
Table V-6 compares the average LCC savings at each efficiency level for
the two consumer subgroups, along with the average LCC savings for the
entire sample for each product class for clothes washers. For compacts,
DOE also analyzed impacts on multi-family consumers, since they are
most likely to use compact washers. In general, the average LCC savings
for low-income households and senior-only households at the considered
efficiency levels are not substantially different from the average for
all households. Chapter 11 of the direct final rule TSD presents the
complete LCC and PBP results for the consumer subgroups.

Table V-6--Clothes Washers: Comparison of Average LCC Savings for Consumer Subgroups and All Households
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-loading standard Front-loading standard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL Low- Low-
IMEF Senior income All IMEF Senior income All
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 1.29 163 240 268 1.41 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2....................................... 1.37 142 203 243 1.66 1.3 2.5 2.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 *..................................... 1.29 163 240 268 1.84 22 36 37
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4....................................... 1.83 275 437 491 2.20 6.0 39 35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5....................................... 2.04 291 466 524 2.46 38 109 102
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Top-loading compact Front-loading compact
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL Low- Multi- Low- Multi-
IMEF Senior income family All IMEF Senior income family All
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................. 0.86 99 150 127 159 1.13 41 57 48 54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2............................................................. 0.86 99 150 127 159 1.13 41 57 48 54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 *........................................................... 0.86 99 150 127 159 1.13 41 57 48 54
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 **.......................................................... 1.15 163 275 227 312 1.13 ....... ....... ....... .......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4............................................................. 1.15 163 275 227 312 1.13 41 57 48 54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5............................................................. 1.15 163 275 227 312 1.13 41 57 48 54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Refers to 2015 levels for top-loading washers.
** Refers to 2018 levels for top-loading washers.

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
As discussed above, EPCA provides 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
the considered standard levels, DOE used discrete values rather than
distributions for input values, and, as required by EPCA, based the
energy use calculation on the DOE test procedures for residential
clothes washers. As a result, DOE calculated a single rebuttable
presumption payback value, and not a distribution of payback periods,
for each efficiency level. Table V-7 presents the average rebuttable
presumption payback periods for those efficiency levels where the
increased purchase cost for a product that meets a standard at that
level is less than three times the value of the first-year energy
savings resulting from the standard.

[[Page 32360]]

Table V-7--Clothes Washers: Efficiency Levels Having Rebuttable PBPs Less Than Three Years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-loading standard Front-loading standard Top-loading compact Front-loading compact
TSL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMEF PBP years IMEF PBP years IMEF PBP years IMEF PBP years
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................... 1.29 0.7 1.41 0.3 0.86 0.30 1.13 0.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.................................... 1.37 0.8 1.66 0.7 0.86 0.30 1.13 0.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 *.................................. 1.29 0.7 1.84 0.5 0.86 0.30 1.13 0.7
---------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------
3 **................................. 1.57 1.7 ........... ........... 1.15 1.31 1.13 0.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.................................... 1.83 2.1 2.20 1.1 1.15 1.31 1.13 0.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.................................... 2.04 2.2 2.46 1.2 1.15 1.31 1.13 0.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Refers to 2015 levels for top-loading washers.
** Refers to 2018 levels for top-loading washers.

While DOE examined the rebuttable-presumption criterion, it
considered whether the standard levels considered for today's rule 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). The
results of that analysis serve as the basis for DOE to evaluate the
economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby
supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of
economic justification).
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of amended energy
conservation standards on manufacturers of residential clothes washers.
The section below describes the expected impacts on manufacturers at
each TSL. Chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD explains the analysis
in further detail.
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
The tables below depict the financial impacts on manufacturers
(represented by changes in INPV) and the conversion costs DOE estimates
manufacturers would incur at each TSL. Each set of results below shows
INPV impacts under a different set of assumptions: The first table
reflects the lower (least severe) bound of impacts and the third table
represents the upper (most severe) bound. As described in section IV.I,
DOE modeled three different scenarios using different markup
assumptions to evaluate this range of cash-flow impacts on the
industry. These assumptions correspond to the bounds of a range of
market responses that DOE anticipates could occur in the standards
case. Each scenario results in a unique set of cash flows and
corresponding industry value at each TSL.
The INPV results refer to the difference in industry value between
the base case and the standards case, which DOE calculated by summing
the discounted industry cash flows from the base year (2011) through
the end of the analysis period. The discussion also notes the
difference in cash flow between the base case and the standards case in
the year before the compliance date of potential amended energy
conservation standards. This figure provides a proxy for the magnitude
of the required conversion costs relative to the cash flow generated by
the industry in the base case.
To assess the lower end of the range of potential impacts on the
residential clothes washer industry, DOE modeled the no commoditization
markup scenario. The no commoditization scenario assumes that the
baseline manufacturer markup structure does not change in the standards
case. In this scenario, the higher markup for the 2011 ENERGY STAR
level and the additional markup for CEE Tier 2 and Tier 3 products
continue in the standards case. This scenario also assumes that
manufacturers would be able to fully pass the higher production costs
required for more efficient products on to their customers in the
standards case. In general, the more standards reduce the ability to
differentiate on efficiency and the larger the product price increases,
the less likely manufacturers are to achieve the cash flow from
operations calculated in this scenario because the less likely it is
that manufacturers would be able to fully mark up these larger cost
increases.
DOE also assessed two tiered markup scenarios, the tiered markup
scenario and the tiered markup scenario with margin impacts. The latter
represents the upper bound of the range of potential impacts on the
industry. In the standards case, both tiered markup scenarios consider
the situation in which the breadth of a manufacturer's portfolio of
products shrinks as amended standards result in the elimination of
lower efficiency tiers from the market and the erosion of premium
markups for higher-tier products. These scenarios model a reduction in
markups that manufacturers may experience under more stringent amended
energy conservation standards as premium products earn the same markups
previously held by lower efficiency tiers. In the tiered markup
scenario with margin impacts, no additional operating profit is earned
on the higher production costs of products that meet the minimum energy
conservation standard in the standards case, eroding profit margins as
a percentage of total revenue. In addition, as base-case efficiency
differentiators are eliminated in the standards case, products that
previously earned a premium markup move to lower efficiency markup
tiers.
DOE used the reference NIA shipment scenario for all MIA scenarios
used to characterize the potential INPV impacts. The shipment forecast
is an important driver of the INPV results below (Table V-8 through
Table V-10). The reference NIA shipment scenario includes two
elasticity effects: (1) A relative price elasticity, which assumes
higher product prices in the standards case result in lower shipments,
and, in turn, lower industry revenue and INPV and (2) a cross-price
elasticity, which changes the relative market share of top-loading and
front-loading clothes washers as price increases alter their relative
costs to consumers. The reference NIA shipment scenario also includes
the default price forecast as described in chapter 10 of the direct
final rule TSD.

[[Page 32361]]

Table V-8--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Residential Clothes Washers--No Commoditization Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Units Base case ----------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV....................................... (2010$ millions)............. 2,585.7 2,529.4 2,571.3 2,682.0 2,790.7 2,841.2
Change in INPV............................. (2010$ millions)............. ........... (56.3) (14.3) 96.4 205.0 255.5
(%).......................... ........... -2.2% -0.6% 3.7% 7.9% 9.9%
Product Conversion Costs................... (2010$ millions)............. ........... 22.6 41.6 107.5 204.3 210.8
Capital Conversion Costs................... (2010$ millions)............. ........... 81.2 107.7 311.0 487.4 502.9
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total Conversion Costs................. (2010$ millions)............. ........... 103.9 149.3 418.5 691.8 713.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table V-9--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Residential Clothes Washers--Tiered Markup Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Units Base case ----------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV....................................... (2010$ millions)............. 2,585.7 2,529.4 2,110.0 1,762.8 1,453.0 1,417.5
Change in INPV............................. (2010$ millions)............. ........... (56.3) (475.7) (822.9) (1,132.7) (1,168.1)
(%).......................... ........... -2.2% -18.4% -31.8% -43.8% -45.2%
Product Conversion Costs................... (2010$ millions)............. ........... 22.6 41.6 107.5 204.3 210.8
Capital Conversion Costs................... (2010$ millions)............. ........... 81.2 107.7 311.0 487.4 502.9
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total Conversion Costs................. (2010$ millions)............. ........... 103.9 149.3 418.5 691.8 713.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table V-10--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Residential Clothes Washers--Tiered Markup Scenario With Margin Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Units Base case ----------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV....................................... (2010$ millions)............. 2,585.7 2,521.7 2,095.3 1,726.9 1,329.3 1,250.4
Change in INPV............................. (2010$ millions)............. ........... (64.0) (490.3) (858.8) (1,256.4) (1,335.3)
(%).......................... ........... -2.5% -19.0% -33.2% -48.6% -51.6%
Product Conversion Costs................... (2010$ millions)............. ........... 22.6 41.6 107.5 204.3 210.8
Capital Conversion Costs................... (2010$ millions)............. ........... 81.2 107.7 311.0 487.4 502.9
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total Conversion Costs................. (2010$ millions)............. ........... 103.9 149.3 418.5 691.8 713.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range -$56.3 million to
-$64.0 million, or a change in INPV of -2.2 percent to -2.5 percent. At
this level, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by
approximately 20.2 percent to $170.0 million, compared to the base-case
value of $213.1 million in the year leading up to the amended energy
conservation standards.
Because the top-loading and front-loading standard clothes washers
comprise over 98 percent of the total residential clothes washer
shipments, the vast majority of the INPV impacts come from the
standard-size product classes. At TSL 1, most impacts on both INPV and
free cash flow stem from the modest changes required for top-loading
standard clothes washers because all of the front-loading standard
residential clothes washers on the market today already meet standards
at this level. For top-loading clothes washers, of which only 13
percent of the market currently meets standards proposed at TSL 1, the
impacts on INPV and free cash flow arise from increases in upfront
investment for product development and, to a lesser extent, the per-
unit component costs required to achieve this efficiency level. TSL 1
would require investments in product redesign and improvements to
facilities totaling approximately $103.9 million in an industry with
base-case annual revenues of more than $4.4 billion in the year the
standards go into effect. Regarding increases in component costs, the
design options used to meet standards at TSL 1 include component
changes such as electronic controls, agitator modification, and basket
modifications. For top-loading standard residential clothes washers,
these changes contribute only $8.44 (3.4 percent) to arrive at an MPC
of $256.09. In summation, the cumulative effect on INPV and free cash
flow is minimal largely because all front-loading standard products and
some top-loading standard products already meet the efficiencies
required at TSL 1, and the design changes for the top-loading standard
products that do not meet the efficiency required at TSL1 would impose
minimal costs. Further, as the efficiencies required at TSL 1 are well
below ENERGY STAR levels, manufacturers are likely to retain the
premiums they currently see across the full range of product
efficiencies.
At TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range -$14.3 million to
-$490.3 million, or a change in INPV of -0.6 percent to -19.0 percent.
At this level, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by
approximately

[[Page 32362]]

28.4 percent to $152.6 million, compared to the base-case value of
$213.1 million in the year leading up to the amended energy
conservation standards.
Because the top-loading and front-loading standard clothes washers
comprise over 98 percent of the total residential clothes washer
shipments, the vast majority of the INPV impacts come from the
standard-size product classes. At TSL 2, the impacts on INPV and free
cash flow result from higher per-unit costs for both top-loading and
front-loading standard-sized product classes as well as increases in
product and capital conversion costs for both of these product classes.
The design options used to meet standards at TSL 2 for top-loading
standard-size products include additional component changes to enable
higher spin speeds and better control beyond the improvements to
electronic controls and the agitator and basket associated with TSL 1.
For front-loading standard-size products, TSL 2 is achieved by the use
of an electronic user interface. The resulting MPC for top-loading
standard residential clothes washers is approximately $261.88 at TSL 2,
a $14.23 (5.7 percent) increase over current baseline units and similar
to the incremental costs at TSL 1. For front-loading standard
residential clothes washers, the MPC is approximately $524.33, a $6.20
(1.2 percent) increase from the baseline. The product redesign and
incorporation of these changes into manufacturing lines requires
approximately $149.3 million in total conversion costs--a $45.4 million
increase from TSL 1. TSL 2 brings all front-loading standard washers up
to current ENERGY STAR standard levels. The most severe impact to INPV
at TSL 2 is the result of margin compression on front-loading standard
clothes washers as manufacturers forfeit premiums and cut into margins
as they try to maintain a marginally compliant competitively priced
entry level product. While only a small fraction of front-loading
clothes washers (4 percent of shipments) would be impacted in the
standards case at TSL2, in the tiered markup scenario with margin
compression the profitability impacts on front-loading clothes washers
has a disproportionately large negative impact on INPV because most of
the market is ENERGY STAR compliant in the base case.
At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range $96.4 million to -
$858.8 million, or a change in INPV of 3.7 percent to -33.2 percent. At
this level, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by
approximately 3.6 percent to $205.5 million, compared to the base-case
value of $213.1 million in the year leading up to the amended energy
conservation standards in 2015.
At TSL3, the largest impacts to free cash flow and INPV stem from
the substantial upfront investments required to achieve this efficiency
level. While the efficiency requirements for top-loading standard
clothes washers in 2015 require incremental changes to existing
products, the 2018 efficiency requirements for top-loading standard
clothes washers are more substantial. Because only 9 percent of current
shipments of top-loading standard clothes washers meet the 2018
efficiency standards established at TSL 3, manufacturing products to
meet the 2018 standards would require large investments in product
redesign and conversion of facilities. Substantial investments would
also be required for manufacturers to meet the 2015 front-loading
standard. The total conversion cost required to meet the 2015 and 2018
standards at TSL 3 is approximately $418.5 million--a substantial
fraction of overall industry value and $269.2 million higher than at
TSL 2. Less than 25 percent of the conversion costs associated with TSL
3 can be attributed to the 2015 compliance for top-loading standard
products.. This is a considerably smaller factor than at TSL 1 and TSL
2 at which 97 percent and 81 percent of conversion costs can be
attributed to standard top-loading compliance, respectively. The design
options used to meet the 2015 front-loading and 2018 top-loading
standards at TSL 3 include larger unit capacities, damping systems, and
reinforced structural elements. Substantial changes to existing
production facilities would be required to manufacture products to
incorporate the 2015 front-loading and 2018 top-loading design options.
Several manufacturers have already introduced products that meet the
2015 front-loading standard and 2018 top-loading standard efficiency
levels, which mitigates the required changes to production facilities
for these manufacturers. The compliance dates of TSL 3 also mitigate
the effect of the large conversion costs required to meet the 2018 top-
loading standards, subjecting the impact on cash flows to greater
discounting while also allowing manufactures to delay or spread out
their conversion costs. At TSL 3, the MPC for top-loading standard
residential clothes washers is $256.09 to meet the 2015 energy
conservation standard and $272.93 to meet the 2018 energy conservation
standard. For front-loading standard residential clothes washers the
MPC is approximately $535.38 to meet the 2015 energy conservation
standard. For the 2015 standard this is a $8.44 (3.4 percent) increase
for top-loading standard clothes washers and a $17.25 (3.3 percent)
increase for front-loading standard clothes washers. For the 2018
energy conservation standard for top-loading standard clothes washers,
this is a $25.28 (10.2 percent) increase. In the scenario in which
manufacturers see no commoditization of higher efficiency clothes
washers, the modest increases to MPC translate to higher margins
sufficient to offset the initial capital investments and product design
costs over the 30 year analysis period. In contrast in the tiered mark
up scenario, because TSL 3 sets standards for top-loading standard
clothes washers at current ENERGY STAR levels and standards for front-
loading standard clothes washers above these levels, manufacturers lose
their premium markup for high efficiency standard-size product classes
leading to a substantial reduction in future revenues and subsequently
in INPV.
At TSL 4, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range $205.0 million to
-$1,256.4 million, or a change in INPV of 7.9 percent to -48.6 percent.
At this level, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by
approximately 130.7 percent to -$65.5 million, compared to the base-
case value of $213.1 million in the year leading up to the amended
energy conservation standards.
Much like TSL 3, the impacts to INPV at TSL 4 result primarily from
the substantial upfront investments required to achieve the amended
efficiency levels for standard-size products, the incremental increases
in per-unit costs, and the potential margin impacts. For top-loading
units, in contrast to TSL 3, manufacturers are required to cover the
conversion costs for all products by 2015. Manufacturing products to
meet standards for both standard-size product classes at TSL 4 may
require a complete platform overhaul, resulting in significant
investments in both product redesign and the conversion of facilities.
The total conversion cost required to meet standards at TSL 4 is
approximately $691.8 million--a $273.3 million increase from TSL 3. The
design options used to meet standards at TSL 4 include changes such as
larger capacity, accelerometers, and better control technology beyond
what is required for TSL 3. The resulting MPC for top-loading standard
residential clothes washers at TSL 4 is approximately $308.30, and
approximately $572.01 for front-loading standard residential

[[Page 32363]]

clothes washers. This is a $60.65 (24.5 percent) and a $53.88 (10.4
percent) increase from the baseline for top-loading and front-loading
standard residential clothes washers, respectively. This increase in
MPC translates to a 3.5 percent decrease in 2015 shipments. However,
the impact on INPV arising from a decrease in shipments from price
elasticity is minor in comparison to that stemming from product
commoditization and margin impacts as analyzed in the tiered markup
scenario with margin impacts for standard-sized product classes. As TSL
4 brings standards for both top-loading and front-loading standard
products above current ENERGY STAR levels, the fraction of products
that are eligible for any additional markup above the baseline is
further reduced as manufacturers sacrifice margins as they continue to
seek to maintain a low-price-point basic product offering.
At TSL 5, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range $255.5 million to
-$1,335.3 million, or a change in INPV of 9.9 percent to -51.6 percent.
At this level, industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by
approximately 134.9 percent to -$74.3 million, compared to the base-
case value of $213.1 million in the year leading up to the amended
energy conservation standards.
TSL 5 represents the max-tech efficiency level for both top-loading
and front-loading standard clothes washers. The effects on INPV result
from similar sources as TSL 4, including the substantial upfront
investments required to achieve the amended efficiency levels, the
incremental increases in per-unit costs, and the potential margin
impacts. These effects, however, are compounded by the higher upfront
investments for facility improvements and product development, the
additional increases to the MPC, and the collapse of manufacturer
margins as analyzed in the tiered markup scenario with margin impacts.
At present, the market share of commercially available residential
clothes washers that conform to this standard is negligible. As such,
standards will affect nearly all platforms and manufacturers will incur
substantial conversion costs associated with total redesigns and
improvements to all production facilities. The total conversion cost
required to meet standards at TSL 5 is approximately $713.7 million--a
$21.9 million increase from TSL 4. TSL 5 does not delay compliance for
the more stringent standard either top-loading product class, so
manufacturers will incur all product and capital conversion costs by
2015, leading to a larger negative impact on INPV. The MPC for top-
loading standard residential clothes washers is approximately $317.44
at TSL 5, and approximately $591.64 for front-loading standard
residential clothes washers. This is a $69.79 (28.2 percent) and a
$73.51 (14.2 percent) increase from the baseline for top-loading and
front-loading standard residential clothes washers, respectively.
However, the increase in per-unit production costs at TSL 5 relative to
those at TSL 4 is comparatively small and involves only minimal
incremental design options such as changes to load size sensors and
more precise dispensing of laundry detergent and additives. With the
increase in MPCs, 2015 shipments are forecast to decrease by
approximately 4.4 percent at TSL 5. However, the impact on INPV arising
from a decrease in shipments from price elasticity is minor in
comparison to that stemming from product commoditization and margin
impacts as analyzed in the tiered markup scenario with margin impacts.
Where TSL 4 still provided some room for markups above the most basic
units, TSL 5 sets the standard for all products as high as technically
feasible, leaving manufacturers no ability to differentiate products by
efficiency. Thus, all margins collapse to their lowest levels.
b. Impacts on Employment
DOE used the GRIM to estimate the domestic labor expenditures and
number of domestic production workers in the base case and at each TSL
from 2011 to 2044. DOE used statistical data from the most recent U.S.
Census Bureau's 2009 ``Annual Survey of Manufacturers,'' the results of
the engineering analysis, and interviews with manufacturers to
determine the inputs necessary to calculate industry-wide labor
expenditures and domestic employment levels. Labor expenditures for the
manufacture of a product are a function of the labor intensity of the
product, the sales volume, and an assumption that wages in real terms
remain constant.
In the GRIM, DOE used the labor content of each product and the
manufacturing production costs from the engineering analysis to
estimate the annual labor expenditures in the residential clothes
washer industry. DOE used Census data and interviews with manufacturers
to estimate the portion of the total labor expenditures that is
attributable to domestic labor.
The production worker estimates in this section cover only workers
up to the line-supervisor level who are directly involved in
fabricating and assembling a product within an Original Equipment
Manufacturer (OEM) facility. Workers performing services that are
closely associated with production operations, such as material handing
with a forklift, are also included as production labor. DOE's estimates
account only for production workers who manufacture the specific
products covered by this rulemaking.
The employment impacts shown in Table V-11 represent the potential
production employment that could result following amended energy
conservation standards. The upper end of the results in this table
estimates the total potential increase in the number of production
workers after amended energy conservation standards. To calculate the
total potential increase, DOE assumed that manufacturers continue to
produce the same scope of covered products in domestic production
facilities and domestic production is not shifted to lower-labor-cost
countries. Because there is a real risk of manufacturers evaluating
sourcing decisions in response to amended energy conservation
standards, the lower end of the range of employment results in Table V-
11 includes the estimated total number of U.S. production workers in
the industry who could lose their jobs if all existing production were
moved outside of the United States. While the results present a range
of employment impacts following the compliance date of amended energy
conservation standards, the discussion below also includes a
qualitative discussion of the likelihood of negative employment impacts
at the various TSLs. Finally, the employment impacts shown are
independent of the employment impacts from the broader U.S. economy,
which are documented in chapter 13 of the direct final rule TSD.
Using the GRIM, DOE estimates that in the absence of amended energy
conservation standards, there would be 8,990 domestic production
workers involved in manufacturing residential clothes washers in 2015.
Using 2009 Census Bureau data and interviews with manufacturers, DOE
estimates that approximately 70 percent of residential clothes washers
sold in the United States are manufactured domestically. Table V-11
shows the range of the impacts of potential amended energy conservation
standards on U.S. production workers in the clothes washer industry.

[[Page 32364]]

Table V-11--Potential Changes in the Total Number of Domestic Residential Clothes Washer Production Workers in 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base case TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Number of Domestic Production Workers 8,990 9,058 9,164 9,080 9,376 8,604
in 2015 (without changes in production
locations).................................
Potential Changes in Domestic Production ................ 68-(8,890) 174-(8,890) 90-(8,890) 386-(8,890) (386)-(8,890)
Workers in 2015 *..........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative numbers.

All examined TSLs show relatively minor impacts on domestic
employment levels relative to total industry employment at the lower
end of the range of impacts. At all TSLs, most of the design options
analyzed by DOE do not greatly alter the labor content of the final
product. For example, more complex wash cycles or larger basket sizes
involve one-time changes to the final product but do not significantly
change the number of steps required for the final assembly of the
clothes washer (which would add labor). Because many manufacturers have
recently introduced high efficiency products in the United States that
meet or exceed the standards in today's final rule, it is unlikely
today's direct final rule would greatly impact the sourcing decisions
of these manufacturers. However, at higher TSLs, some of the design
options analyzed greatly impact the ability of manufacturers to make
product changes within existing platforms. The very large upfront
capital costs at these levels (especially for introducing new front-
loading clothes washer platforms) could influence the decision of
manufacturers to relocate some or all of the domestic production of
these clothes washers to lower labor cost countries.
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
Most shipments of top-loading residential clothes washers fall
below the 2015 and 2018 amended energy conservation standards. However,
in response to the EISA 2007 water factor requirements, multiple
manufacturers have modified baseline products to comply with these more
stringent regulations. These changes were incremental modifications to
lower-efficiency platforms. The 2015 efficiency requirements would also
involve modifications to lower-end platforms for top-loading clothes
washers for all manufacturers, but would similarly not require
completely new platforms at a significantly higher upfront cost. In
addition, multiple manufacturers have recently introduced new top-
loading clothes washers that meet substantially higher efficiencies
than lower-end products at the baseline efficiency today. The
introduction of these platforms mitigates the required capital
conversion costs for the industry to meet the 2018 top-loading energy
conservation standards. DOE believes that the mitigated capital
conversion costs for manufacturers that have already introduced high-
efficiency top-loading clothes washers, as well as the additional 3
years for all remaining manufacturers to meet the more efficient
standards for top-loading clothes washers in 2018, will allow the
industry to meet demand and continue to offer a full range of products
after the compliance date.
More than 70 percent of front-loading shipments current meet the
front-loading energy conservation standards in today's direct final
rule. In addition, every manufacturer that ships front-loading clothes
washers offers products at the amended energy conservation standard.
Since manufacturers will not have to make extensive platform changes
but will need to increase the production of existing product by the
2015 compliance date, the experience of multiple front-loading
manufacturers that already produce standards-compliant front-loading
clothes washers will allow the industry to meet the amended energy
conservation standards proposed in the direct final rule.
d. Impacts on Sub-Groups of Manufacturers
Using average cost assumptions to develop an industry cash-flow
estimate may not be adequate for assessing differential impacts among
manufacturer subgroups. Small manufacturers, niche equipment
manufacturers, and manufacturers exhibiting a cost structure
substantially different from the industry average could be affected
disproportionately. DOE analyzed the impacts to small business, as
discussed in section VI.B. DOE did not identify any other subgroups for
residential clothes washers for this rulemaking.
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
While any one regulation may not impose a significant burden on
manufacturers, the combined effects of several 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 can 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.
Manufacturers provided comment on some of these regulations during
the framework stage of this rulemaking. DOE summarizes and addresses
these comments in section IV.I.3.a. For the cumulative regulatory
burden, DOE attempts to quantify or describe the impacts of other
Federal regulations that have a compliance date within approximately 3
years of the compliance date of this rulemaking. Most of the major
regulations that meet this criteria identified by DOE are other energy
conservation standards for products and equipment made by manufacturers
of residential clothes washers. See chapter 12 of the direct final rule
TSD for the results of DOE's analysis of the cumulative regulatory
burden.
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
To estimate the energy savings through 2044 attributable to
potential standards for clothes washers, DOE compared the energy
consumption of those products under the base case to their anticipated
energy consumption under each TSL. Table V-12 presents DOE's forecasts
of the national energy

[[Page 32365]]

savings for each TSL for clothes washers, and Table V-13 presents
forecasts of the national water savings.\43\ The savings were
calculated using the approach described in section IV.G. Chapter 10 of
the direct final rule TSD presents tables that also show the magnitude
of the energy savings if the savings are discounted at rates of 7
percent and 3 percent. Discounted energy savings represent a policy
perspective in which energy savings realized farther in the future are
less significant than energy savings realized in the nearer term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ National energy and water savings are cumulative over a 30-
year period. Any savings for products entering the housing stock in
this 30-year period which occur beyond the 30-year time limit are
not reported in the national totals.

Table V-12--Clothes Washers: Cumulative National Energy Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Energy (quads) ----------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Size.................................. 1.52 1.43 1.98 2.81 3.27
Compact Size................................... 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table V-13--Clothes Washers: Cumulative National Water Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Water (trillion gallons) ----------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Size.................................. 1.12 1.06 3.01 5.31 6.87
Compact Size................................... -0.01 -0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV to the nation of the total costs
and savings for consumers that would result from particular standard
levels for clothes washers. In accordance with the OMB's guidelines on
regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A-4, section E, September 17, 2003),
DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real discount
rate. The 7-percent rate is an estimate of the average before-tax rate
of return to private capital in the U.S. economy, and reflects the
returns to real estate and small business capital as well as corporate
capital. DOE used this discount rate to approximate the opportunity
cost of capital in the private sector, since recent OMB analysis has
found the average rate of return to capital to be near this rate. In
addition, DOE used the 3-percent rate to capture the potential effects
of standards on private consumption (e.g., through higher prices for
products and the purchase of reduced amounts of energy). This rate
represents the rate at which society discounts future consumption flows
to their present value. This rate can be approximated by the real rate
of return on long-term government debt (i.e., yield on Treasury notes
minus annual rate of change in the Consumer Price Index), which has
averaged about 3 percent on a pre-tax basis for the last 30 years.
Table V-14 shows the consumer NPV results for each TSL DOE
considered for clothes washers, using a 3-percent and a 7-percent
discount rate. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of products
purchased in 2015-2044.

Table V-14--Clothes Washers: Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits, 3- and 7-Percent Discount Rate*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Discount rate ---------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Billion 2010$
---------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent:
Standard.............................. 19.9 18.1 30.7 41.0 49.9
Compact............................... 0.32 0.32 0.56 0.58 0.58
7 percent:
Standard.............................. 8.6 7.6 12.8 16.2 19.7
Compact............................... 0.14 0.14 0.23 0.24 0.24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The impacts are counted over the lifetime of products purchased in 2015-2044.

The NPV results presented in Table V-14 are based on the default
product price trend. As discussed in section IV.G.3, DOE developed
several sensitivity cases with alternative forecasts of future prices
of clothes washers. The impact of these alternative forecasts on the
NPV results is presented in appendix 10-C of the direct final rule TSD.
Circular A-4 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. DOE believes its standard 30-year
analysis is fully compliant with Circular A-4. For this rulemaking, DOE
undertook an additional sensitivity analysis of its standard 30-year
analysis, in compliance with Circular A-4, using a 9-year analytical
period. The choice of a 9-year period is a proxy for the

[[Page 32366]]

timeline in EPCA for the review of the energy conservation standard
established in this direct final rule and potential revision of and
compliance with a new standard for clothes washers.\44\ The review
timeframe established in EPCA generally does not overlap with the
product lifetime, product manufacturing cycles or other factors
specific to residential clothes washers. Thus, this information is
presented for informational purposes only and is not indicative of any
change in DOE's analytical methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ EPCA requires DOE to review its standards at least once
every 6 years, and requires, for certain products including clothes
washers, 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
standards established in this direct final rule. 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 does not reflect the variability
that may occur in the timing of standards reviews and the fact that
for some consumer products, the compliance period is 5 years rather
than 3 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The sensitivity analysis results based on a 9-year analytical
period are presented below. Table V-15 presents DOE's forecasts of the
national energy savings for each TSL for clothes washers, and Table V-
16 presents forecasts of the national water savings.\45\ Table V-17
shows the consumer NPV results for each TSL DOE considered for clothes
washers, using a 3-percent and a 7-percent discount rate. For
determination of the NPV, the impacts are counted over the lifetime of
products purchased in 2015-2023 (note that the average lifetime of a
clothes washer is 14.2 years, which is longer than the 9-year analysis
period; thus, the NPV estimate incorporates all of the operating cost
savings of clothes washers purchased in the 9 year analytical period).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ National energy and water savings are cumulative over the
9-year period. Any savings for products entering the housing stock
in this 9-year period which occur beyond the 9-year time limit are
not reported in the national totals.

Table V-15--Clothes Washers: Cumulative National Energy Savings, Nine-Year Analysis Period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Energy (quads) ----------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Size.................................. 0.23 0.21 0.27 0.41 0.48
Compact Size................................... 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table V-16--Clothes Washers: Cumulative National Water Savings, Nine-Year Analysis Period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Water (trillion gallons) ----------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Size.................................. 0.17 0.14 0.37 0.78 1.02
Compact Size................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table V-17--Clothes Washers: Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits, 3- and 7-Percent Discount Rates,
Nine-Year Analysis Period*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Discount rate ----------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Billion 2010$
----------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent:
Standard................................... 7.40 6.48 10.60 14.21 17.35
Compact.................................... 0.12 0.12 0.18 0.21 0.21
7 percent:
Standard................................... 4.31 3.68 5.99 7.53 9.18
Compact.................................... 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The impacts are counted over the lifetime of products purchased in 2015-2023.

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
DOE develops estimates of the indirect employment impacts of
potential standards on the economy in general. As discussed above, DOE
expects energy conservation standards for clothes washers to reduce
energy bills for consumers of those products, and the resulting net
savings to be redirected to other forms of economic activity. Those
shifts in spending and economic activity could affect the demand for
labor. As described in section IV.J, DOE used an input/output model of
the U.S. economy to estimate indirect employment impacts of the TSLs
that DOE considered in this rulemaking. DOE understands that 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 (2015-2020), where these uncertainties
are reduced.
The results suggest that today's standards are likely to have
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, unanticipated effects on
employment. Chapter 13 of the direct final rule TSD presents more
detailed results.
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
As presented in section III.D.1.d of this notice, DOE concluded
that the TSL adopted in this direct final rule would

[[Page 32367]]

not reduce the utility or performance of the clothes washers under
consideration in this rulemaking. Manufacturers of these products
currently offer units that meet or exceed today's standards. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV))
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
DOE has also considered any lessening of competition that is likely
to result from amended standards. The Attorney General determines the
impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a
proposed standard, and transmits such determination to DOE, together
with an analysis of the nature and extent of such impact. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii))
DOE published a NOPR containing energy conservation standards
identical to those set forth in today's direct final rule and
transmitted a copy of today's direct final rule and the accompanying
TSD to the Attorney General, requesting that the DOJ provide its
determination on this issue. DOE will consider DOJ's comments on the
rule in determining whether to proceed with the direct final rule. DOE
will also publish and respond to DOJ's comments in the Federal Register
in a separate notice.
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
An improvement in the energy efficiency of the products subject to
today's rule is likely to improve the security of the nation's energy
system by reducing overall demand for energy. Reduced electricity
demand may also improve the reliability of the electricity system. As a
measure of this reduced demand, Table V-18 presents the estimated
reduction in electricity generating capacity in 2044 for the TSLs that
DOE considered in this rulemaking.

Table V-18--Reduction in Electric Generating Capacity in 2044 Under Trial Standard Levels for Clothes Washers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gigawatts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clothes Washers................................ 0.882 1.01 1.30 1.64 1.86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Energy savings from amended standards for clothes washers are
expected to produce environmental benefits in the form of reduced
emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with
electricity production. Table V-19 provides DOE's estimate of
cumulative CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions reductions
that would be expected to result from the TSLs considered in this
rulemaking. In the emissions analysis (chapter 15 of the direct final
rule TSD), DOE reports annual CO2, NOX, and Hg
emissions reductions for each TSL.
As discussed in section IV.L, DOE has not reported SO2
emissions reductions from power plants because SO2 emissions
caps have created uncertainty about the effect of energy conservation
standards on the overall level of SO2 emissions in the
United States. DOE also did not include NOX emissions
reduction from power plants in States subject to CAIR because the
emissions caps mandated by CAIR mean that an energy conservation
standard would not affect the overall level of NOX emissions
in those States.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ The analysis for today's rule assumes the implementation of
CAIR and does not take into account the recently issued (July 6,
2011) Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. In future rulemakings, DOE
will adjust its relevant models to reflect the implementation of the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.

Table V-19--Emissions Reduction Estimated for Clothes Washer Trial Standard Levels
[Cumulative in 2015-2044]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)...................... 87.65 81.96 112.90 155.51 178.82
NOX (thousand tons)............................ 73.46 68.07 94.16 130.10 149.70
Hg (tons)...................................... 0.198 0.226 0.269 0.364 0.413
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE also estimated monetary benefits likely to result from the
reduced emissions of CO2 and NOX that DOE
estimated for each of the TSLs considered for clothes washers. As
discussed in section IV.M, DOE used values for the SCC developed by an
interagency process. The four values for CO2 emissions
reductions resulting from that process (expressed in 2010$) are $4.9/
ton (the average value from a distribution that uses a 5-percent
discount rate), $22.3/ton (the average value from a distribution that
uses a 3-percent discount rate), $36.5/ton (the average value from a
distribution that uses a 2.5-percent discount rate), and $67.6/ton (the
95th-percentile value from a distribution that uses a 3-percent
discount rate). These values correspond to the value of emission
reductions in 2010; the values for later years are higher due to
increasing damages as the magnitude of climate change increases. For
each of the four cases, DOE calculated a present value of the stream of
annual values using the same discount rate as used in the studies upon
which the dollar-per-ton values are based. Table V-20 presents the
global values of CO2 emissions reductions at each TSL. DOE
calculated domestic values as a range from 7 percent to 23 percent of
the global values. Those results are presented in Table V-21.

[[Page 32368]]

Table V-20--Estimates of Global Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reductions Under Clothes Washer Trial Standard
Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 2010$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 3% discount
5% discount 3% discount 2.5% discount rate, 95th
rate, average* rate, average* rate, average* percentile*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 410 2143 3645 6527
2....................................... 384 2007 3414 6112
3....................................... 530 2777 4727 8457
4....................................... 729 3813 6488 11613
5....................................... 838 4386 7462 13357
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or drawn
from a different part of the distribution.

Table V-21--Estimates of Domestic Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reductions Under Clothes Washer Trial Standard
Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 2010$ *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 5% discount rate, 3% discount rate, 2.5% discount rate, 3% discount rate,
average** average** average** 95th percentile**
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................ 29 to 94............ 150 to 493.......... 255 to 838.......... 457 to 1501.
2........................ 27 to 88............ 140 to 462.......... 239 to 785.......... 428 to 1406.
3........................ 37 to 122........... 194 to 639.......... 331 to 1087......... 592 to 1945.
4........................ 51 to 168........... 267 to 877.......... 454 to 1492......... 813 to 2671.
5........................ 59 to 193........... 307 to 1009......... 522 to 1716......... 935 to 3072.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Domestic values are presented as a range between 7 percent and 23 percent of the global values.
** Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or
drawn from a different part of the distribution.

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
world economy continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any value placed in
this rulemaking on reducing CO2 emissions is subject to
change. DOE, together with other Federal agencies, will continue to
review various 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. However, consistent with DOE's
legal obligations, and taking into account the uncertainty involved
with this particular issue, DOE has included in this final rule the
most recent values and analyses resulting from the ongoing interagency
review process.
DOE also estimated a range for the cumulative monetary value of the
economic benefits associated with NOX emissions reductions
anticipated to result from amended standards for clothes washers. The
dollar-per-ton values that DOE used are discussed in section IV.M.
Table V-22 presents the cumulative present values for each TSL
calculated using 3-percent and 7-percent discount rates.

Table V-22--Estimates of Present Value of NOX Emissions Reductions Under
Clothes Washer Trial Standard Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate million 7% discount rate million
TSL 2010$ 2010$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................ 22 to 224................. 9 to 97.
2................ 20 to 207................. 9 to 90.
3................ 28 to 286................. 12 to 122.
4................ 39 to 396................. 17 to 171.
5................ 44 to 456................. 19 to 197.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NPV of the monetized benefits associated with emissions
reductions can be viewed as a complement to the NPV of the consumer
savings calculated for each TSL considered in this rulemaking. Table V-
23 shows an example of the calculation of the combined NPV including
benefits from emissions reductions for the case of TSL 3 for front-
loading clothes washers. Table V-24 and Table V-25 present the NPV
values that result from adding the estimates of the potential economic
benefits resulting from reduced CO2 and NOX
emissions in each of four valuation scenarios to the NPV of consumer
savings calculated for each TSL considered in this rulemaking, at both
a 7-percent and a 3-percent discount rate. The CO2 values
used in the columns of each table correspond to the four scenarios for
the valuation of CO2 emission reductions presented in
section IV.M.

Table V-23--Adding Net Present Value of Consumer Savings to Present
Value of Monetized Benefits From CO2 and NOX Emissions Reductions at TSL
3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present value
Category (billion 2010$) Discount rate (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Cost Savings............ 15.3 7
35.4 3

[[Page 32369]]

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at 0.53 5
$4.9/t)*.........................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at 2.78 3
$22.3/t)*........................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at 4.73 2.5
$36.5/t)*........................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at 8.46 3
$67.6/t)*........................
NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at 0.07 7
$2,537/Ton)*.....................
0.16 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Incremental Installed Costs. 2.30 7
4.15 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits/Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits, Including CO2 and 15.9 7
NOX**............................
34.2 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These values represent global values (in 2010$) of the social cost of
CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. See section IV.M for a
discussion of the derivation of these values. The value for NOX (in
2010$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE's
analysis.
** Net Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases utilize the central
estimate of social cost of CO2 emissions calculated at a 3% discount
rate, which is equal to $21.4/ton in 2010 (in 2010$).

Table V-24--Results of Adding Net Present Value of Consumer Savings (at 7% Discount Rate) to Net Present Value of Monetized Benefits From CO2 and NOX
Emissions Reductions Under Clothes Washer Trial Standard Levels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer NPV at 7% discount rate added with:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCC Value of $4.9/ SCC Value of $22.3/ SCC Value of $36.5/ SCC Value of $67.6/
TSL metric ton CO2* and low metric ton CO2* and metric ton CO2* and metric ton CO2* and
value for NOX** billion medium value for NOX** medium value for NOX** high value for NOX**
2010$ billion 2010$ billion 2010$ billion 2010$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................... 9.1 10.9 12.4 15.4
2................................................... 8.2 9.8 11.2 14.0
3................................................... 13.6 15.9 17.8 21.6
4................................................... 17.2 20.3 23.0 28.2
5................................................... 20.8 24.4 27.5 33.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These label values represent the global SCC of CO2 in 2010, in 2010$. Their present values have been calculated with scenario-consistent discount
rates. See section IV.M for a discussion of the derivation of these values.
** Low Value corresponds to $450 per ton of NOX emissions. Medium Value corresponds to $2,537 per ton of NOX emissions. High Value corresponds to $4,623
per ton of NOX emissions.

Table V-25--Results of Adding Net Present Value of Consumer Savings (at 3% Discount Rate) to Net Present Value of Monetized Benefits From CO2 and NOX
Emissions Reductions Under Clothes Washer Trial Standard Levels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer NPV at 3% discount rate added with:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCC Value of $4.9/ SCC Value of $22.3/ SCC Value of $36.5/ SCC Value of $67.6/
TSL metric ton CO2* and low metric ton CO2* and metric ton CO2* and metric ton CO2* and
value for NOX** billion medium value for NOX** medium value for NOX** high value for NOX**
2010$ billion 2010$ billion 2010$ billion 2010$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................... 20.6 22.4 23.9 26.9
2................................................... 18.9 20.6 22.0 24.8
3................................................... 31.8 34.2 36.2 40.0
4................................................... 42.4 45.6 48.3 53.6
5................................................... 51.4 55.1 58.2 64.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These label values represent the global SCC of CO2 in 2010, in 2010$. Their present values have been calculated with scenario-consistent discount
rates. See section IV.M for a discussion of the derivation of these values.
** Low Value corresponds to $450 per ton of NOX emissions. Medium Value corresponds to $2,537 per ton of NOX emissions. High Value corresponds to $4,623
per ton of NOX emissions.

[[Page 32370]]

that use quite different time frames for analysis. The national
operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of products shipped
in 2015-2044. The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present
value of all future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission
of one ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts continue well
beyond 2100.
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)(VI))) In
developing the direct final rule, DOE has also considered the Joint
Petition submitted to DOE. DOE recognizes the value of consensus
agreements submitted by parties in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)
and has weighed the value of such consensus in establishing the
standards set forth in today's final rule. DOE has encouraged the
submission of consensus agreements as a way to get diverse interested
parties together, to develop an independent and probative analysis
useful in DOE standard setting, and to expedite the rulemaking process.
DOE also believes that standard levels recommended in the consensus
agreement may increase the likelihood for regulatory compliance, while
decreasing the risk of litigation.

C. Conclusion

When considering proposed standards, the new or amended energy
conservation standard that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of
covered product shall 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
to the greatest extent practicable, in light of 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))
The Department considered the impacts of standards at each trial
standard level, beginning with 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.
To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of
each trial standard level, tables 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. Those include
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers, such as low-income
households and seniors, who may be disproportionately affected by a
national standard. Section V.B.1 presents the estimated impacts of each
TSL for these subgroups.
As background for the consideration of benefits from energy
efficiency standards, DOE 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. This undervaluation suggests that
regulation that promotes energy efficiency can produce significant net
private gains (as well as producing social gains by, for example,
reducing pollution). 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)
excessive focus on the short term, in the form of inconsistent
weighting of future energy cost savings relative to available returns
on other investments; (4) computational or other difficulties
associated with the evaluation of relevant tradeoffs; and (5) a
divergence in incentives (that is, renter vs. owner or builder vs.
purchaser). Other literature indicates that with 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 a
purchase of a product in the standards case, this decreases sales for
product manufacturers and the cost to manufacturers 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
regulatory option decreases the number of products used by consumers,
this decreases the potential energy savings from an energy conservation
standard. DOE provides detailed estimates of shipments and changes in
the volume of product purchases in chapter 9 of the direct final rule
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 (Reiss and White, 2005).\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\47\ P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household Electricity Demand,
Revisited. Review of Economic Studies (2005) 72, 853-883.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 efficiency
standards, and potential enhancements to the methodology by which these
impacts are defined and estimated in the regulatory process.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\48\ Alan Sanstad. ``Notes on the Economics of Household Energy
Consumption and Technology Choice.'' Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory. 2010. Available online at: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_theory.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE also conducted an analysis of the impacts on consumer welfare
of the standards on clothes washers that required compliance in January
2007. This analysis assumes consumers made washer purchase decisions
optimally (i.e., taking full account of the tradeoff between up-front
cost and future energy costs) and infers welfare implications based on
price and quantity changes that occurred around the time of the
standard change. The analysis assumes the 2007 policy change sharply
reduced supply of low-efficiency units, which in turn sharply increased
demand for higher-efficiency units.
The analysis used market survey data on total sales of washers
purchased in the United States, with measures for units sold and
average price broken down by washer brand and model. Values are
reported for each month. The data include a limited number of
attributes for each model, plus a measure of energy efficiency in terms
of kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/y) for standard usage. The analysis
used the

[[Page 32371]]

kWh/y measure to proxy for washers that may have been closer and
farther from the 2007 standard and ENERGY STAR specifications.
The net change in consumer welfare can be inferred from (a) the
gain and/or loss from consumer welfare from increased purchases of
higher-efficiency units minus (b) the loss in consumer welfare from
reduced purchase of lower-efficiency units. Because washer units banned
from manufacture in 2007 were still available for purchase for some
months after the ban, observed changes in prices and quantities of the
lower efficiency units facilitates estimation of (b). The data show
that prices for these units increased slightly while quantities sold
declined sharply. This suggests consumer welfare losses in (a) were
modest. The data further show that prices of higher-efficiency units
declined with the 2007 standard, in some cases markedly so. These price
declines suggest that the welfare gains in (a) are quite substantial,
and although the total gain cannot be inferred, any lower-bound
estimate would indicate that these gains far exceed losses in (b).
These inferred gains to consumers from the 2007 change in standards
appears to have less to do with energy efficiency than with the way
standards affect costs of production for high-efficiency units, and
possibly with the way standards influence competition among washer-
producing firms (e.g., see Ronnen, 1991).\49\ As the scale of
production of high efficiency units increased, production costs and/or
markups by washer manufacturers fell, thereby increasing consumer
welfare. The analysis is described in appendix 8-F of the direct final
rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\49\ Uri Ronnen. Minimum quality standards, fixed costs, and
competition. RAND Journal of Economics. Vol. 22, No. 4, Winter 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE welcomes comments on approaches for improved assessment of the
consumer welfare impacts of appliance standards.
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Residential Clothes
Washers
Table V-26 and Table V-27 summarize the quantitative impacts
estimated for each TSL for residential clothes washers. The efficiency
levels contained in each TSL are described in section V.A.

Table V-26--Summary of Results for Clothes Washer Trial Standard Levels: National Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Energy Savings (quads) 1.56................... 1.46.................. 2.04.................. 2.87.................. 3.32.
National Water Savings 1.11................... 1.05.................. 3.03.................. 5.33.................. 6.89.
(trillion gal.).
NPV of Consumer Benefits (2010$
billion):
3% discount rate........... 20.2................... 18.5.................. 31.29................. 41.60................. 50.48.
7% discount rate........... 8.7.................... 7.77.................. 13.01................. 16.42................. 19.92.
Cumulative Emissions Reduction:
CO2 (million metric tons).. 87.65.................. 81.96................. 112.90................ 155.51................ 178.82.
NOX (thousand tons)........ 73.46.................. 68.07................. 94.16................. 130.10................ 149.70.
Hg (tons).................. 0.198.................. 0.226................. 0.269................. 0.364................. 0.413.
Value of Cumulative Emissions
Reduction:
CO2 (2010$ million) *...... 410 to 6527............ 384 to 6112........... 530 to 8457........... 729 to 11613.......... 838 to 13357.
NOX - 3% discount rate 22 to 224.............. 20 to 207............. 28 to 286............. 39 to 396............. 44 to 456.
(2010$ million).
NOX - 7% discount rate 9 to 97................ 9 to 90............... 12 to 122............. 17 to 171............. 19 to 197.
(2010$ million).
Generation Capacity Reduction 0.882.................. 1.01.................. 1.30.................. 1.64.................. 1.86.
(GW) **.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions.
** Changes in 2044.

Table V-27--Summary of Results for Clothes Washer Trial Standard Levels: Consumer and Manufacturer Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 * TSL 4 TSL 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (2010$ million)............................. (56.3) - (64.0) (14.3) - (490.3) 96.4 - (858.8) 205.0 - (1,256.4) 255.5 - (1,335.3)
Industry NPV (% change).................................. (2.2) - (2.5) (0.6) - (19.0) 3.7 - (33.2) 7.9 - (48.6) 9.9 - (51.6)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Mean LCC Savings (2010$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-Loading Standard Clothes Washer...................... 268 243 268/366 491 524
Front-Loading Standard Clothes Washer.................... NA ** 2.2 37 35 102
Top-Loading Compact Clothes Washer....................... 159 159 159/312 312 312
Front-Loading Compact Clothes Washer..................... 54 54 54 54 54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Median PBP (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-Loading Standard Clothes Washer...................... 0.4 0.7 0.4/0.9 1.8 1.9
Front-Loading Standard Clothes Washer.................... NA * 0.9 1.3 9.2 5.2
Top-Loading Compact Clothes Washer....................... 0.5 0.5 0.5/2.1 2.1 2.1

[[Page 32372]]

Front-Loading Compact Clothes Washer..................... 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top-Loading Standard Clothes Washer:
Net Cost (%)......................................... 0.7 5.6 0.7/3.4 8.1 9.5
No Impact (%)........................................ 19.5 15.1 19.5/14.1 4.6 0.0
Net Benefit (%)...................................... 79.8 79.3 79.8/82.5 87.4 90.5
Front-Loading Standard Clothes Washer:
Net Cost (%)......................................... 0.0 0.1 1.5 45.1 29.6
No Impact (%)........................................ 100.0 96.0 72.4 11.6 0.0
Net Benefit (%)...................................... 0.0 3.9 26.1 43.3 70.4
Top-Loading Compact Clothes Washer:
Net Cost (%)......................................... 1.5 1.5 1.5/12.6 12.6 12.6
No Impact (%)........................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Net Benefit (%)...................................... 98.5 98.5 98.5/87.4 87.4 87.4
Front-Loading Compact Clothes Washer:
Net Cost (%)......................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
No Impact (%)........................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Net Benefit (%)...................................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
* For top-loading clothes washers under TSL 3, the first number for consumer impacts refers to the standard in 2015, and the second number refers to the
standard in 2018.
** The standard level is the same as the baseline efficiency level, so no consumers are impacted and therefore calculation of a payback period is not
applicable.

DOE first considered TSL 5, which represents the max-tech
efficiency levels. TSL 5 would save 3.32 quads of energy and 6.89
trillion gallons of water, amounts DOE considers significant. Under TSL
5, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $19.92 billion, using a
discount rate of 7 percent, and $50.48 billion, using a discount rate
of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 are 179 Mt of
CO2, 150 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.413 ton of
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions
reductions at TSL 5 ranges from $838 million to $13,357 million. Total
generating capacity in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 1.86 GW under
TSL 5.
At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is a savings (LCC decrease) of
$524 for top-loading standard clothes washers, a savings of $102 for
front-loading standard clothes washers, a savings of $312 for top-
loading compact clothes washers, and a savings of $54 for front-loading
compact clothes washers. The median payback period is 1.9 years for
top-loading standard clothes washers, 5.2 years for front-loading
standard clothes washers, 2.1 years for top-loading compact clothes
washers, and 0.8 years for front-loading compact clothes washers. A
significant fraction of consumers, however, experience an LCC increase
or net cost under TSL 5 for all product classes except front-loading
compact: 9.5 percent for top-loading standard clothes washers, 30
percent for front-loading standard clothes washers, and 13 percent for
top-loading compact clothes washers. In addition, because TSL 5
significantly raises the first cost of both top-loading and front-
loading clothes washers, DOE is concerned some low-income consumers may
be compelled to delay or forgo new purchases, using commercial coin
laundries or repairing their existing clothes washers instead.
At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from an increase of
$255.5 million to a decrease of $1,335.3 million. At this TSL,
manufacturers would have to overhaul both their front-loading and top-
loading platforms by the 2015 compliance date to meet demand.
Redesigning all units to meet the current max-tech efficiency levels
would require considerable capital and product conversion expenditures.
DOE believes that the scope of the redesigns necessary to meet TSL 5 by
2015 also heightens concerns over supply chain and operational risk.
DOE estimates that complete platform redesigns would cost the industry
over $700 million in product and capital conversion costs. These costs
alone represent a substantial portion of the total value of the
industry. In addition, manufacturers could face a substantial impact on
profitability at TSL 5. Because manufacturers earn a premium for ENERGY
STAR products and additional profit for products that exceed the ENERGY
STAR level, collapsing the market to one commodity product makes it
unlikely that manufacturers could maintain their base-case
profitability on these products after compliance with the standards is
required. As a result, DOE expects that TSL 5 would yield impacts
closer to the high end of the range of INPV impacts. If the high end of
the range of impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 5 could result in
a net loss of 51.6 percent in INPV to clothes washer manufacturers.
The Secretary concludes that at TSL 5 for residential clothes
washers, the benefits of energy savings, water savings, positive NPV of
consumer benefits, generating capacity reductions, emission reductions,
and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions
reductions would be outweighed by the significant fraction of consumers
that experience an increase in life-cycle cost and the impacts on
manufacturers, including the conversion costs and profit margin impacts
that could result in a very large reduction in INPV for the
manufacturers and the risk of manufacturer capacity constraints
resulting from the necessary changes by 2015. Consequently, the
Secretary has

[[Page 32373]]

concluded that TSL 5 is not economically justified.
DOE next considered TSL 4. TSL 4 would save 2.87 quads of energy
and 5.33 trillion gallons of water, amounts DOE considers significant.
Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer benefit would be 16.42 billion, using
a discount rate of 7 percent, and $41.60 billion, using a discount rate
of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 156 Mt of
CO2, 130 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.364 tons of
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions
reductions at TSL 4 ranges from $729 million to $11,613 million. Total
generating capacity in 2044 is estimated to decrease by 1.64 GW under
TSL 4.
At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is a savings of $491 for top-
loading standard clothes washers, a savings of $35 for front-loading
standard clothes washers, a savings of $312 for top-loading compact
clothes washers, and a savings of $54 for front-loading compact clothes
washers. The median payback period is 1.8 years for top-loading
standard clothes washers, 9.2 years for front-loading standard clothes
washers, 2.1 years for top-loading compact clothes washers, and 0.8
years for front-loading compact clothes washers. A significant fraction
of consumers, however, experience an LCC net cost for all product
classes except front-loading compact: 8 percent for top-loading
standard clothes washers, 45 percent for front-loading standard clothes
washers, and 13 percent for top-loading compact clothes washers. In
addition, TSL 4 significantly raises the first cost of both top-loading
and front-loading clothes washers, and DOE is concerned some low-income
consumers may be compelled to delay or forgo new purchases.
At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from an increase of
$205.0 million to a decrease of $1,256.4 million. At this TSL,
manufacturers would be required to overhaul both front-loading and top-
loading platforms by the 2015 compliance date to meet demand. DOE
estimates that it would cost the industry approximately $692 million in
product and capital conversion costs at TSL 4. These costs reflect
substantial platform changes to both top-loading and front-loading
clothes washers by 2015, represent a significant portion of the total
value of the industry, and trigger capacity concerns in light of the
magnitude and timing of the necessary changes. In addition,
manufacturers could face a substantial impact on profitability at TSL
4. Because manufacturers earn a premium for ENERGY STAR products and
additional profit for products that exceed the ENERGY STAR level,
collapsing the market to a few commodity products without efficiency
differentiators makes it unlikely that manufactures could maintain
their base-case profitability on these products after standards.
Because of the effect, DOE expects that TSL 4 would yield impacts
closer to the high end of the range of INPV impacts. If the high end of
the range of impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 4 could result in
a net loss of 48.6 percent in INPV to clothes washer manufacturers.
The Secretary concludes that at TSL 4 for residential clothes
washers, the benefits of energy savings, water savings, positive NPV of
consumer benefits, generating capacity reductions, emission reductions,
and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions
reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on a significant
fraction of consumers due to the large increase in product cost and the
impacts on manufacturers, including the conversion costs and profit
margin impacts that could result in a very large reduction in INPV for
manufacturers and the risk of manufacturer capacity constraints
resulting from the necessary changes by 2015. Consequently, the
Secretary has concluded that TSL 4 is not economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 3. TSL 3 would save 2.04 quads of energy
and 3.03 trillion gallons of water, amounts DOE considers significant.
Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $13.01 billion, using
a discount rate of 7 percent, and $31.29 billion, using a discount rate
of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 113 Mt of
CO2, 94.2 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.269 ton of
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions
reductions at TSL 3 ranges from $530 million to $8,457 million. Total
generating capacity in 2045 is estimated to decrease by 1.30 GW under
TSL 3.
At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a savings of $268 in 2015 and
$366 in 2018 for top-loading standard clothes washers, a savings of $37
for front-loading standard clothes washers, a savings of $159 in 2015
and $312 in 2018 for top-loading compact clothes washers, and a savings
of $54 for front-loading compact clothes washers. The median payback
period is 0.4 years in 2015 and 0.9 years in 2018 for top-loading
standard clothes washers, 1.3 years for front- loading standard clothes
washers, 0.5 years in 2015 and 2.1 years in 2018 for top-loading
compact clothes washers, and 0.8 years for front-loading compact
clothes washers. The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is
small--less than 1 percent in 2015 and 3 percent in 2018 for top-
loading standard clothes washers, 1.5 percent for front-loading
standard clothes washers, 1.5 percent in 2015 and 13 percent in 2018
for top-loading compact clothes washers. No consumers experience a LCC
cost for front-loading compact clothes washers. The much lower first
cost of washers meeting TSL 3, combined with the fact that the vast
majority of consumers experience either net LCC benefits or no impacts
at TSL 3, mitigates DOE's concern that some low-income consumers would
be compelled to delay or forgo new purchases.
At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from an increase of
$96.4 million to a decrease of $858.8 million. For most manufacturers,
the efficiency levels for top-loading clothes washers at TSL 3
correspond to incremental product conversion by 2015 and a platform
redesign by 2018. These compliance dates mitigate capacity risk to
manufacturers and their supply chains and afford manufacturers the
flexibility to spread capital requirements, engineering resources, and
other conversion activities over a longer period of time depending on
the individual needs of each manufacturer. These factors at TSL3
mitigate DOE's concerns about manufacturers' ability to match
production capacity to market demand. At TSL 3, DOE recognizes the risk
of negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations concerning reduced
profit margins are realized. However, the additional flexibility of the
compliance dates and range of efficiency levels above TSL 3 afford
manufacturers room to maintain higher value products. Therefore, DOE
expects impacts to be closer to the low end of the range of impacts.
The Secretary concludes that at TSL 3 for residential clothes
washers, the benefits of energy savings, water savings, positive NPV of
consumer benefits, generating capacity reductions, emission reductions,
the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions
reductions, and favorable consumer LCC savings and payback period for
more than 97 percent of consumers outweigh the LCC costs for less than
3 percent of consumers and the conversion costs and profit margin
impacts that could result in a reduction in INPV for manufacturers.
In addition, the efficiency levels in TSL 3 correspond to the
recommended levels in the Joint Petition, which DOE believes sets forth
a statement by interested persons that are fairly representative of
relevant points of view

[[Page 32374]]

(including representatives of manufacturers of covered products,
States, and efficiency advocates) and contains recommendations with
respect to an energy conservation standard that are in accordance with
42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Moreover, DOE has encouraged the submission of
consensus agreements as a way for diverse interested parties to develop
an independent and probative analysis useful in DOE standard setting
and to expedite the rulemaking process. DOE also believes that the
standard levels recommended in the consensus agreement may increase the
likelihood for regulatory compliance, while decreasing the risk of
litigation.
After considering the analysis, comments on the framework document,
and the benefits and burdens of TSL 3, the Secretary concludes that
this TSL will offer the maximum improvement in efficiency that is
technologically feasible and economically justified, and will result in
the significant conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE adopts TSL 3 for
residential clothes washers. The amended energy conservation standards
for residential clothes washers, which are a minimum allowable
integrated modified energy factor (IMEF) and maximum allowable
integrated water factor (IWF), are shown in Table V-28.

Table V-28--Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective March 7, 2015 Effective January 1, 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class Maximum Maximum
Minimum IMEF* IWF[dagger] Minimum IMEF* IWF[dagger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Top-loading, Compact (less than 1.6 0.86 14.4 1.15 12.0
ft\3\ capacity)........................
2. Top-loading, Standard................ 1.29 8.4 1.57 6.5
-----------------------------------
3. Front-loading, Compact (less than 1.6 1.13 8.3 N/A
ft\3\ capacity)........................
4. Front-loading, Standard.............. 1.84 4.7 N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* IMEF (integrated modified energy factor) is calculated as the clothes container capacity in cubic feet divided
by the sum, expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh), of: (1) The total weighted per-cycle hot water energy
consumption; (2) the total weighted per-cycle machine electrical energy consumption; (3) the per-cycle energy
consumption for removing moisture from a test load; and (4) the per-cycle standby and off mode energy
consumption.
[dagger] IWF (integrated water consumption factor) is calculated as the sum, expressed in gallons per cycle, of
the total weighted per-cycle water consumption for all wash cycles divided by the clothes container capacity
in cubic feet.

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Standards
The benefits and costs of today's standards can also be expressed
in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the
sum of (1) the annualized national economic value, expressed in 2010$,
of the benefits from operating products that meet the proposed
standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using
less energy and water, minus increases in product purchase costs, which
is another way of representing consumer NPV), and (2) the monetary
value of the benefits of emission reductions, including CO2
emission reductions.\50\ The value of the CO2 reductions,
otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), is calculated using
a range of values per metric ton of CO2 developed by a
recent interagency process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\50\ DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the
time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values. First, DOE
calculated a present value in 2011, the year used for discounting
the NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the time-series of
costs and benefits using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for all
costs and benefits except for the value of CO2
reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as
shown in Table V-29. From the present value, DOE then calculated the
fixed annual payment over a 30-year period that yields the same
present value. The fixed annual payment is the annualized value.
Although DOE calculated annualized values, this does not imply that
the time-series of cost and benefits from which the annualized
values were determined is a steady stream of payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although combining the values of operating savings and
CO2 reductions provides a useful perspective, two issues
should be considered. First, the national operating savings are
domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of
market transactions, while the value of CO2 reductions is
based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost
savings and SCC are performed with different methods that use quite
different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost savings
is measured for the lifetime of products shipped in 2015-2044. The SCC
values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of all future
climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of one ton of
carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts continue well beyond 2100.
Table V-29 shows the annualized values for clothes washers. Using a
7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than
CO2 reductions, for which DOE used a 3-percent discount rate
along with the SCC series corresponding to a value of $22.3/ton in
2010, the cost of the standards for clothes washers in today's rule is
$185 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the
annualized benefits are $1,234 million per year in reduced equipment
operating costs, $141.7 million in CO2 reductions, and $5.4
million in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net
benefit amounts to $1.20 billion per year. Using a 3-percent discount
rate for all benefits and costs and the SCC series corresponding to a
value of $22.3/ton in 2010, the cost of the standards for clothes
washers in today's rule is $212 million per year in increased equipment
costs, while the benefits are $1,808 million per year in reduced
operating costs, $141.7 million in CO2 reductions, and $8.0
million in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net
benefit amounts to $1.75 billion per year.

[[Page 32375]]

Table V-29--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Amended Standards (TSL 3) for Clothes Washers Sold in 2015-2044
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized (million 2010$/year)
Discount rate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary estimate* Low net benefits estimate* High net benefits estimate*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Cost Savings.............. 7%................................... 1234................................. 1101................................. 1379.
3%................................... 1808................................. 1587................................. 2042.
CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t**........... 5%................................... 34.5................................. 31.7................................. 37.4.
CO2 Reduction at $22.3/t**.......... 3%................................... 142.................................. 130.................................. 154.
CO2 Reduction at $36.5/t**.......... 2.5%................................. 226.................................. 207.................................. 246.
CO2 Reduction at $67.6/t**.......... 3%................................... 431.................................. 396.................................. 469.
NOX Reduction at $2,537/t**......... 7%................................... 5.40................................. 5.03................................. 5.82.
3%................................... 8.01................................. 7.39................................. 8.68.
Total [dagger]...................... 7% plus CO2 range.................... 1274 to 1671......................... 1137 to 1502......................... 1423 to 1854.
7%................................... 1381................................. 1236................................. 1539.
3% plus CO2 range.................... 1851 to 2248......................... 1626 to 1991......................... 2089 to 2520.
3%................................... 1958................................. 1725................................. 2205.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Product Costs........... 7%................................... 185.................................. 258.................................. 200.
3%................................... 212.................................. 309.................................. 230.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Net Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total [dagger]...................... 7% plus CO2 range.................... 1088 to 1485......................... 880 to 1244.......................... 1223 to 1654.
7%................................... 1196................................. 978.................................. 1339.
3% plus CO2 range.................... 1639 to 2036......................... 1317 to 1682......................... 1859 to 2291.
3%................................... 1746................................. 1416................................. 1976.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Primary, Low Benefit, and High Benefit Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the AEO2010 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth
case, respectively. In addition, incremental product costs reflect a declining trend using the default price trend for product prices in the Primary Estimate, constant product prices in the
Low Benefits Estimate, and a high estimate of the declining price trend in the High Benefits Estimate.
** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2010$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9, $22.3, and $36.5 per ton are the averages of SCC
distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.6 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount
rate. The value for NOX (in 2010$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE's analysis.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount rate, which is $22.3/ton in 2010 (in 2010$). In the rows labeled as ``7% plus
CO2 range'' and ``3% plus CO2 range,'' the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires each agency to identify
the problem that it intends to address, including, where applicable,
the failures of private markets or public institutions that warrant new
agency action, as well as to assess the significance of that problem.
The problems that today's standards address are as follows:
(1) There is a lack of consumer information and/or information
processing capability about energy efficiency opportunities in the home
appliance market.
(2) There is asymmetric information (one party to a transaction has
more and better information than the other) and/or high transactions
costs (costs of gathering information and effecting exchanges of goods
and services).
(3) There are external benefits resulting from improved energy
efficiency of residential clothes washers that are not captured by the
users of such equipment. These benefits include externalities related
to environmental protection and energy security that are not reflected
in energy prices, such as reduced emissions of greenhouse gases.
In addition, DOE has determined that today's regulatory action is
an ``economically significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f)(1)
of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, section 6(a)(3) of the Executive
Order requires that DOE prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) on
today's rule and that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review this rule.
DOE presented to OIRA for review the draft rule and other documents
prepared for this rulemaking, including the RIA, and included these
documents in the rulemaking record. The assessments prepared pursuant
to Executive Order 12866 can be found in the technical support document
for this rulemaking at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/clothes_washers.html. They are
available for public review in the Resource Room of DOE's Building
Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC
20024, (202) 586-2945, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order
13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281, Jan. 21, 2011). EO 13563
is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures,
and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive
Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by
Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a
reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs

[[Page 32376]]

(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.
We emphasize as well that Executive Order 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 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, DOE believes that today's direct final rule is consistent
with these principles, including that, to the extent permitted by law,
agencies adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its
benefits justify its costs and select, in choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 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 Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 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 Web site (www.gc.doe.gov).
DOE reviewed today's direct final rule and corresponding NOPR
pursuant to the RFA and the policies and procedures discussed above.
Set forth below is DOE's initial regulatory flexibility analysis for
the standards proposed in the NOPR, published elsewhere in today's
Federal Register. DOE will consider any comments on the analysis or
economic impacts of the rule in determining whether to proceed with the
direct final rule. DOE will publish its final regulatory flexibility
analysis (FRFA), including responses to any comments received, in a
separate notice at the conclusion of the 110-day comment period.
1. Description of Why DOE Is Considering the Standards in Today's
Direct Final Rule
The reasons why DOE is establishing the standards in today's direct
final rule and the objectives of these standards are provided elsewhere
in the preamble and not repeated here.
2. Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Standards
A statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the
standards in today's direct final rule is provided elsewhere in the
preamble and not repeated here.
3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
For manufacturers of residential clothes washers, the Small
Business Administration (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 rule. 65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 2000), as amended
at 65 FR 53533, 53544 (Sept. 5, 2000) and codified at 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/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf. Residential clothes washer manufacturing is
classified under NAICS Code 335224, ``Household Laundry Equipment
Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 1,000 employees or less
for an entity to be considered as a small business for this category.
To estimate the number of small businesses who could be impacted by
the amended energy conservation standards, DOE conducted a market
survey using all available public information to identify potential
small manufacturers. DOE's research included the AHAM membership
directory, product databases (CEE, CEC, and ENERGY STAR databases) and
individual company Web sites to find potential small business
manufacturers. DOE also asked interested parties and industry
representatives if they were aware of any other small business
manufacturers during manufacturer interviews and at previous DOE public
meetings. DOE reviewed all publicly available data and contacted
various companies, as necessary, to determine whether they met the
SBA's definition of a small business manufacturer of covered
residential clothes washers. DOE screened out companies that did not
offer products covered by this rulemaking, did not meet the definition
of a ``small business,'' or are foreign owned and operated.
The majority of residential clothes washers are currently
manufactured in the United States by one corporation that accounts for
approximately 64 percent of the total market. Together, this
manufacturer and three other manufacturers that do not meet the
definition of a small business manufacturer comprise 92 percent of the
residential clothes washer market. The small portion of the remaining
residential clothes washer market (approximately 700,000 shipments) is
supplied by a combination of 12 international and domestic companies,
all of which have small market shares. Of the remaining 12 companies
that manufacturer residential clothes washers for sale in the United
States, DOE identified only one manufacturer that is considered a small
business under NAICS Code 335224.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
The one small business manufacturer of residential clothes washers
covered by this rulemaking has one product platform. It makes a top-
loading standard residential clothes washer that currently meets a 1.85
MEF and a 6.75 WF. The product meets the 2015 energy conservation
standards proposed in this direct final rule, but falls short of the
2018 standard. The unit does not offer warm rinse and has
electromechanical controls, making it likely that three wash
temperatures (hot, warm, cold) are available on all settings including
Normal for test procedure purposes. Thus, it is likely the unit will
have to undergo alterations to its basic design to meet the 2018
efficiency requirements.
This company appears to manufacture its residential clothes washer
with less

[[Page 32377]]

automation and more labor than some of the larger competitors. To
change the design of their current product to meet the 2018 efficiency
standards, one available design pathway would be increasing the volume
of the wash basket, assuming there is enough clearance within the
cabinet. Increasing the drum's radius would involve cutting slightly
larger octagonal pieces of metal and would not be a capital intensive
solution. With this pathway, the assembly process and fabrication time
would essentially remain the same. This solution would also prevent the
small business manufacturer from bearing the cost of retrofitting their
manufacturing process and could result in lower per-unit conversion
costs relative to larger manufacturers.
Based on the engineering analysis and manufacturer interviews, if
two full-time engineers took one year to implement a larger drum radius
within the existing cabinet it could cost the manufacturer roughly
$200,000 to implement the design change for the 2018 compliance date.
If the manufacturer were to incur additional tooling costs to implement
this change, this could lead to an additional $200,000 in capital
conversion costs. Because the small business manufacturer already meets
the 2015 energy conservation standards, it would have 7 years from the
announcement of today's direct final rule until it would have to make
any changes to its current product in response to standards.
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules
DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the rule being promulgated today.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
The discussion above analyzes impacts on small businesses that
would result from DOE's rule. In addition to the other TSLs being
considered, the direct final rule TSD includes a regulatory impact
analysis (RIA). For residential clothes washers, the RIA discusses the
following policy alternatives: (1) No new regulatory action; (2)
consumer rebates; (3) consumer tax credits; (4) manufacturer tax
credits; (5) voluntary energy efficiency targets; (6) early
replacement; and (7) bulk government purchases. While these
alternatives may mitigate to some varying extent the economic impacts
on small entities compared to the amended standards, DOE determined
that the energy savings of these regulatory alternatives are at least
3.8 times smaller than those that would be expected to result from
adoption of the amended standard levels. Thus, DOE rejected these
alternatives and is adopting the amended standards set forth in this
rulemaking. (See chapter 17 of direct final rule TSD for further detail
on the policy alternatives DOE considered.)

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

Manufacturers of residential clothes washers must certify to DOE
that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation
standard. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their
products according to the DOE test procedures for residential clothes
washers, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures.
DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping
requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial
equipment, including residential clothes washers. 76 FR 12422 (March 7,
2011). The collection-of-information requirement for the certification
and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by
OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the
certification is estimated to average 20 hours per response, including
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection of information.
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

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969,
DOE has determined that today's rule fits within the category of
actions included in Categorical Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise meets
the requirements for application of a CX. See 10 CFR Part 1021, App. B,
B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and Appendix B, B(1)-(5). The rule fits within the
category of actions because it is a rulemaking that establishes energy
conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment,
and for which none of the exceptions identified in CX B5.1(b) apply.
Therefore, DOE has made a CX determination for this rulemaking, and DOE
does not need to prepare an Environmental Assessment or Environmental
Impact Statement for this rule. DOE's CX determination for this direct
final rule is available at http://cxnepa.energy.gov.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 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. EPCA governs and
prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy
conservation for the products that are the subject of today's direct
final 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) 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 Executive Order 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; and (3)
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a
general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Section 3(b) of Executive Order 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

[[Page 32378]]

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 direct final rule meets the relevant standards
of Executive Order 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, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For an amended 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 ``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 small governments. 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 http://www.gc.doe.gov/.
DOE has concluded that this direct final rule would likely result
in a final rule that could impose expenditures of $100 million or more
on the private sector. Such expenditures may include: (1) Investment in
research and development and in capital expenditures by residential
clothes washer 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
residential clothes washers.
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 final 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 the notice of final rulemaking and
the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis'' section of the TSD for this direct
final 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 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(d),
(f), and (o), 6313(e), and 6316(a), today's final rule would establish
energy conservation standards for residential clothes washers that are
designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that
DOE has determined to be both technologically feasible and economically
justified. A full discussion of the alternatives considered by DOE is
presented in the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis'' section of the TSD for
today's direct final 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 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

DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation 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
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). DOE has reviewed today's direct final rule 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

Executive Order 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 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 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 concluded that today's regulatory action, which sets forth
energy conservation standards for residential clothes washers, is not a
significant energy action because the amended 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 the direct final rule.

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued its Final Information
Quality Bulletin

[[Page 32379]]

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 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 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress
peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process
and analyses and has prepared a Peer Review Report pertaining to the
energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses. 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. The ``Energy Conservation Standards
Rulemaking Peer Review Report'' dated February 2007 has been
disseminated and is available at the following Web site:
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/peer_review.html.

M. Congressional Notification

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of this rule prior to its effective date. The report will
state that it has been determined that the rule is a ``major rule'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's direct
final rule.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, and Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 430

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Intergovernmental relations, and Small businesses.

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 11, 2012.
Dr. David Danielson,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and
430 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.

0
2. In Sec. 429.20 revise paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:

Sec. 429.20 Residential clothes washers.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Pursuant to Sec. 429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall
include the following public product-specific information:
(i) For residential clothes washers manufactured before March 7,
2015: The modified energy factor (MEF) in cubic feet per kilowatt hour
per cycle (cu ft/kWh/cycle) and the capacity in cubic feet (cu ft). For
standard-size residential clothes washers, a water factor (WF) in
gallons per cycle per cubic feet (gal/cycle/cu ft).
(ii) For residential clothes washers manufactured on or after March
7, 2015: The integrated modified energy factor (IMEF) in cu ft/kWh/
cycle, the integrated water factor (IWF) in gal/cycle/cu ft, the
capacity in cu ft and the type of loading (top-loading or front-
loading).
* * * * *

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
3. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

0
4. In Sec. 430.32 revise paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec. 430.32 Energy and water conservation standards and their
effective dates.

* * * * *
(g) Clothes washers. (1) Clothes washers manufactured on or after
January 1, 2007 shall have a Modified Energy Factor no less than:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modified energy factor (cu.ft./kWh/
Product class cycle)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Top-loading, Compact (less than 0.65.
1.6 ft\3\ capacity).
ii. Top-loading, Standard (1.6 ft\3\ 1.26.
or greater capacity).
iii. Top-Loading, Semi-Automatic.... Not Applicable.\1\
iv. Front-loading................... 1.26.
v. Suds-saving...................... Not Applicable.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Must have an unheated rinse water option.

(2) All top-loading or front-loading standard-size residential
clothes washers manufactured on or after January 1, 2011, and before
March 7, 2015, shall meet the following standard--
(i) A Modified Energy Factor of at least 1.26; and
(ii) A Water Factor of not more than 9.5.
(3) Clothes washers manufactured on or after March 7, 2015, and
before January 1, 2018, shall have an Integrated Modified Energy Factor
no less than, and an Integrated Water Factor no greater than:

[[Page 32380]]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated modified Integrated water
Product class energy factor factor (gal/cycle/
(cu.ft./kWh/cycle) cu.ft.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Top-loading, Compact 0.86 14.4
(less than 1.6 ft\3\
capacity)..................
ii. Top-loading, Standard 1.29 8.4
(1.6 ft\3\ or greater
capacity)..................
iii. Front-loading, Compact 1.13 8.3
(less than 1.6 ft\3\
capacity)..................
iv. Front-loading, Standard 1.84 4.7
(1.6 ft\3\ or greater
capacity)..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4) Clothes washers manufactured on or after January 1, 2018 shall
have an Integrated Modified Energy Factor no less than, and an
Integrated Water Factor no greater than:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated modified Integrated water
Product class energy factor factor (gal/cycle/
(cu.ft./kWh/cycle) cu.ft.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Top-loading, Compact 1.15 12.0
(less than 1.6 ft\3\
capacity)..................
ii. Top-loading, Standard 1.57 6.5
(1.6 ft\3\ or greater
capacity)..................
iii. Front-loading, Compact 1.13 8.3
(less than 1.6 ft\3\
capacity)..................
iv. Front-loading, Standard 1.84 4.7
(1.6 ft\3\ or greater
capacity)..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-12320 Filed 5-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P