Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers

Federal RegisterMar 3, 2023

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014]

RIN 1904-AD98

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting.

SUMMARY:

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including residential clothes washers (“RCWs”). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) to periodically determine whether more-stringent, standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. In this notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”), DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for RCWs, and also announces a public meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

DATES:

Meeting:

DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Tuesday, March 28, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section VII of this document, “Public Participation,” for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.

Comments:

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NOPR no later than May 2, 2023.

Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in the

ADDRESSES

section on or before April 3, 2023.

ADDRESSES:

Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at

www.regulations.gov,

under docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014, by any of the following methods:

Email: ConsumerClothesWasher2017STD0014@ee.doe.gov.

Include the docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014 in the subject line of the message.

Postal Mail:

Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (“CD”), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

Hand Delivery/Courier:

Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

No telefacsimiles (“faxes”) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section VII of this document.

Docket:

The docket for this activity, which includes

Federal Register

notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at

www.regulations.gov.

All documents in the docket are listed in the

www.regulations.gov

index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

The docket web page can be found at

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014.

The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section VII of this document for information on how to submit comments through

www.regulations.gov.

EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites input from market participants and other interested persons with views on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested persons may contact the Division at

energy.standards@usdoj.gov

on or before the date specified in the

DATES

section. Please indicate in the “Subject” line of your email the title and Docket Number of this proposed rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-5649. Email:

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

Ms. Melanie Lampton, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 751-5157. Email:

Melanie.Lampton@hq.doe.gov.

For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

B. Impact on Manufacturers

C. National Benefits and Costs

D. Conclusion

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

1. Current Standards

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Residential Clothes Washers

C. Deviation From Appendix A

III. General Discussion

A. General Comments

B. Scope of Coverage

C. Test Procedure

1. History of Appendix J

2. Metrics

3. Test Cloth

4. Other Test Procedure-Related Comments

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

2. Significance of Savings

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)

c. Energy Savings

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

g. Other Factors

2. Rebuttable Presumption

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Product Classes

2. Technology Options

B. Screening Analysis

1. Screened-Out Technologies

2. Remaining Technologies

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Preliminary Analysis Prediction Tool

2. Efficiency Analysis

a. Baseline Efficiency Levels

b. Higher Efficiency Levels

c. Semi-Automatic

3. Cost Analysis

4. Cost-Efficiency Results

5. Translations

a. Preliminary Analysis Approach

b. NODA Approach

c. NOPR Approach

d. Alternative Approaches

D. Markups Analysis

E. Energy and Water Use Analysis

1. Number of Annual Cycles

2. Rebound Effect

3. Water Heating Energy Use

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. Consumer Product Cost

2. Installation Cost

3. Annual Energy and Water Consumption

4. Energy and Water Prices

a. Energy Prices

b. Water and Wastewater Prices

5. Repair and Maintenance Costs

6. Product Lifetime

7. Discount Rates

8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case

9. Payback Period Analysis

10. Other Issues

G. Shipments Analysis

H. National Impact Analysis

1. Product Efficiency Trends

2. National Energy and Water Savings

3. Net Present Value Analysis

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

1. Low-Income Households

2. Senior-Only Households

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs

a. Manufacturer Production Costs

b. Shipments Projections

c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs

d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios

3. Manufacturer Interviews

a. Product Classes

b. Ability To Serve Certain Consumer Segments

c. Supply Chain Constraints

4. Discussion of MIA Comments

K. Emissions Analysis

1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts

1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

a. Social Cost of Carbon

b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide

2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts

M. Utility Impact Analysis

N. Employment Impact Analysis

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions

A. Trial Standard Levels

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results

b. Direct Impacts on Employment

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

3. National Impact Analysis

a. Significance of Energy and Water Savings

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products

a. Performance Characteristics

b. Availability of “Traditional” Agitators

c. Water Levels

d. Availability of Portable Products

e. Conclusion

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy

7. Other Factors

8. Summary of Economic Impacts

C. Conclusion

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Residential Clothes Washer Standards

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards

D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule

3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Information Quality

VII. Public Participation

A. Participation in the Webinar

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution

C. Conduct of the Webinar

D. Submission of Comments

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as amended (“EPCA”),

authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA

established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include consumer (residential)

clothes washers (“RCWs”), the subject of this proposed rulemaking.

All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.

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

DOE uses the “residential” nomenclature and “RCW” abbreviation for consumer clothes washers in order to distinguish from the “CCW” abbreviation used for commercial clothes washers, which are also regulated equipment under EPCA.

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m))

In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for RCWs. The proposed standards, which are expressed in terms of energy efficiency ratio (“EER”) measured in pounds per kilowatt-hour per cycle (“lb/kWh/cycle”) and water efficiency ratio (“WER”) measured in pounds per gallon per cycle (“lb/gal/cycle”) as measured using the test procedure at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”), part 430, subpart B, appendix J (“appendix J”), are shown in Table I.1. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all RCWs listed in Table I.1 manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on the date 3 years after the publication in the

Federal Register

of the final rule for this rulemaking. As shown in Table I.1 and discussed further in IV.A.1 of this document, DOE proposes standards for separate RCW product classes that are

defined based on axis of loading (

i.e.,

top-loading or front-loading), clothes container capacity (measured in cubic feet (“ft

”)), and whether the product is automatic or semi-automatic.

Table I.1—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers

Product class

Minimum energy

efficiency ratio

(lb/kWh/cycle)

Minimum water

efficiency ratio

(lb/gal/cycle)

Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers

2.12

0.27

Automatic Clothes Washers:

Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact (less than 1.6 ft

capacity)

3.79

0.29

Top-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft

or greater capacity)

4.78

0.63

Front-Loading, Compact (less than 3.0 ft

capacity)

5.02

0.71

Front-Loading, Standard-Size (3.0 ft

or greater capacity)

5.73

0.77

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the proposed standards, represented by trial standard level (

“

TSL”) 4, on consumers of RCWs, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (“LCC”) savings and the simple payback period (“PBP”).

The average LCC savings are positive for all product classes, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of RCWs, which is estimated to be 13.7 years (see section IV.F.6 of this document).

The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards (see section IV.F.8 of this document). The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline product (see section IV.F.9 of this document).

Table I.2—Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Residential Clothes Washers

Product class

Average LCC

savings

(2021$)

Simple payback

period

(years)

Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers

$329

0.3

Automatic Clothes Washers:

Top-Loading, Ultra-Compact (less than 1.6 ft

capacity) *

n.a.

Top-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft

or greater capacity)

134

5.9

Front-Loading, Compact (less than 3.0 ft

capacity)

9.1

Front-Loading, Standard-Size (3.0 ft

or greater capacity)

3.2

* The entry “n.a.” means not applicable because the standard at the proposed TSL is the baseline.

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on consumers is described in section IV.F of this document.

B. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (“INPV”) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2022-2056). Using a real discount rate of 9.3 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of RCWs in the case without amended standards is $1,738.3 million in 2021$. Under the proposed standards, the change in INPV is estimated to range from -30.5 percent to -20.8 percent, which is approximately −$530.2 million to −$361.6 million. In order to bring products into compliance with amended standards, it is estimated that the industry would incur total conversion costs of $690.8 million.

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document. The analytic results of the manufacturer impact analysis (“MIA”) are presented in section V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs

All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2021 dollars.

DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation standards for RCWs would save a significant amount of energy and water. Relative to the case without amended standards, the lifetime energy and water savings for RCWs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the standards (2027-2056) amount to 1.45 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads of energy and 2.53 trillion gallons of water, respectively.

The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (“FFC”) energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (

i.e.,

coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.1 of this document.

The cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer benefits of the proposed standards for RCWs ranges from $5.14 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $14.52 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs and installation costs for RCWs purchased in 2027-2056.

In addition, the proposed standards for RCWs are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the proposed standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 53.21 million metric tons (“Mt”)

of carbon dioxide (“CO

”), 19.93 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (“SO

”), 92.39 thousand tons of nitrogen

oxides (“NO

”), 411.43 thousand tons of methane (“CH

”), 0.48 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (“N

O”), and 0.13 tons of mercury (“Hg”).

A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for emissions other than CO

are presented in short tons.

DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the

Annual Energy Outlook 2022

(“

AEO2022”

AEO2022

represents current federal and state legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the time of its preparation. See section IV.K of this document for further discussion of

AEO2022

assumptions that effect air pollutant emissions.

DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in greenhouse gases (“GHG”) using four different estimates of the social cost of CO

(“SC-CO

”), the social cost of methane (“SC-CH

”), and the social cost of nitrous oxide (“SC-N

O”). Together these represent the social cost of GHG (“SC-GHG”).

DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (“IWG”).

The derivation of these values is discussed in section IV.L of this document. For presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $2.71 billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.

On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the Federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in

Louisiana

Biden,

No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from “adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon” the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.

See

Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide. Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, Washington, DC, February 2021.

www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf.

DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO

and NO

emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates from the scientific literature, as discussed in section IV.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would be $1.91 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $4.57 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.

DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO

and NO

) PM

2.5

precursor health benefits and (for NO

) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM

2.5

emissions.

DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.

Table I.3 summarizes the economic benefits and costs expected to result from the proposed standards for RCWs. There are other important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate benefits, unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits, and distributional effects, among others.

Table I.3—Summary of Monetized Economic Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers

[TSL 4]

Billion 2021$

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

27.83

Climate Benefits *

2.71

Health Benefits **

4.57

Total Benefits †

35.11

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡

13.31

Net Benefits

14.52

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

12.73

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)

2.71

Health Benefits **

1.91

Total Benefits †

17.35

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡

7.58

Net Benefits

5.14

Note:

This table presents the costs and benefits associated with RCWs shipped in 2027-2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056.

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO

), methane (SC-CH

), and nitrous oxide (SC-N

O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate) (see section IV.L of this document). Together these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the Federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in

Louisiana

Biden,

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NO

and SO

. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO

and NO

) PM

2.5

precursor health benefits and (for NO

) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM

2.5

emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.

† Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.

‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.

The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and benefits of emission reductions, all annualized.

To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2021, the year used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur (

e.g.,

2030), and then discounted the present value from each year to 2021. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for all costs and benefits. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year, that yields the same present value.

The national operating savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered products and are measured for the lifetime of RCWs shipped in 2027-2056. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of RCWs shipped in 2027-2056. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are presented for all four discount rates in section IV.L of this document.

Table I.4 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.

Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from reduced NO

and SO

emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards proposed in this rule is $800.8 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $1,344.2 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $155.7 million in climate benefits, and $202.0 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $901.1 million per year.

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards is $764.0 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $1,598.0 million in reduced operating costs, $155.7 million in climate benefits, and $262.2 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $1,251.8 million per year.

Table I.4—Annualized Monetized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers

[TSL 4]

Million 2021$/year

Primary

estimate

Low-net-

benefits

estimate

High-net-

benefits

estimate

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

1,598.0

1,544.5

1,657.8

Climate Benefits *

155.7

151.7

159.7

Health Benefits **

262.2

255.8

268.9

Total Benefits†

2,015.9

1,952.0

2,086.4

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡

764.0

778.7

695.5

Net Benefits

1,251.8

1,173.4

1,390.9

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

1,344.2

1,302.8

1,389.7

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)

155.7

151.7

159.7

Health Benefits **

202.0

197.5

206.7

Total Benefits †

1,701.9

1,652.0

1,756.1

Consumer Incremental Product Costs‡

800.8

813.3

737.9

Net Benefits

901.1

838.7

1,018.3

Note:

This table presents the costs and benefits associated with RCWs shipped in 2027-2056. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the

AEO2022

Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.L of this document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the Federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in

Louisiana

Biden,

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NO

and SO

. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO

and NO

) PM

2.5

precursor health benefits and (for NO

) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM

2.5

emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details.

† Total benefits include for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.

‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.

DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is described in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this document.

D. Conclusion

DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in the significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to technological feasibility, products achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for all product classes covered by this proposal. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that the benefits of the proposed standard exceed, to a great extent, the burdens of the proposed standards.

Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and NOx and SO

reduction benefits, and a 3-percent discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards for RCWs is $800.8 million per year in increased product costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $1,344.2 million in reduced product operating costs, $155.7 million in climate benefits and $202.0 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $901.1 million per year.

The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.

For example, some covered products and equipment have substantial energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.

Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).

As previously mentioned, the proposed standards are projected to result in estimated national energy savings of 1.45 quads FFC, the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 16 million homes. The NPV of consumer benefit for these projected energy savings is $5.14 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $14.52 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent. The cumulative emissions reductions associated with these energy savings are 53.21 Mt of CO

, 19.93 thousand tons of SO

, 92.39 thousand tons of NO

, 0.13 tons of Hg, 411.43 thousand tons of CH

, and 0.48 thousand tons of N

O. The estimated monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) is $2.71 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health benefits from reduced SO

and NO

emissions is $1.91 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $4.57 billion using a 3-percent discount rate. As such, DOE has initially determined the energy savings from the proposed standard levels are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

A more detailed discussion of the basis for these tentative conclusions is contained in the remainder of this document and the accompanying technical support document (“TSD”).

See section III.E.2 of this document for further discussion of how DOE determines whether energy savings are “significant” within the context of the statute.

The TSD is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking at

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014.

DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as potential standards, and is still considering them in this proposed rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the projected benefits.

Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in response to this document and related information collected and analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt energy efficiency levels presented in this document that are either higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for RCWs.

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include RCWs, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(2) and (9)(A)), and directs DOE to conduct future rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4) and (9)(B)) EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy

conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).

Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (

See

42 U.S.C. 6297(d))

Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for RCWs appear at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J (“appendix J”) and appendix J2 (“appendix J2”).

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including RCWs. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))

Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:

(1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and on the consumers of the products subject to such standard;

(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered products which are likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

(3) The total projected amount of energy, or as applicable, water, savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard;

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and

(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))

Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))

EPCA also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))

Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of product that has the same function or intended use, if DOE determines that products within such group: (A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate.

Id.

Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))

Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA 2007”), Public Law 110-140, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's current test procedures for RCWs address standby mode and off mode energy use as part of the EER metric. In this rulemaking, DOE intends to incorporate such energy use into any amended energy conservation standards that it may adopt.

B. Background

1. Current Standards

The current energy conservation standards for RCWs were established in a direct final rule published on May 31, 2012. 77 FR 32308 (“May 2012 Final Rule”).

These standards are consistent with a joint proposal submitted to DOE

by interested parties representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, and consumer groups.

DOE published a confirmation of effective date and compliance date for the direct final rule on October 1, 2012. 77 FR 59719.

Available at:

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019-0032.

The current standards are defined in terms of a minimum allowable integrated modified energy factor (“IMEF”), measured in cubic feet per kilowatt-hour per cycle (“ft

/kWh/cycle”), and maximum allowable integrated water factor (“IWF”), measured in gallons per cycle per cubic foot (“gal/cycle/ft

”), as measured according to appendix J2.

Id.

The May 2012 Final Rule established four classes of RCW: top-loading, compact (less than 1.6 ft

capacity); top-loading, standard-size (1.6 ft

or greater capacity); front-loading, compact (less than 1.6 ft

capacity); and front-loading, standard-size (1.6 ft

or greater capacity). 77 FR 32308, 32316-32320. The May 2012 Final Rule established a two-phase compliance date—the first phase of amended standards applied to RCWs manufactured on or after March 7, 2015. 77 FR 32308, 32380. The second phase of amended standards, which is currently applicable, applies to RCWs manufactured on or after January 1, 2018.

Id.

The current energy conservation standards for RCWs are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(g)(4) and are shown in Table II.1.

Table II.1—Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers

Product class

Minimum integrated

modified

energy factor

(ft

/kWh/cycle)

Maximum integrated

water factor

(gal/cycle/ft

)

Top-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft

capacity)

1.15

12.0

Top-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft

or greater capacity)

1.57

6.5

Front-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft

capacity)

1.13

8.3

Front-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft

or greater capacity)

1.84

4.7

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Residential Clothes Washers

On August 2, 2019, DOE published a request for information (“RFI”) to initiate an effort to determine whether to amend the current energy conservation standards for RCWs. 84 FR 37794 (“August 2019 RFI”). Specifically, through the August 2019 RFI, DOE sought data and information that could enable the agency to determine whether DOE should propose a “no new standard” determination because a more stringent standard: (1) would not result in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of foregoing.

Id.

On September 29, 2021, DOE published a notification of the availability of a preliminary technical support document for RCWs (“September 2021 Preliminary Analysis”). 86 FR 53886. In that notification, DOE sought comment on the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE used to evaluate potential standards for RCWs, the results of preliminary analyses performed, and the potential energy conservation standard levels derived from these analyses, which DOE presented in the accompanying Preliminary TSD (“September 2021 Preliminary TSD”).

Id.

On October 29, 2021, DOE extended the comment period for the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis for an additional 45 days. 86 FR 59889.

September 2021 Residential Clothes Washers Energy Conservation Standards Preliminary Technical Support Document. Available online at

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0014-0030.

The September 2021 Preliminary Analysis was conducted based on energy and water use metrics as measured according to proposed amendments to the test procedure as published in a NOPR on September 1, 2021 (“September 2021 TP NOPR”). 86 FR 49140. Part of this analysis included developing translations between the metrics established by the current appendix J2 test procedure (

i.e.,

IMEF and IWF) and the new metrics proposed to be established by the new appendix J test procedure (

i.e.,

EER and WER).

On April 13, 2022, DOE published a notification of data availability (“NODA”) presenting the results of additional testing conducted in furtherance of the development of the translations between the current test procedure and the proposed new test procedure. 87 FR 21816 (“April 2022 NODA”). The April 2022 NODA included a larger sample size of RCWs than the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis (44 units compared to 16 in the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, and covering all proposed product classes). The April 2022 NODA presented detailed energy and water use measurements for each model as well as a summary of key characteristics pertaining to each model (

e.g.,

product class, capacity, cabinet width,

etc.

). On May 19, 2022, DOE reopened the comment period for the April 2022 NODA and provided additional information in response to stakeholder questions. 87 FR 30433.

DOE received comments in response to the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis and April 2022 NODA from the interested parties listed in Table II.2.

Table II.2—Written Comments Received in Response to the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis and April 2022 NODA

Commenter(s)

Abbreviation

Comment No. in the docket

In response to

September 2021

Preliminary

Analysis

In response to

April 2022

NODA

Commenter type

Ameren Illinois, Commonwealth Edison Company, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Northwest Power and Conservation Council Staff

Ameren

et al

* n/a

Efficiency Organization & Utilities.

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation of America, Natural Resources Defense Council

ASAP

et al

Efficiency Organizations.

Art Fraas

Fraas

n/a

Individual.

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

AHAM

Trade Association.

Commonwealth Edison Company and Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

ComEd and NEEA

n/a

Utility & Efficiency Organization.

GE Appliances

GEA

n/a

Manufacturer.

Members of the committee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

NAS Members

n/a

National Advisors.

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

NYSERDA

n/a

Public Benefit Corporation.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison; collectively, the California Investor-Owned Utilities

CA IOUs

Utilities.

Samsung

n/a

Manufacturer.

Whirlpool Corporation

Whirlpool

n/a

Manufacturer.

* “n/a” signifies that the commenter or group of commenters did not provide a comment in response to the particular notification.

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.

To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided during the November 10, 2021, public meeting, DOE cites the written comments throughout this document. Any oral comments provided during the webinar that are not substantively addressed by written comments are summarized and cited separately throughout this document.

The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for RCWs. (Docket NO. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014, which is maintained at

www.regulations.gov

). The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document).

GEA commented in support of AHAM's comments and incorporated AHAM's comments into its own by reference. (GEA, No. 38 at p. 2)

Whirlpool commented that it supports and echo AHAM's positions. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 2) Whirlpool added that its comments expand upon AHAM's comments and provide additional detail or data to reinforce its positions, as well as to comment on areas where AHAM cannot comment. (

Id.

)

NYSERDA commented that it supports the detailed comments provided by ASAP

et al.,

most notably investigating the correlation between clothes washer capacity and measured efficiency. (NYSERDA, No. 36 at p. 2)

AHAM specified that its comments in response to the April 2022 NODA do not supplant its previous comments submitted in response to the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, but instead supplement those comments. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 2)

C. Deviation From Appendix A

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (“appendix A”), DOE notes that it is deviating from the provision in appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR stages for an energy conservation standards rulemaking. Section 6(a)(2) of appendix A states that if the Department determines it is appropriate to proceed with a rulemaking, the preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue or amend an energy conservation standard that DOE will undertake will be a framework document and preliminary analysis, or an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. While DOE published a preliminary analysis for this rulemaking, DOE did not publish a framework document in conjunction with the preliminary analysis. DOE notes, however, chapter 2 of the September 2021 Preliminary TSD that accompanied the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis—entitled Analytical Framework, Comments from Interested Parties, and DOE Responses—describes the general analytical framework that DOE uses in evaluating and developing potential amended energy conservation standards. Additionally, prior to the notification of the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE published an RFI in which DOE identified and sought comment on the analyses conducted in support of the most recent energy conservation standards rulemakings for RCWs. 84 FR 37794. As such, publication of a separate framework document would be largely redundant of previously published documents.

Section 6(f)(2) of appendix A specifies that the length of the public comment period for a NOPR will vary depending upon the circumstances of the particular rulemaking, but will not be less than 75 calendar days. For this NOPR, DOE has opted to instead provide a 60-day comment period. DOE requested comment in the August 2019 RFI on the technical and economic analyses and provided stakeholders a 60-day comment period, after publishing the comment period extension. 84 FR 37794, 84 FR 44557. Additionally, DOE initially provided a 75-day comment period for the September 2021

Preliminary Analysis with an extension to 120 days. 86 FR 53886, 86 FR 59889. DOE also provided a 30-day comment period for the April 2022 NODA and re-opened the comment period for an additional 9 days. 87 FR 21816, 87 FR 30433. The analytical methods used for this NOPR are similar to those used in previous rulemaking notices. As such, DOE believes a 60-day comment period is necessary and appropriate and will provide interested parties with a meaningful opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.

III. General Discussion

DOE developed this proposal after considering oral and written comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues raised by these commenters.

A. General Comments

This section summarizes general comments received from interested parties regarding rulemaking timing and process.

AHAM commented that publishing the September 2021 TP NOPR and the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis concurrently did not allow sufficient time for stakeholders to provide meaningful comments on either publication. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 2-4) AHAM commented that although DOE missed the statutory deadlines for both the test procedure and standards rulemakings, it is disingenuous to claim that the only option is to move forward concurrently on these rulemakings. (

Id.

) AHAM suggested that DOE should have published the test procedure earlier, considered implementing fewer changes to the test procedure, or made changes that do not require testing to evaluate or reestablish the baseline energy conservation standards. (

Id.

) AHAM expressed concern that DOE moving forward concurrently with these rulemakings will likely lead to DOE needing to conduct additional analysis based on the finalized test procedure before proposing a new energy conservation standard, and that DOE is missing the opportunity to receive meaningful feedback on the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis. (

Id.

) AHAM added that despite DOE's desire to move quickly to rectify missed statutory deadlines, DOE must ensure it meets other statutory criteria, including that a standard must be technically and economically justified. (

Id.

)

AHAM noted that the comment periods for the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis and the September 2021 TP NOPR overlapped by 34 days. AHAM noted that it requested a 92-day comment period extension for the September 2021 TP NOPR to provide adequate time to evaluate the proposed changes to the test procedure through testing. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 2) AHAM added that while it appreciated DOE considering that request and extending the comment period by 28 days, that extension was insufficient to complete the robust testing plan developed by AHAM and its members, gather the test data, and analyze the results. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 2-4; AHAM, No. 53 at p. 2)

AHAM stated that because of the insufficient time, it was unable to provide detailed comment on the accuracy, repeatability, and testing burden associated with the proposed test procedure and on its potential impact on measured efficiency, or fully comment on the proposed test procedures implications related to the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 2) AHAM further stated that it was planning its own testing in order to fully understand and evaluate DOE's proposed changes. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 2-4)

AHAM commented that it was poor process for DOE to issue a test procedure final rule before receiving comments on the April 2022 NODA, and to do so during a brief comment period extension. (

Id.

) AHAM added that DOE finalizing the test procedure during the brief NODA comment period extension made it nearly impossible for AHAM to review and analyze the final test procedure in addition to the new data and responses to AHAM's questions in order to formulate complete comments on the NODA. (

Id.

)

AHAM further commented that although DOE did not hold a public meeting for the April 2022 NODA, it appreciated that DOE answered its questions and provided more time for comments in order to allow commenters to review the updates. (AHAM, No. 53 at pp. 2-3) AHAM stated, however, that the timing of when DOE provided links to the updated data and responses to questions left very little time for review and analysis of the additional data and information. (

Id.

)

AHAM noted that although the April 2022 NODA is technically part of the energy conservation standards docket, comments on DOE's test data could relate to both the energy conservation standards and test procedure rulemakings. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 3) AHAM stated that its comments in response to the April 2022 NODA therefore address both the test procedure and the energy conservation standards. (

Id.

) AHAM commented that it was poor process for DOE to issue a test procedure final rule before receiving comments on the April 2022 NODA, and to do so during a brief comment period extension. (

Id.

) AHAM further explained that even though DOE answered or deferred most of AHAM's requests in the test procedure final rule and in the April 2022 NODA, AHAM's comments on the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis indicated that additional information was needed in order to provide full feedback to DOE on the test procedure. (

Id.

)

AHAM requested that DOE allow for 180 days between the publication of the test procedure final rule and the end of the comment period for the energy conservation standards NOPR. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 4-6; AHAM, No. 53 at p. 12)

Samsung also commented that, given the scope of changes proposed in appendix J, more data would be needed to establish the baseline and efficiency levels, which could further delay the finalization of the next energy conservation standards. (Samsung, No. 41 at p. 3) Samsung commented that it therefore believes more time and test data are needed to fully adopt appendix J. (

Id.

)

NYSERDA encouraged DOE to quickly proceed in this rulemaking to unlock additional significant savings for New Yorkers. (NYSERDA, No. 36 at p. 3)

In response to AHAM's comments regarding the timing of the September 2021 TP NOPR and the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE notes that the timing of the test procedure and energy conservation standards rulemakings have been conducted in accordance with DOE's procedures at appendix A to subpart C of part 430,

Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products and Certain Commercial/Industrial Equipment

(“appendix A” or “Process Rule”). The Process Rule inherently recognizes a certain amount of overlap between test procedure and energy conservation standards rulemakings. In particular, the Process Rule specifies that new test procedures and amended test procedures that impact measured energy use or efficiency will be finalized at least 180 days prior to the close of the

comment period for a NOPR proposing new or amended energy conservation standards or a notice of proposed determination that standards do not need to be amended. Section 8(d)(1) of appendix A. Inherent to this requirement is a recognition that the earlier stages of the test procedure rulemaking (

i.e.,

the test procedure NOPR stage) would be conducted concurrently with the pre-NOPR stages of the energy conservation standards rulemaking (

i.e.,

the preliminary analysis stage). In other words, the implication of the timing established by the Process Rule is that a test procedure NOPR may provide the basis for a standards preliminary analysis; while a test procedure final rule provides the basis for a standards NOPR. DOE published a test procedure final rule on June 1, 2022 (“June 2022 TP Final Rule”). 87 FR 33316. This standards NOPR is publishing more than 180 days after the publication of the June 2022 TP Final Rule, in accordance with the requirements of the Process Rule.

As acknowledged by AHAM, DOE is conducting this rulemaking in fulfillment of its statutory obligations under EPCA. DOE recognizes and appreciates the information and data provided by multiple interested parties in response to the September 2021 TP NOPR, September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, and April 2022 NODA. As discussed throughout this NOPR, DOE has incorporated data and other information received during these prior rulemaking stages into the analyses conducted for this NOPR.

In response to the September 2021 Preliminary TSD, AHAM commented that DOE did not provide sufficient data to support the September 2021 Preliminary TSD, and that DOE's analysis was not transparent. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 4-6) AHAM asserted that by providing summary data and conclusions without providing further detail, DOE failed to meet the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act or the Data Quality Act. (

Id.

) AHAM further commented that the summary information that DOE provided as part of the September 2021 Preliminary TSD was somewhat helpful but did not allow stakeholders to fully assess the data and did not clearly demonstrate that DOE's proposed translation between appendix J2 and proposed appendix J was accurate. (

Id.

) AHAM requested that DOE provide its full test data by model for all models tested to appendix J2 and new appendix J, via a NODA or other appropriate regulatory tool. (

Id.

) AHAM also requested that DOE share the model numbers of the clothes washers it tested since it would help stakeholders, such as AHAM and its members, determine the representativeness of the sample. (

Id.

) Specifically, AHAM requested that all data released contain all variables including, but not limited to: total weighted per-cycle hot water energy consumption (“HE

”), total weighted per-cycle machine electrical energy consumption (“ME

”), total per-cycle energy consumption for removal of moisture (“DE

”), combined per-cycle low power mode energy consumption (“E

TLP

”), and total weighted per-cycle water consumption (“Q

”). (

Id.

) AHAM asked that if DOE cannot provide the information AHAM requested, DOE should issue an explanation as to why it cannot produce the data. (

Id.

) AHAM added that it will consider sharing its data confidentially with DOE once its analysis is complete so that DOE can include its analysis on the docket. (

Id.

)

AHAM stated that DOE should not issue an energy conservation standards NOPR until it publishes a NODA that provides updated data from DOE and AHAM members' testing. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 4-6)

In response to the April 2022 NODA, AHAM commented that it had tested 26 RCW models that represent a cross-section of the market in terms of capacity and features. (AHAM, No. 53 at pp. 6-7) AHAM tested each model one to three times and averaged the results. (

Id.

) AHAM presented data comparing IMEF versus EER and IWF versus WER for the 26 units tested by AHAM and the 44 units tested by DOE in the April 2022 NODA, by product class. (

Id.

) AHAM concluded that DOE's data presented in the April 2022 NODA appears to be similar to AHAM's data in terms of test results, distribution of models, and variability. (

Id.

) AHAM commented that while it appreciates DOE including equations and other transparent information in the April 2022 NODA, DOE still has not provided model numbers for the units it tested. (

Id.

) AHAM therefore noted that it is impossible for AHAM to know whether DOE and AHAM tested some of the same models. (

Id.

)

The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to disclose clothes washer cycle time, length of spin time for extracting rinse water, and the maximum spin speed for the 62 clothes washers tested by DOE so that interested parties could better ascertain the trade-offs related to cycle time and gain a better understanding of the differences between the remaining moisture content (“RMC”)

as calculated using appendix J2 versus appendix J. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at p. 4) The CA IOUs commented that in the September 2021 Preliminary TSD, higher spin speeds and longer spin times were both used as design options for efficiency level (“EL”) 3 and EL 4, depending on the product class and that based on the publicly available information, they were unable to assess the potential impacts to the overall cycle time or to understand the potential trade-offs for higher spin speeds in lieu of longer cycle times. (

Id.

)

The RMC represents the amount of moisture remaining in the test load at the end of the washer cycle. RMC is used to calculate the drying energy component of IMEF and EER. On most clothes washers, the drying energy component represents the largest portion of energy captured in the IMEF and EER metrics.

As discussed in section II.B.2 of this document, the April 2022 NODA presented additional test data and detailed information characterizing each tested model. This data included the key energy and water use parameters requested by AHAM (

i.e.,

, ME

, DE

, E

TLP

, and Q

) for each of the models tested. DOE also provided a number of key characteristics pertaining to each model (

e.g.,

product class, capacity, cabinet width,

etc.

) that illustrate the types of units on the market that were represented by DOE's test program. DOE appreciates the additional test data subsequently provided by AHAM. As discussed in section IV.C.5 of this document, DOE used AHAM's data in combination with DOE's data to evaluate the appendix J2 to appendix J efficiency metric translation methods under consideration.

Regarding the CA IOUs' comment requesting disclosure of the cycle time measured for each unit in DOE's test sample, although the April 2022 NODA did not indicate the measured cycle time of each unit in DOE's test sample, DOE has characterized the average cycle time associated with each defined efficiency level for each product, as described in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

NAS Members commented generally on DOE's analytical approach to setting efficiency standards and offered findings and recommendations for improving DOE's methodology, and ultimately, the net social benefits of the efficiency standards DOE establishes under EPCA. (NAS Members, No. 34 at pp. 1-7)

AHAM commented that National Academy of Sciences (“NAS”) recently released a peer review of methods used by DOE in setting appliance and equipment standards. (AHAM, No. 40 at p. 9) AHAM recommended that DOE determine how it will address the NAS

report before engaging in further rulemakings or new amended standards. (

Id.

) AHAM acknowledged that although this may not be feasible given the number of missed deadlines and the need to move forward to mitigate further missed deadlines, AHAM and its members are reviewing the NAS report and may have additional comments on how DOE should revise its methodology for future rulemakings both generally, and with regard to RCWs. (

Id.

)

In response to AHAM, DOE is addressing the contents of the NAS report

in a separate rulemaking, in parallel with other ongoing rulemakings including this RCW rulemaking.

The Consensus Study Report, “Review of Methods Used by the U.S. Department of Energy in Setting Appliance and Equipment Standards,” January 7, 2022. Available at

www.nap.edu/catalog/25992/review-of-methods-used-by-the-us-department-of-energy-in-setting-appliance-and-equipment-standards.

B. Scope of Coverage

This NOPR covers those consumer products that meet the definition of “clothes washer.” 10 CFR 430.2.

EPCA does not define the term “clothes washer.” DOE has defined a “clothes washer” as a consumer product designed to clean clothes, utilizing a water solution of soap and/or detergent and mechanical agitation or other movement, that must be one of the following classes: automatic clothes washers, semi-automatic clothes washers, and other clothes washers.

Id.

An “automatic clothes washer” is a class of clothes washer that has a control system that is capable of scheduling a preselected combination of operations, such as regulation of water temperature, regulation of the water fill level, and performance of wash, rinse, drain, and spin functions without the need for user intervention subsequent to the initiation of machine operation. Some models may require user intervention to initiate these different segments of the cycle after the machine has begun operation, but they do not require the user to intervene to regulate the water temperature by adjusting the external water faucet valves.

Id.

A “semi-automatic clothes washer” is a class of clothes washer that is the same as an automatic clothes washer except that user intervention is required to regulate the water temperature by adjusting the external water faucet valves.

Id.

“Other clothes washer” means a class of clothes washer that is not an automatic or semi-automatic clothes washer.

Id.

See section IV.A.1 of this document for discussion of the product classes analyzed in this NOPR.

Other definitions relevant to RCWs have been established by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) for purposes of the ENERGY STAR program. For example, Version 8.1 of the Program Requirements Product Specification for Clothes Washers (“ENERGY STAR Version 8.1 Specification”)

defines a “combination all-in-one washer-dryer” as a consumer product that meets the definition of an RCW and an electric clothes dryer or gas clothes dryer, which cleans and dries clothes in a single tumble-type drum; a drying cycle can be performed independently without first performing a wash cycle. During the drying cycle, combination all-in-one washer-dryers use one of two methods to dry the clothing load: either using circulated air (without the use of water) to cool and condense moisture from the dryer process air (

i.e.,

“combination all-in-one washer-dryers with air-only drying”), or consuming water to cool and condense moisture from the dryer process air (

i.e.,

“combination all-in-one washer-dryers with water-cooled drying”). In the ENERGY STAR Version 8.1 Specification, combination all-in-one washer-dryers with air-only drying are eligible for ENERGY STAR certification, whereas combination all-in-one washer-dryers with water-cooled drying are ineligible for ENERGY STAR certification.

ENERGY STAR Version 8.1 Program Requirements Product Specification for Clothes Washers. Available online at

www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/ENERGY%20STAR%20Version%208.1%20Clothes%20Washer%20Final%20Specificaiton%20-%20Partner%20Commitments%20and%20Eligibility%20Criteria.pdf.

The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to investigate water-cooled combination all-in-one washer-dryers and to take steps to address water usage concerns raised by the ENERGY STAR Version 8.1 Specification published in April 2021. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 6-7) The CA IOUs noted that combination all-in-one washer-dryers with water-cooled drying are not currently subject to any water use standards or water-usage testing requirements despite the recent changes finalized by the clothes dryer test procedure final rule published on October 8, 2021. (

See

86 FR 56608;

Id.

) The CA IOUs expressed concern that there is unmeasured and unregulated water use in products that seemingly include a water standard for the washing mode of the same product. (

Id.

) The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to find ways to disclose this information, including requiring public disclosure of any product configurations that use water during the drying cycle as part of the certification requirements and relevant product labeling; making changes to the consumer clothes dryer test procedure to measure water use for combination clothes washer products; and developing a separate test procedure and standard for combination all-in-one washer-dryers and laundry centers that include both the washing and drying functions. (

Id.

)

Evaluating or developing test procedures is outside the scope of this energy conservation standards rulemaking. DOE is not proposing any certification or labeling requirements in this NOPR. Instead, DOE may consider proposals to establish certification requirements and reporting for RCWs under a separate rulemaking regarding appliance and equipment certification.

C. Test Procedure

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293) Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. DOE's current energy conservation standards for RCWs are expressed in terms of IMEF and IWF as measured using appendix J2. (See 10 CFR 430.32(g)(4).)

1. History of Appendix J

As discussed, the September 2021 TP NOPR proposed a new test procedure at appendix J, which proposed to define new energy efficiency metrics: an energy efficiency ratio (

i.e.,

EER) and a water efficiency ratio (

i.e.,

WER). 86 FR 49140, 49172. EER is defined as the weighted-average load size in pounds (“lbs”) divided by the sum of (1) the per-cycle machine energy, (2) the per-cycle water heating energy, (3) the per-cycle drying energy, and (4) the per-cycle standby and off mode energy consumption, in kilowatt-hours (“kWh”).

Id.

WER is defined as the weighted-average load size in lbs divided by the total weighted per-cycle water consumption for all wash cycles in gallons.

Id.

For both EER and WER, a higher value indicates more efficient performance.

Id.

The September 2021 Preliminary Analysis was performed using the appendix J test procedure as it was proposed in the September 2021 TP NOPR.

As discussed, DOE finalized the new appendix J test procedure in the June 2022 TP Final Rule. 87 FR 33316. DOE used appendix J as finalized in the June

2022 TP Final Rule as the basis for the analysis in this NOPR.

AHAM commented that DOE did not finalize appendix J as proposed in the September 2021 TP NOPR and that the test procedure changes described in the June 2022 TP Final Rule could impact measured energy and water efficiency. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 12) AHAM asserted that it may be premature to use the April 2022 NODA data or AHAM's additional data to inform the translation from appendix J2 metric to appendix J metrics because appendix J is not identical to the test procedure proposed in the September 2021 TP NOPR. (

Id.

at p. 3)

AHAM commented that it is still reviewing finalized appendix J and noted that even if DOE's and AHAM's samples together represent a significant portion of shipments, it may be necessary to reconsider the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis based on finalized appendix J. (

Id.

)

The appendix J test procedure finalized by the June 2022 TP Final Rule included only one change that affects measured energy consumption. Specifically, the June 2022 TP Final Rule updated the assumed final moisture content (“FMC”) assumption in the drying energy formula from 4 percent as proposed in the September 2021 NOPR to 2 percent in finalized appendix J.

Id.

at 87 FR 33354. DOE specifically discussed in the September 2021 NOPR that it would consider updating the FMC from 4 percent to 2 percent. 86 FR 49140, 49176. The updated FMC value affects only the drying energy calculation and can be implemented formulaically on any test data that was acquired using the version of appendix J as proposed in the September 2021 TP NOPR. In the April 2022 NODA, DOE published two sets of translation equations corresponding to an FMC of 4 percent and 2 percent, respectively, providing interested parties with the opportunity to evaluate the data under both approaches. 87 FR 21816, 21817.

2. Metrics

As discussed, under appendix J2, energy efficiency is measured using the IMEF metric, measured in ft

/kWh/cycle, and water efficiency is measured using the IWF metric, measured in gal/cycle/ft

. Under appendix J, energy efficiency is measured using the EER metric, measured in lb/kWh/cycle, and water efficiency is measured using the WER metric, measured in lb/gal/cycle.

Samsung commented in support of the efficiency metric changes shifting from capacity-based to load size-based, stating that it would be better understood by consumers. (Samsung, No. 41 at p. 3) Samsung recommended, however, that this be the only change that DOE implements to calculate the new energy and water efficiency metrics EER and WER. (

Id.

) Samsung added that shifting the metrics to EER and WER in this way will only result in a change in the numeric quantity of measured efficiency, given that the capacity and weighted-average load size relationship is linear. (

Id.

) Samsung commented that changing only the metric calculation would ease burden for manufacturers while making it easier for consumers to understand their clothes washer's efficiency. (

Id.

)

EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended by DOE shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product or equipment during a representative average use cycle or period of use, and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) As presented in the June 2022 TP Final Rule, in general the changes in appendix J in comparison to appendix J2 improve the representativeness of test results and reduce test burden, among other benefits. 87 FR 33316, 33320-33321. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing standards based on the new metrics defined in appendix J as finalized. To aid interested parties in understanding the translation between the current metrics and the new metrics, the engineering analysis is presented using both the current metrics (

i.e.,

IMEF and IWF) and the new metrics (

i.e.,

EER and WER), as discussed in section IV.C of this document.

ASAP

et al.,

commented in support of DOE's change to make the efficiency metrics based on load size instead of capacity, which they asserted will help mitigate the current bias toward large-capacity clothes washers. (ASAP

et al.,

No. 37 at p. 2) ASAP

et al.,

expressed concern, however, that for top-loading standard-size clothes washers, large-capacity clothes washers still achieve higher efficiency ratings. (

Id.

) ASAP

et al.,

stated that while the correlation between large capacity and high efficiency is less pronounced for EER than for IMEF, it persists based on the data presented in the September 2021 Preliminary TSD. (

Id.

) ASAP

et al.,

therefore encouraged DOE to investigate whether this correlation results from larger clothes washers being inherently more efficient, larger clothes washers employing additional technology options that improve efficiency, or some remaining inherent bias toward larger capacity clothes washers. (

Id.

)

The CA IOUs commented that while they agree that the appendix J test procedure offers improvements to the test procedure to reduce some inherent biases between efficiency metrics and capacity, tub capacity can still contribute to improved efficiency because a larger amount of clothing can be washed using an incremental increase in the quantity of water, and a larger drum diameter can exert a higher g-force on clothing, thereby removing more water during the final spin and reducing the drying energy. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 2-3)

Whirlpool commented that based on its initial testing, it does not agree with DOE's conclusion that there is no benefit to larger capacities using the EER metric. Whirlpool commented that since capacity is still factored into the load sizes used for testing, and those load sizes remain a part of the EER calculation, capacity will still affect efficiency ratings. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 19)

In the June 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE noted that under the current metrics in appendix J2, energy use (

i.e.,

the denominator of the IMEF equation) scales with weighted-average load size, whereas capacity (

i.e.,

the numerator of the IMEF equation) scales with maximum load size. 87 FR 33316, 33349. This provides an inherent numerical advantage to large-capacity clothes washers that is disproportionate to the efficiency advantage that can be achieved through “economies of scale” associated with washing larger loads.

Id.

This advantage means that a larger-capacity clothes washer consumes more energy to wash a pound of clothes than a smaller-capacity clothes washer with the same IMEF rating.

Id.

This relationship applies similarly to water efficiency through the IWF equation.

Id.

This disproportionate benefit increases as average clothes washer capacity increases over time.

Id.

To avoid providing bias for large-capacity clothes washers, DOE changed the energy and water efficiency metrics in new appendix J by replacing the capacity term with the weighted-average load size.

Id.

Under appendix J, energy and water use scale proportionally with weighted-average load size, thus eliminating the efficiency “bias” currently provided to large-capacity clothes washers.

Id.

To the extent that larger clothes washers continue to achieve higher ratings than smaller clothes washers under the new metrics, such higher performance reflects inherent design option advantages applicable to larger-

capacity clothes washers. For example, as noted by the CA IOUs, large-capacity clothes washers typically have wider drum diameters, which can exert higher g-forces on the load during the spin cycle for a given spin speed, effectively yielding a lower RMC measurement (

i.e.,

reduced drying energy) compared to an otherwise identical smaller clothes washer with a narrower drum diameter. Having removed the numerical “bias” inherent within the current IMEF and IWF metrics, any remaining performance advantage provided to larger-capacity clothes washers under the new metrics is an accurate and representative reflection of differences in efficiency between smaller- and larger-capacity clothes washers on a per-pound of clothing basis.

AHAM commented that it appreciates that the appendix J test procedure results in a reduction of test burden and that DOE could even further reduce test burden by eliminating the requirement to measure and calculate standby energy. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 13) AHAM further commented that in most cases, the standby energy is so low that it is not offset by a benefit to the environment or consumers under EPCA. (

Id.

) AHAM added that because standby energy use is so low, it is unlikely that manufacturers will reduce it further in order to meet future energy conservation standards; and because manufactures are not likely to increase standby energy use since they have already invested in reducing it, standby energy use will not be a differentiator between products. (

Id.

) AHAM therefore recommended eliminating the standby measurement requirement because it will not have a material effect on overall energy savings or individual energy testing results. (

Id.

)

As discussed, EPCA requires that any test procedure for RCWs prescribed in a final rule after June 30, 2009 must include standby mode and off mode energy consumption, taking into consideration the most current versions of Standards 62301 and 62087 of the International Electrotechnical Commission, with such energy consumption integrated into the overall energy efficiency, energy consumption, or other energy descriptor for each covered product, unless the Secretary determines that either the current test procedures already fully account for and incorporate the standby mode and off mode energy consumption of the covered product; or such an integrated test procedure is technically infeasible for a particular covered product, in which case EPCA requires the Secretary to prescribe a separate standby mode and off mode energy use test procedure for the covered product, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)-(B))

3. Test Cloth

Both appendix J2 and appendix J require the use of specialized test cloth that conforms to the specifications outlined in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J3 (“appendix J3”). As discussed in the June 2022 TP Final Rule, the specifications for the energy test cloth were developed to be representative of the range of fabrics comprising consumer wash loads: a 50-percent cotton/50-percent polyester blended material was specified to approximate the typical mix of cotton, cotton/polyester blend, and synthetic articles that are machine-washed by consumers. 87 FR 33316, 33366. In developing the test cloth specifications, DOE also considered:

•

Manufacturability:

A 50/50 cotton-polyester momie weave was specified because at the time, such cloth was produced in high volume, had been produced to a consistent specification for many years, and was expected to be produced on this basis for the foreseeable future. 66 FR 3314, 3331.

•

Consistency in test cloth production:

The cloth material properties were specified in detail, including fiber content, thread count, and fabric weight; as well as requirements to verify that water repellent finishes are not applied to the cloth.

Id.

•

Consistency of the RMC measurement among different lots:

A procedure was developed to generate correction factors for each new “lot” (

i.e.,

batch) of test cloth to normalize test results and ensure consistent RMC measurements regardless of which lot is used for testing.

Id.

Test cloth is manufactured in batches called “lots,” which are quantities of test cloth that have been manufactured with the same batches of cotton and polyester during one continuous process. Due to differences between batches of cotton and polyester used to manufacture the test cloth, each lot has slightly different absorption properties. To account for these differences in absorption during the RMC measurement, appendix J3 specifies a procedure to determine correction factors for each lot that correlate the measured RMC values of the new test cloth lot with a set of standard RMC values established as the historical reference point. These correction factors are applied to the RMC test results in appendix J and appendix J2 to ensure the repeatability and reproducibility of test results performed using different lots of test cloth. In particular, the measured RMC of each clothes washer is used to calculate the drying energy, which has a significant impact on the final IMEF or EER value. Application of these correction factors significantly reduces lot-to-lot variation in RMC, from over 10 percentage points uncorrected to around 3 percentage points corrected. 87 FR 33316, 33369.

AHAM commented that it recently notified DOE of an issue concerning Lot 24 of the test cloth used in clothes washer testing, stating that AHAM's initial investigations have revealed serious issues with variation in Lot 24 that are impacting certification, verification, and regulatory testing efforts. (AHAM, No. 53 at pp. 4-5) AHAM specified that the correction factor for Lot 24 is not accurate across the entire lot. (

Id.

) AHAM further explained that this has resulted in an increased difficulty in meeting the applicable standard because the inaccurate correction factor is negatively impacting efficiency. (

Id.

) AHAM also specified that it is more difficult to certify products correctly or with certainty because the variation in results and enforcement are major concerns. (

Id.

) AHAM also expressed concern that testing related to appendix J may be questionable given the Lot 24 correction factor variation since both DOE and AHAM used Lot 24 for over half the units in their test samples. (

Id.

) AHAM therefore concluded that the results of DOE's and AHAM's testing should not be used to reestablish a baseline, as they likely do not accurately represent measured energy or water efficiency. (

Id.

) AHAM further commented that it convened its test cloth task force to address the correction factor variation issue with the goal of providing recommendations for DOE, and has sought guidance and an enforcement policy from DOE to address the Lot 24 issues in the short-term. (

Id.

) AHAM noted that since the test cloth Lot 24 variation will likely impact the accuracy of DOE and AHAM's testing, AHAM will conduct further review of its data and may need to submit revised data and/or comments once the impact of this variation on the test data is better understood. (

Id.

) AHAM recommended that DOE work to understand the impact of this variation on the accuracy of its test data and standards analysis. (

Id.

) For example, AHAM noted that if it has been more difficult to meet current standards due to the uncertainty in Lot 24's correction factor, DOE will need to understand whether current products have been tuned to be more efficient just because of the test cloth. (

Id.

) AHAM added that this could impact DOE's

analysis of more stringent standards, as some technology options may already be in use due to the correction factor issue. (

Id.

) AHAM also recommended that DOE conduct its own analysis of AHAM's data, as well as the combined AHAM and DOE dataset, which should include an evaluation of the Lot 24 variation. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 12)

AHAM also commented that for some time, several manufacturers and, likely other testing laboratories, have experienced delays in obtaining test cloth. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 5) AHAM further explained that delays in obtaining test cloth mean that some companies need to ration testing and may not be able to do testing other than certification and/or audit testing until test cloth is received. (

Id.

) AHAM added that it will therefore take more time for AHAM and its members to provide test results to support DOE's rulemaking efforts related to clothes washers and clothes dryers. (

Id.

) AHAM requested that DOE ensure it does not move so quickly that its analysis (and manufacturers' comments) are unable to account for these test cloth challenges. (

Id.

)

DOE is acutely aware of the issues regarding variation in Lot 24 and is participating in the AHAM test cloth task force to help determine the root causes of the observed variation and to develop solutions to mitigate these concerns for Lot 24 as well as for future test cloth lots. Subsequent to the submission of AHAM's comment, the AHAM test cloth task force determined to divide Lot 24 into four distinct “sub-lots,” each with its own correction factors developed using the process specified by appendix J3. DOE has added these sub-lot correction factors to the RCW test report template published on the DOE website.

Establishing these separate sub-lots, each with separate correction factors, has mitigated much of the concern regarding variability throughout Lot 24. DOE is aware that the task force continues to investigate the extent to which any variability that remains within each sub-lot can be further mitigated, and DOE continues to participate in those efforts.

DOE's test report templates are available at

energy.gov/eere/buildings/standardized-templates-reporting-test-results.

With regard to delays in obtaining test cloth, DOE is aware that the causes of delay have largely been addressed and that the test cloth supplier is currently working to fulfill the backlog of test cloth orders.

4. Other Test Procedure-Related Comments

In response to the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis and the April 2022 NODA, a number of stakeholders made comments pertaining to the clothes washer test procedure, many of which DOE subsequently addressed in the June 2022 TP Final Rule. Comments regarding certain test procedure issues that were not discussed in the June 2022 TP Final Rule are summarized in the paragraphs that follow. Addressing test procedure concerns is outside the scope of this energy conservation standards rulemaking; however, DOE encourages stakeholders to resubmit these comments during the next clothes washer test procedure rulemaking.

AHAM commented in opposition to DOE's decision to change the FMC assumption from 4 percent in appendix J2 to 2 percent in appendix J. (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 12) AHAM stated that the change in FMC assumption from 4 to 2 percent will overstate the impact of drying energy and will likely drive many clothes washer designs to increase spin speeds and spin times beyond an acceptable level. (

Id.

) AHAM expressed concern that this could change a clothes washer's core functionality into a water extractor, and in effect, remove the consumer functionality of washing the clothes. (

Id.

) AHAM commented that the test procedure should not drive design changes of this magnitude, and added that this change will limit the opportunity in the energy conservation standards rulemaking for technologically feasible and cost efficient improvements because there are limits on how much spin speeds can increase before the chassis needs to be redesigned or before safety and consumer utility are impacted. (

Id.

)

AHAM commented that if DOE moves forward with changing FMC from 4 to 2 percent, it must address the impact of the apparent mismatch between clothes washer drying energy and total per-cycle electric dryer energy consumption defined in the clothes dryer test procedures at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D2 (“appendix D2”) or 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix D1 (“appendix D1”). (AHAM, No. 53 at p. 13) AHAM further explained that currently, the drying impact of a clothes washer is significantly over-credited as a result of the mismatch in clothes loads between the clothes washer and clothes dryer test procedures. (

Id.

) For example, AHAM noted that the average weight of the load in appendix J can be nearly 50 percent greater than the weight of a load in the clothes dryer test procedure. (

Id.

) AHAM stated that according to the clothes washer test procedure, the annual weight to dry for a 6 ft

clothes washer is 2,917 pounds per year, whereas the annual weight to dry according to the clothes dryer test procedure is 1,994 pounds per year, despite the units being a matching pair. (

Id.

) AHAM commented that it acknowledges that this difference makes sense because consumers do not dry in the clothes dryer all the clothes they wash in the clothes washer. (

Id.

) However, AHAM emphasized that lowering the FMC to 2 percent for clothes washer exacerbates this mismatch in energy contribution. (

Id.

)

ASAP

et al.

commented that both DOE's recent analysis for clothes dryers and real-world data suggest that drying energy usage in the clothes washers analysis is being underestimated and encouraged DOE to update its drying energy use calculations in the test procedure to better align with DOE's clothes dryers analysis and real-world energy usage. (ASAP

et al.,

No. 37 at pp. 3-4) ASAP

et al.

noted that in the September 2021 Preliminary TSD, DOE stated that drying energy use represents 75 to 83 percent of total energy usage. (

Id.

) ASAP

et al.

therefore commented that changes in drying energy estimates can have a significant impact on overall energy savings and economic analysis. (

Id.

) ASAP

et al.

emphasized that, based on DOE's April 2021 Clothes Dryers Preliminary TSD,

the active-mode energy use of a clothes dryer is between 67 and 93 percent greater than the estimated drying energy usage presented in the September 2021 Preliminary TSD for top-loading standard-size and front-loading clothes washers, respectively.

(

Id.

) ASAP

et al.

further commented that the clothes dryer analysis more closely agrees with real-world clothes dryer energy use estimates from data from the Energy Information Administration's (“EIA's”) 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (“RECS 2015”),

which estimates 776 kWh per year, and NEEA's Dryer Field Study published in 2014 (“NEEA's Dryer Field Study”),

which estimates 915 kWh per year. (

Id.

) ASAP

et al.

therefore commented that higher, more realistic drying energy

usage estimates should further improve the cost-effectiveness of higher efficiency clothes washers that reduce drying energy use. (

Id.

)

Available online at

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0016.

ASAP

et al.

based this estimate on energy use of 700 kWh/year for clothes dryers, 419 kWh/year for top-loading clothes washers and 362 kWh/year for front-loading clothes washers.

U.S. Department of Energy—Energy Information Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 2015 Public Use Data Files, 2015. Available at

www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recspubuse15/pubuse15.html.

Dryer Field Study, 2014. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. Available online at

neea.org/resources/rbsa-laundry-study.

Ameren

et al.

encouraged DOE to mathematically adjust RMC to account for the drying energy of 100 percent cotton textiles using the relationship established in the 2020 NEEA report

that analyzed the RMC of two types of test loads across a broad range of RCW efficiency levels and technology types: the 100-percent cotton load specified in AHAM's HLW-1-2013 test procedure and the 50/50 cotton-polyester momie weave test cloth specified in appendix J2 and appendix J. (Ameren

et al.,

No. 42 at pp. 12-13) The NEEA report also developed a linear mathematical relationship between the two types of load. (

Id.

) Ameren

et al.

found that this relationship has an R-squared value close to 1 and determined that it could be used to adjust the measured RMC of an appendix J2 test load to the expected RMC when using an AHAM load. (

Id.

) Ameren

et al.

stated that adjusting the RMC of an appendix J2 test load to an RMC typical of 100 percent cotton textiles would more realistically account for RCW impacts on drying energy use. (

Id.

) Ameren

et al.

further commented that most typical laundry loads have a much higher cotton content, which they asserted means that mathematically adjusting the RMC before calculating drying energy would better account for typical energy use. (

Id.

) Ameren

et al.

also commented that adjusting the RMC of appendix J2 textiles to an RMC typical of 100 percent cotton textiles would increase the alignment between the September 2021 Preliminary TSD's clothes washer drying energy use calculation and the measured appendix D2 clothes dryer energy use. (

Id.

) Ameren

et al.

added that while other constants such as DEF

in appendix J2 and appendix J are relatively consistent with most appendix D1 and D2 dryer measurements, the typical drying energy calculated in the existing appendix J2 clothes washer test procedure is much lower than the energy consumed by a conventional clothes dryer tested by appendix D1 or D2. (

Id.

) Ameren

et al.

further explained that the clothes dryer test procedures use an initial moisture content of 57.5 percent for the clothes dryer test load, and using NEEA's mathematical adjustment to increase RMC before calculating drying energy would make the drying energy calculated in appendix J2 and J more similar to the drying energy calculated in appendix D1 and D2. (

Id.

)

Foster Porter, Suzanne; Denkenberger, Dave. 2020.

Coming Clean: Revealing Real-World Efficiency of Clothes Washers.

Portland, OR. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. Available online at:

neea.org/resources/coming-cleanrevealing-real-world-efficiency-of-clothes-washers.

“DEF” is defined in section 4.3 of appendix J2 and section 4.4 of appendix J as the nominal energy required for a clothes dryer to remove moisture from clothes and is set equal to 0.5 kWh/lb.

ASAP

et al.

commented that one potential partial explanation for the apparent underestimation of drying energy usage in the clothes washer analysis is the estimate for DEF. (ASAP

et al.,

No. 37 at p. 4) ASAP

et al.

noted that while DOE assumes a DEF of 0.5 kWh per pound of moisture removed from clothes, ASAP

et al.

estimated a higher nominal DEF of about 0.6 kWh per pound of moisture removed using weighted-average clothes dryer efficiency ratings and parameters from the clothes dryers test procedure. (

Id.

) ASAP

et al.

also commented that a 2022 NEEA study

suggests that even the clothes dryer test procedure can underestimate drying energy usage, particularly when a non-ENERGY STAR-rated top-loading clothes washer is paired with a non-ENERGY STAR electric dryer. (

Id.

) ASAP

et al.

further noted that the Northwest Regional Technical Forum's most recent estimate for DEF is 0.65 kWh per pounds of moisture removed.

(

Id.

)

Perfect Pairings? Testing the Energy Efficiency of Matched Washer-Dryer Sets,

2022. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. Available online at

neea.org/resources/perfect-pairings-testing-the-energy-efficiency-of-matched-washer-dryer-sets.

Regional Technical Forum, Residential Clothes Washers, 2021. “Residential Clothes Washers v7.1.” Available online at

rtf.nwcouncil.org/measure/clothes-washers-0.

As discussed, DOE is not addressing test procedure changes in this energy conservation standards rulemaking. DOE notes that FMC and the drying energy calculations were specifically addressed in section III.G.2 of the June 2022 TP Final Rule. 87 FR 33316, 33353-33354.

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General

In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially-available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. Sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of the Process Rule.

After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. Sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process Rule. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for RCWs, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for RCWs, using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C of this proposed rule and in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

For each trial standard level (

i.e.,

TSL), DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to RCWs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the proposed standards (2027-2056).

The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of RCWs purchased in the previous 30-year period. DOE quantified the energy savings

attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a product would likely evolve in the absence of amended energy conservation standards.

Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each product class. The TSLs considered for this NOPR are described in section V.A of this document. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.

DOE used its national impact analysis (“NIA”) spreadsheet model to estimate national energy savings (“NES”) and national water savings (“NWS”) from potential amended or new standards for RCWs. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. For natural gas, the primary energy savings are considered to be equal to the site energy savings. DOE also calculates NES in terms of FFC energy savings. The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (

i.e.,

coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards.

DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.2 of this document.

The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).

2. Significance of Savings

To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE must determine that such action would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))

The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.

For example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively constant demand.

The numeric threshold for determining the significance of energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14, 2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670), was subsequently eliminated in a final rule published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70892).

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis, among other factors. As discussed in section V.C.1 of this document, DOE is proposing to adopt TSL 4, which would save an estimated 1.45 quads of energy (FFC) over 30 years. DOE has initially determined the energy savings from the proposed standard levels are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this proposed rulemaking.

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

In determining the impacts of a potential amended standard on manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of this document. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows, (2) cash flows by year, (3) changes in revenue and income, and (4) other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.

For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a standard.

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)

EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis.

The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including its installation) and the operating expense (including energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.

The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.

For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with new or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this document.

c. Energy Savings

Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory

requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section III.E of this document, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

In establishing product classes and in evaluating design options and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards proposed in this document would not reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration in this proposed rulemaking.

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of this proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will publish and respond to the Attorney General's determination in the final rule. DOE invites comment from the public regarding the competitive impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule. In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ regarding these potential impacts. See the

ADDRESSES

section for information to send comments to DOJ.

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

DOE also considers the need for national energy and water conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the proposed standards are likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of this document.

DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take into account when considering the need for national energy conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with energy production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K of this document; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in section V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value of climate and health benefits from certain emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L of this document.

g. Other Factors

In determining whether an energy conservation standard is economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the other categories described previously, DOE could consider such information under “other factors.”

2. Rebuttable Presumption

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values used to calculate the effects that proposed energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is discussed in section IV.F.9 of this proposed rule.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with regard to RCWs. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses.

DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and calculates national energy savings and net present value of total consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the Government Regulatory Impact Model (“GRIM”), to assess manufacturer impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are available on the DOE website for this rulemaking:

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014.

Additionally, DOE used output from the latest version of the EIA's

Annual Energy Outlook

(“

AEO

”), a widely known energy projection for the United States, for the emissions and utility impact analyses.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment that provides an overall picture of the market for the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly-available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information, (5) market and industry

trends; and (6) technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency of RCWs. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.

1. Product Classes

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE may establish separate standards for a group of covered products (

i.e.,

establish a separate product class) if DOE determines that separate standards are justified based on the type of energy used, or if DOE determines that a product's capacity or other performance-related feature justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider factors such as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (

Id.

)

DOE currently defines separate energy conservation standards for four RCW product classes (10 CFR 430.32(g)(4)):

• Top-loading, compact (less than 1.6 ft

capacity)

• Top-loading, standard-size (1.6 ft

or greater capacity)

• Front-loading, compact (less than 1.6 ft

capacity)

• Front-loading, standard-size (1.6 ft

or greater capacity)

In the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE analyzed four potential product classes for RCWs using a threshold of 3.0 ft

to differentiate between compact and standard-size front-loading RCWs, in contrast to the existing threshold of 1.6 ft

, resulting in the following product classes being analyzed:

• Top-loading, compact (less than 1.6 ft

capacity)

• Top-loading, standard-size (1.6 ft

capacity or greater)

• Front-loading, compact (less than 3.0 ft

capacity)

• Front-loading, standard-size (3.0 ft

capacity or greater)

As noted in chapter 2 of the September 2021 Preliminary TSD, there are no front-loading RCWs with a capacity less than 1.6 ft

certified to DOE, indicating that the current threshold of 1.6 ft

may no longer be a relevant differentiator of capacity within the front-loading RCW market. Based on front-loading RCW models certified in DOE's Compliance Certification Database (“CCD”),

DOE identified a gap in front-loading capacity between 2.8 ft

and 3.4 ft

(

i.e.,

no products are available on the market within this range). The capacity gap is directly related to cabinet size—capacities less than 2.8 ft

correspond to a 24-inch cabinet width, and capacities larger than 3.4 ft

correspond to a 27-inch cabinet width. In the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE evaluated an updated capacity threshold of 3.0 ft

between compact-size and standard-size to align more closely with product differentiation in the market.

DOE's Compliance Certification Database is available at

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data.

In the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE requested comment on whether it should revise the definitions of the front-loading product classes by increasing the capacity threshold of the front-loading compact product class to 3.0 ft

. DOE also requested comment on whether any other changes to product class definitions are warranted.

Prior to the May 2012 Final Rule, DOE also defined a separate RCW product class for top-loading semi-automatic clothes washers. Semi-automatic clothes washers are designed to be intermittently attached to a kitchen or bathroom faucet and require user intervention to regulate the water temperature by adjusting the external water faucet valves. Top-loading semi-automatic clothes washers were subject to a design standard requiring an unheated rinse water option, as established by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987, Public Law 100-12 (“NAECA”). NAECA amended EPCA to require that all rinse cycles of RCWs shall include an unheated water option, but may have a heated water rinse option, for products manufactured on or after January 1, 1988.

In the May 2012 Final Rule, DOE eliminated the top-loading semi-automatic product class distinction, having determined based on its market research and comments submitted by AHAM and three manufacturers that such products were no longer available on the market. 77 FR 32308, 32317. The top-loading standard-size levels that were established in the May 2012 Final Rule were based on consideration of only top-loading automatic clothes washers.

In chapter 2 of the September 2021 Preliminary TSD, DOE discussed that it is now aware of multiple top-loading semi-automatic clothes washers on the market, from multiple manufacturers. DOE stated that it was considering whether it should reinstate an RCW product class definition for top-loading semi-automatic clothes washers, and whether it should consider a performance-based standard rather than the design standard established by EPCA as amended. DOE noted, however, that because the user of a semi-automatic clothes washer controls the water temperature by adjusting the external water faucet valves, semi-automatic clothes washers inherently provide the option for an unheated rinse. Therefore, DOE believes that a design standard that requires an unheated rinse option may be superfluous for semi-automatic clothes washers.

In the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE requested comment on whether it should reinstate a product class definition for top-loading semi-automatic clothes washers. DOE requested comment on its preliminary conclusion that that a design standard that requires an unheated rinse option may be superfluous for semi-automatic clothes washers.

AHAM presented data indicating the shipment weighted average capacity for clothes washers from 1981-2020. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 13-14) Based on this data, AHAM commented that a reassessment of the “compact” definition would be justified since clothes washer capacities in general have increased from an average of 2.63 ft

in 1990 to 4.25 ft

in 2020. (

Id.

)

AHAM recommended that DOE change the definition of the compact product class in order to retain consumer utility of smaller-capacity and smaller-width products for consumers. (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 13-15) AHAM recommended that DOE add an upper width limit of 24 inches in the proposed compact product class definition, such that a top-loading or front-loading compact product would either have a capacity less than 1.6 ft

, or a width less than or equal to 24 inches. (

Id.

) AHAM also commented that typically, based on a review of retailer websites, products advertised as “compact” or “portable” today appear to be under 1.6 ft

or 24 inches in width or less. (

Id.

) AHAM commented that it agrees with DOE's assessment that products with smaller widths and capacities provide a utility to consumers since they can be used in smaller spaces, can be moved more easily from place-to-place, or can be used together with a standard-size clothes washer. (

Id.

) AHAM also agrees with DOE's acknowledgement that these products, due to their smaller size, cannot achieve the same levels of efficiency as larger products due to technological limitations such as drum

diameter and capacity, or due to being geared toward niche consumer usage such as portability or an add-on to a standard-size clothes washer. (

Id.

)

Whirlpool commented that it agrees with DOE's proposal to change the threshold for the front-loading compact product class and suggested that DOE make further product class changes. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 19) Whirlpool specifically suggested that DOE change the definition of compact clothes washers to be based on product width, corresponding to how they are marketed to consumers as compact or standard size. (

Id.

) Whirlpool added that clothes washers with 24-inch widths and smaller are overwhelmingly marketed as “compact,” regardless of their capacity. (

Id.

)

Whirlpool also recommended that for standard-size clothes washers, DOE separate the standard-size product class into three product classes: standard, small (≤4.0 ft

); standard, medium (>4.0 ft

to ≤5.0 ft

); and standard, large (>5.0 ft

and above). (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 19) Whirlpool commented that there are numerous performance, technology, efficiency, and consumer-relevant differences between clothes washers in Whirlpool's suggested product classes. (

Id.

) Whirlpool further explained that entry-level price point clothes washers generally have capacities less than or equal to 4 ft

and that the smaller diameter wash baskets of these units create challenges in driving water extraction. (

Id.

) Whirlpool added that these clothes washers also have shorter cycle times and more basic feature sets and controls. (

Id.

)

Whirlpool added that even with a removal of the capacity benefit in the EER and WER efficiency metrics, there are still other technological challenges for clothes washers with smaller cabinet widths since spatial limitations prevent adding technologies that increase efficiency, including larger motors and larger wash baskets to increase spin speed. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at p. 19)

The CA IOUs commented that adjustments to increase the size of the front-loading compact product class are not warranted, and added that they are instead supportive of an equation-based metric that can account for the efficiency differences related to capacity. (CA IOUs, No. 43 at pp. 3-4) The CA IOUs added that they believe the definition of standard-size versus compact product classes artificially segments the data, and that performance is correlated with capacity without a clear delineation. (

Id.

) The CA IOUs expressed three primary concerns related to the changes to the product class definitions. (

Id.

) First, the CA IOUs commented that the proposed changes to capacity definitions would create a different definition of “compact” for top- and front-loading RCWs, which the CA IOUs asserted would add confusion to the market. (

Id.

) Second, the CA IOUs commented that there likely remains an inherent relationship between capacity and performance in the test procedure, which is insufficiently represented by the two large discrete product class groupings of compact size and standard size. (

Id.

) The CA IOUs noted that there was significant interest from stakeholders in response to the August 2019 RFI for DOE to consider narrower capacity ranges to facilitate a separate analysis for larger clothes washers. (

Id.

) The CA IOUs commented that, while they believe this may result in some statistical improvement in the original analysis, they would prefer an equation-based standard that can correct for the continuum of product capacities. (

Id.

) The CA IOUs also specified that creating more narrow capacity ranges may have unintended consequences of incentivizing manufacturers to produce products in one capacity size over another due to less stringent efficiency standards in neighboring classes. (

Id.

) Third, the CA IOUs commented that while DOE can use capacity or another “performance related” feature to justify a higher or lower standard under EPCA, the CA IOUs expressed concern regarding the arbitrary nature of the capacity definitions, particularly for front-loading clothes washers. (

Id.

) The CA IOUs added that under the appendix J2 efficiency metrics, product efficiencies strongly varied with capacity and may continue to do so under the appendix J efficiency metrics. (

Id.

) The CA IOUs commented that a more appropriate approach would be to use an equation-based standard with a capacity, similar to what is used under the consumer refrigerators/refrigerator-freezers/freezers standard. (

Id.

)

Ameren

et al.

commented that while they do not have a specific recommendation for the compact RCW definition, they encourage DOE to ensure that changing the compact product class to incorporate larger capacities does not enable backsliding. (Ameren

et al.,

No. 42 at p. 18) Ameren

et al.

commented that DOE's working definition of less than 1.6 ft

for top-loading clothes washers and less than 2.5 ft

for front-loading clothes washers would not result in backsliding because there is not a front-loading product less than 1.6 ft

on the market. (

Id.

) However, Ameren

et al.

noted that, if defined differently, RCW models presently considered standard-sized (and therefore subject to a higher efficiency standard) could be recategorized as compact (and therefore subject to a lower efficiency standard). (

Id.

)

As discussed, currently, no front-loading products with a capacity less than 1.6 ft

are certified to DOE as being available on the market, indicating that the current threshold of 1.6 ft

is no longer a relevant differentiator of capacity within the front-loading RCW market. DOE analysis tentatively confirms AHAM and Whirlpool's comments that despite the removal of the capacity “bias” in the EER and WER efficiency metrics, the reduced dimensions of smaller-width products limit the use of certain technologies for increasing efficiency, such as larger wash baskets that can exert a higherg-force on clothing. For this reason, DOE tentatively concludes that a separate product class is warranted for space-constrained front-loading RCWs at a revised threshold that is more relevant to the current market.

DOE recognizes that one of the defining characteristics of front-loading RCWs marketed as “compact” is the width-constrained design (

i.e.,

the ability for the clothes washer to be installed in narrow space that would not accommodate a full-size clothes washer). DOE considered defining the front-loading compact-size product classes on the basis of width. Based on DOE's market research, and supported by comments from AHAM and manufacturers, products marketed as “compact” typically have a nominal cabinet width of 24-inches, whereas full-size products most typically have a nominal cabinet width of 27 inches. DOE has identified a number of practical challenges in basing the product class distinction on a measurement of the width of a clothes washer. The test procedure would need to require measuring the width of the clothes washer and would need to specify how the measurement would be performed. While DOE could consider such amendments to its test procedure, DOE has identified nuances in product design that could create complexities in defining such a measurement. For example, on front-loading clothes washers, DOE has observed that certain aesthetic features, such as the borders of the control panel, may extend beyond the width of the main body of the cabinet. In general, certain measurements of width may not provide an appropriate representation of product width as it relates to product class designation. DOE also notes that although front-loading clothes washers are most often marketed according to

their nominal width as a whole number, the actual width may be a fraction of an inch higher or lower than the advertised nominal width. Furthermore, DOE is concerned that by defining the “compact-size” threshold as a width equal to or less than 24 inches, for example, if a manufacturer were to bring to market a 25-inch width product, such a product would be defined as standard-size but would presumably share many of the same inherent efficiency constraints as a 24-inch product (

i.e.,

a 25-inch product may be more appropriately classified as compact-size rather than standard-size).

Having considered these challenges in defining the front-loading compact-size threshold on the basis of product width, DOE further considered defining the threshold based on an updated capacity value that would be more relevant to the current market than the existing threshold of 1.6 ft

. Based on front-loading RCW models currently certified in DOE's CCD, there is a gap in front-loading capacity between 2.8 ft

and 3.4 ft

(

i.e.,

no products are available on the market within this range), consistent with DOE's findings presented in the September 2021 Preliminary TSD. DOE evaluated every front-loading model in the CCD and has determined that this capacity gap directly correlates with nominal cabinet size—capacities less than 2.8 ft

correspond to a nominal 24-inch cabinet width, and capacities larger than 3.4 ft

correspond to a nominal 27-inch cabinet width or greater. Based on this analysis, DOE tentatively concludes that for front-loading RCWs, using a capacity threshold rather than a width threshold would provide a perfectly correlated proxy for differentiating between standard-size products and space-constrained products. DOE therefore proposes to define a threshold of 3.0 ft

to differentiate between compact-size and standard-size front-loading RCWs. DOE further notes that given the current gap in capacity between 2.8 ft

and 3.4 ft

for units currently on the market, defining the threshold at 3.0 ft

would provide opportunities for manufacturers to introduce compact-size products with slightly higher capacity, or standard-size products with slightly lower capacity, with such potential products being classified within the appropriate product class. DOE would consider other means for defining the threshold between the compact-size and standard-size front-loading product classes if in the future a capacity threshold were to no longer provides a clear proxy to distinguish between standard-size products and space-constrained products.

Specific to the front-loading standard-size product class, DOE evaluated the merits of separately defining a larger product class (

e.g.,

greater than 5.0 ft

), as suggested by multiple commenters. Data submitted by AHAM indicates a shipment-weighted average capacity of around 4.2 ft

for all RCWs, and the results of the engineering analysis indicate that a capacity of 4.2 ft

is representative of the baseline efficiency level for the standard-size front-loading product class. DOE's testing and teardown analysis indicates that all of the evaluated efficiency levels for the standard-size front-loading product class can be achieved by units at 4.2 ft

capacity (

i.e.,

an increase in capacity is not required as a means for achieving the higher efficiency levels analyzed). On this basis, DOE tentatively determines that additional capacity-based product classes within the standard-size front-loading product class are not warranted.

For top-loading clothes washers, DOE proposes in this NOPR to maintain the existing “compact” and “standard” product class distinctions (

i.e.,

using a capacity threshold of 1.6 ft

to differentiate the two classes); however, DOE continues to consider alternative approaches as discussed further in the paragraphs that follow and in chapter 3 and chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

Unlike for front-loading RCWs, top-loading compact-size products are available on the market at capacities less than 1.6 ft

(

i.e.,

the current threshold). Considering only automatic top-loading clothes washers,

those with capacity less than 1.6 ft

are exclusively height-constrained “companion” clothes washers, which are designed to serve as an auxiliary clothes washer for washing a small or delicate load while simultaneously washing a “normal” load in the accompanying standard-size RCW.

Among standard-size top-loading clothes washers (

i.e.,

those with capacity equal to or greater than 1.6 ft

), DOE's CCD indicates a relatively continuous spectrum of capacities available on the market across the entire range (

i.e.,

no large gaps in capacity), with no apparent capacity threshold that closely correlates with product differentiation on the market.

As discussed further in section IV.C.2.c of this document, the CCD includes both automatic clothes washer models and semi-automatic clothes washer models certified within the top-loading compact product class.

Companion clothes washers are currently available in two different configurations: (1) Integrated into (

i.e.,

built into) the cabinet above a standard-size front-loading RCW, and (2) built into a pedestal drawer for installation underneath a standard-size front-loading RCW. Both configurations are constrained in the height dimension.

For standard-size top-loading RCWs, DOE's engineering analysis indicates that despite the removal of capacity “bias” from the EER and WER metrics, increases in capacity are required to achieve higher efficiency levels beyond EL 1. (See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD). DOE continues to consider whether this conclusion justifies separating the standard-size product class into separate product classes, as suggested by Whirlpool. Given this close relationship between efficiency and capacity, DOE also continues to consider whether to specify an equation-based standard for the top-loading standard-size product class, as suggested by the CA IOUs. Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD provides further details of DOE's consideration of these potential alternate product class definitions for top-loading standard-size RCWs.

DOE recognizes that an equations-based standards approach would be unfamiliar to RCW stakeholders and would significantly alter the structure of the standards analysis. As such, the analysis of potential amended standards, and how such standards would impact the existing market, could be difficult for stakeholders to interpret, particularly given the proposed change in metrics to EER and WER. DOE also recognizes that implementing equation-based standards could potentially increase compliance burden from manufacturers. For example, a simple modification made to the balance ring on a top-loading model or the door shape on a front-loading model for aesthetic purposes could change the model's measured capacity, which would in turn change the standard applicable to that unit and would therefore require corresponding changes to the controls to reduce energy and water use. As manufacturers iterate product designs, any change that would affect a model's measured capacity would result in the model being subject to a different standard.

In addition, defining an equation-based standard for only the top-loading standard-size product class would create complexity that may lead to confusion or added regulatory burden for manufacturers.

At this time, DOE tentatively determines that the increased complexity and potential burdens of an equation-based standard outweigh the benefits. As discussed, in this NOPR, DOE proposes a numerically based standard for the top-loading standard-size product class.

In response to the CA IOUs' concern that having a different definition of the “compact” threshold for top-loading and front-loading RCWs would add confusion to the market, DOE is proposing to rename the product class for top-loading RCWs with capacities less than 1.6 ft

as “ultra-compact.”

In response to Ameren

et al.'

s comment that changing the compact product class threshold should not enable backsliding, DOE notes that, as discussed, EPCA contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) As discussed in section IV.C.2.a of this document, DOE used the current DOE standard applicable to front-loading standard-size clothes washers as the baseline efficiency level for the newly created front-loading compact-size product class, which prevents any possibility of backsliding.

Ameren

et al.

provided comments pertaining to portable clothes washers, which the comment equates with semi-automatic clothes washers. (Ameren

et al.,

No. 42 at pp. 6-8). Ameren

et al.

commented that since the last standards rulemaking, portable RCWs are now widely available for sale through national retailers and online direct-to-consumer marketplaces. (

Id.

) Ameren

et al.

referenced NEEA research as verifying that the portable RCWs currently on the market meet or exceed current standards, and that therefore they do not require a separate product class. (

Id.

) Ameren

et al.

also commented that nothing should prevent efficient technologies employed in conventional automatic top-loading RCWs from being leveraged in portable top-loading RCWs, including wash plates and higher spin speeds. (

Id.

)

DOE cautions that portable clothes washers

as a whole represent a broader category of clothes washers than semi-automatic clothes washers specifically. Although all semi-automatic clothes washers currently on the market are portable, not all portable clothes washers on the market are semi-automatic—certain portable clothes washers are automatic (

i.e.,

they provide means for internal regulation of water temperature, as opposed to requiring the user to adjust the water temperature externally to the clothes washer).

In this NOPR, DOE uses the term “portable clothes washer” to mean a clothes washer, typically with caster wheels, designed to be easily moved by the consumer.

With regard to Ameren

et al.'

s comment that portable RCWs currently on the market meet or exceed current standards and therefore do not require a separate product class, DOE does not agree that this conclusion can be applied to semi-automatic clothes washers specifically, since many of the data points referenced by Ameren

et al.

correspond to automatic top-loading clothes washers. In addition, appendix J includes significant changes to the testing of semi-automatic clothes washers—which improve the representativeness of the test results while reducing test burden—such that when tested under appendix J, a semi-automatic clothes washer uses significantly more hot water (and therefore has inherently lower EER values) than would a similarly-sized automatic clothes washer.

Section IV.C.2.c of this document provides further discussion of the efficiency level analysis for semi-automatic clothes washers.

For example, most automatic clothes washers offer only a cold rinse, whereas appendix J requires semi-automatic clothes washers to be tested on both Hot Wash/Hot Rinse, and Warm Wash/Warm Rinse cycles, based on the assumption that the user would not adjust the water temperature during the cycle. 87 FR 33316. Significantly more hot water is used in these cycles than on the equivalent cycles (Hot Wash/Cold Rinse and Warm Wash/Cold Rinse) on an automatic clothes washer.

Given the reemergence of semi-automatic clothes washers on the market, and improvements to the test procedure to improve the representativeness of test results for semi-automatic clothes washers, DOE is proposing to re-establish a separate product class for semi-automatic clothes washers and to establish performance-based standards for semi-automatic clothes washers.

In summary, for this NOPR, DOE analyzed five product classes for RCWs as follows:

• Semi-automatic clothes washers

• Automatic clothes washers:

For simplicity, many of the tables in the following sections of this document omit the designation that these four product classes pertain to automatic clothes washers.

○ Top-loading, ultra-compact (less than 1.6 ft

capacity)

○ Top-loading, standard-size (1.6 ft

or greater capacity)

○ Front-loading, compact (less than 3.0 ft

capacity)

○ Front-loading, standard-size (3.0 ft

or greater capacity)

DOE seeks comment on the product class structure analyzed in this NOPR.

2. Technology Options

In the preliminary market analysis and technology assessment, DOE identified a comprehensive list of technology options that would be expected to improve the efficiency of RCWs, as measured by the DOE test procedures.

Initially, these technologies encompass all those that DOE believes are technologically feasible.

See section 3.15.2 of the September 2021 Preliminary TSD. Available online at

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0014-0030.

In the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE requested information on any technology options not identified in the September 2021 Preliminary TSD that manufacturers may use to attain higher efficiency levels of RCWs.

Ameren

et al.

commented in support of DOE's inclusion of all relevant technologies, including those to reduce drying energy. (Ameren

et al.,

No. 42 at p. 19) Ameren

et al.

also commented that they appreciate DOE's consideration of technologies that have been found in working prototypes in addition to those available in current models. (

Id.

)

In this NOPR, DOE considered the technology options listed in Table IV.1. In addition to the technology options DOE considered for the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE added capacity increase as a technology option for this NOPR.

In this NOPR, DOE considers capacity increase only as a technology option of “last resort.” In defining a representative “path” that manufacturers would be expected to use to achieve higher efficiency levels, DOE included capacity increase only for those efficiency levels that cannot be reasonably achieved without an increase in capacity. See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD for more details.

Table IV.1—Technology Options for Residential Clothes Washers

Methods for Decreasing Water Use:

Adaptive water fill controls.

Hardware features enabling lower water levels.

Spray rinse.

Polymer bead cleaning.

Methods for Decreasing Machine Energy:

More efficient motor.

Direct drive motor.

Methods for Decreasing Water Heating Energy:

Wash temperature decrease.

Ozonated laundering.

Methods for Decreasing Drying Energy:

Hardware features enabling spin speed increase.

Spin time increase.

Methods for Decreasing Standby Energy:

Lower standby power components.

Methods for Increasing Overall Efficiency:

Capacity increase.

* Most of the methods for decreasing water use are also methods for decreasing water heating energy, since less hot water is used.

Chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD includes the detailed descriptions of each technology option.

DOE seeks comment on the technology options not identified in this NOPR that manufacturers may use to attain higher efficiency levels of RCWs.

B. Screening Analysis

DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy conservation standards rulemaking:

(1) Technological feasibility.

Technologies that are not incorporated in commercial products or in commercially viable, existing prototypes will not be considered further.

(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service.

If it is determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will not be considered further.

(3) Impacts on product utility.

If a technology is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to subgroups of consumers, or result in the unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered further.

(4) Safety of technologies.

If it is determined that a technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered further.

(5) Unique-pathway proprietary technologies.

If a proprietary technology has proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a given efficiency level, it will not be considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).

In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in the following sections.

The subsequent sections include comments from interested parties pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (“screened out”) based on the screening criteria.

1. Screened-Out Technologies

In chapter 4 of the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE screened out electrolytic disassociation of water, ozonated laundering, and polymer bead cleaning on the basis of their practicability to install, manufacture and service. DOE also noted that electrolytic disassociation of water could have impacts on product utility or availability and that polymer bead cleaning was a unique-pathway proprietary technology.

In the September 2021 Preliminary Analysis, DOE sought comment on whether any additional technology options should be screened out on the basis of any of the screening criteria.

AHAM commented that decreasing water temperature, particularly on the warmest warm wash temperature, could decrease cleaning and rinsing performance by making it harder to remove fatty soils, which are soluble around 85 degrees Fahrenheit (“°F”). (AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 9-10) AHAM added that despite the existence of some detergents designed for lower temperatures, detergents alone cannot solve this issue. (

Id.

) AHAM commented that decreased water temperature could also have negative impacts on fabric care resulting from reduced detergent removal, biofilm accumulation, reduced particulate removal, and increased white residues on clothing. (

Id.

) AHAM also noted that if wash time is increased to compensate for a decrease in cleaning performance at lower wash temperatures, the cycle time will consequently increase. (

Id.

)

Whirlpool suggested that lowering wash temperatures from current levels should not be a technology option considered by DOE. (Whirlpool, No. 39 at pp. 6-8) Whirlpool added that it strongly believes that wash temperatures are already low enough, and that lowering temperatures further will effectively create a disconnect between consumer perceptions of acceptable wash water temperatures and what Whirlpool could actually offer. (

Id.

) Whirlpool commented that this impact is compounded by the proposed appendix J test procedure, which proposes to test the hottest and coldest Warm Wash/Cold Rinse settings for all clothes washers instead of using the 25/50/75 test.

(

Id.

) Whirlpool commented that changing the test procedure at the same time as the energy conservation standards may impede Whirlpool's ability to offer warm wash temperatures that consumers find acceptable and could affect clothes washers' ability to consistently clean laundry to the consumers' satisfaction, since higher temperatures are needed to effectively remove fatty soils, white residue, and particulates from laundry. (

Id.

) Whirlpool further commented that DOE's standards should not drive wash water temperatures below levels that are acceptable based on consumer perceptions of these temperatures. (

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.