Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Dishwashers

Federal RegisterMay 19, 2023

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039]

RIN 1904-AE32

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Dishwashers

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment.

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 dishwashers. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE” or “the Department”) 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 dishwashers, and requests comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

DATES:

Comments:

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NOPR no later than July 18, 2023.

Meeting:

DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on June 8, 2023, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. See section VII, “Public Participation,” for webinar registration information, participant instructions and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.

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 June 20, 2023.

ADDRESSES:

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

www.regulations.gov

under docket number EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039, by any of the following methods. Individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, or who have speech and other communication disabilities may use a relay service to reach the telephone numbers in this section and farther below in this document. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, visit the web page for Federal Communications Commission at

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/telecommunications-relay-service-trs.

(1)

Email: DW2019STD0039@ee.doe.gov.

Include the docket number EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039 in the subject line of the message.

(2)

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.

(3)

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?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039.

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 rulemaking.

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. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2588. Email:

Amelia.Whiting@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 Dishwashers

C. Deviation From Appendix A

III. General Discussion

A. General Comments

B. Scope of Coverage

C. Test Procedure

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 and Water Savings

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

f. Need for National Energy and Water Conservation

g. Other Factors

2. Rebuttable Presumption

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

1. Product Classes

2. Technology Options

B. Screening Analysis

1. Screened-Out Technologies

a. Desiccant Drying

b. Reduced Inlet-Water Temperature

c. Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Washing

d. Ultrasonic Washing

e. Thermoelectric Heat Pumps

f. Water Re-Use System

2. Remaining Technologies

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Efficiency Analysis

a. Baseline Efficiency

b. Higher Efficiency Levels

2. Manufacturer Production Cost Analysis

3. Manufacturer Selling Price

D. Markups Analysis

E. Energy and Water Use Analysis

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. Product Cost

2. Installation Cost

3. Annual Energy Consumption

4. Energy and Water Prices

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs

6. Product Lifetime

7. Discount Rates

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

9. Payback Period Analysis

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

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs

a. Manufacturer Production Costs

b. Shipments Projections

c. Capital and Product Conversion Costs

d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios

3. Manufacturer Interviews

a. Test Procedure and Cleaning Index

b. Balancing Dishwasher Attributes

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

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

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 Dishwashers Standards

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

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 dishwashers, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(6))

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.

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)) Not later than 3 years after issuance of a final determination not to amend standards, 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)(3)(B))

In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for dishwashers. The proposed standards shall not exceed the estimated annual energy use, as expressed in kilowatt hours per year (“kWh/year”), and water consumption, as expressed in gallons per cycle (“gal/cycle”) shown in Table I.1. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all dishwashers listed in Table I.1 manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on the date 3 years after the publication of the final rule for this rulemaking.

Table I.1—Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Dishwashers

Product class

Maximum estimated annual energy use *

(kWh/year)

Maximum per-cycle

water consumption

(gal/cycle)

PC 1: Standard-Size Dishwasher

223

3.3

PC 2: Compact-Size Dishwasher

174

3.1

* Using appendix C2.

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the proposed standards on consumers of dishwashers, 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 dishwashers, which is estimated to be 15.2 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 Dishwashers

Product class

Average LCC

savings

(2021$)

Simple payback

period

(years)

Standard-Size

$17

2.4

Compact-Size

0.0

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

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

The industry net present value (“INPV”) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the NOPR publication year through the end of the analysis period (2023-2056). Using a real discount rate of 8.5 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of dishwashers in the case without amended standards is $713.6 million. Under the proposed standards, the change in INPV is estimated to range from −$134.9 million to −$89.5 million, which represents a change of −18.9 percent to −12.5 percent. To bring products into compliance with amended standards, it is estimated that the industry would incur total conversion costs of approximately $125.6 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

DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation standards for dishwashers would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for dishwashers purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the amended standards (2027-2056) amount to 0.31 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads.

This represents a savings of 2.7 percent relative to the energy use of these products in the case without amended standards (referred to as the “no-new-standards case”).

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.2 of this document.

The cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer benefits of the proposed standards for dishwashers ranges from $1.11 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $2.77 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs for dishwashers purchased in 2027-2056.

In addition, the proposed standards for dishwashers 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 12.54 million metric tons (“Mt”)

of carbon dioxide (“CO

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

”), 25.15 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (“NO

”), 112.88 thousand tons of methane (“CH

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

O”), and 0.02 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

(“

AEO 2022”

AEO 2022

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

AEO 2022

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 $0.60 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.

To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG).

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 (“February 2021 SC-GHG TSD”

). 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 $0.35 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $0.94 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 monetized benefits and costs expected to result from the proposed standards for dishwashers. 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 Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Dishwashers

[TSL 3]

Billion $2021

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

2.92

Climate Benefits *

0.60

Health Benefits **

0.94

Total Benefits †

4.47

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡

0.15

Consumer Net Benefits

2.77

Total Net Benefits

4.32

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

1.19

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)

0.60

Health Benefits **

0.35

Total Benefits †

2.14

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡

0.08

Consumer Net Benefits

1.11

Total Net Benefits

2.06

Note:

This table presents the costs and benefits associated with product name 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. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG).

** 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.

‡ 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 health benefits of emission reductions, all annualized.

To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2022, 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 2022. 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 dishwashers 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 dishwashers 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 V.B.8 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 $8.6 million per year in increased product costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $125.8 million in reduced product operating costs, $34.6 million in climate benefits, and $37.0 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $188.8 million per year.

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards is $8.5 million per year in increased product costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $167.8 million in reduced operating costs, $34.6 million in climate benefits, and $54.3 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $248.1 million per year.

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

[TSL 3]

Million 2021$/year

Primary

estimate

Low-Net-benefits

estimate

High-net-benefits

estimate

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

167.8

166.8

169.5

Climate Benefits *

34.6

33.8

35.3

Health Benefits **

54.3

53.1

55.4

Total Benefits †

256.6

253.7

260.2

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡

8.5

9.8

8.2

Net Benefits

248.1

243.8

251.9

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

125.8

125.0

127.0

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)

34.6

33.8

35.3

Health Benefits *

37.0

36.3

37.7

Total Benefits †

197.3

195.1

199.9

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡

8.6

9.7

8.3

Net Benefits

188.8

185.3

191.6

Note:

This table presents the costs and benefits associated with dishwashers 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.1 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. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG).

** 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 for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate.

‡ 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 the burdens of the proposed standards.

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

and SO

reduction, and a 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the proposed standards for dishwashers is $8.6 million per year in increased dishwasher costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $125.8 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $34.6 million in climate benefits, and $37.0 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $188.8 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.

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 0.31 quads full-fuel-cycle (“FFC”), the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 3.3 million homes. The NPV of consumer benefit for these projected energy savings is $1.11 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $2.77 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent. The cumulative emissions reductions associated with these energy savings are 12.56 Mt of CO

, 3.39 thousand tons of SO

, 25.20 thousand tons of NO

, 0.02 tons of Hg, 113.10 thousand tons of CH

, and 0.09 thousand tons of N

O. The estimated monetary value of the climate benefit from reduced GHG emissions (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) is $0.6 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health benefits from reduced SO

and NO

emissions is $0.35 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $0.94 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.D.2 of this document for further discussion of how DOE determines whether energy savings are “significant” within the context of the statute.

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 benefits of the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the projected burdens.

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 dishwashers.

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 dishwashers, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(6)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(1) and 10(A)), and directs DOE to conduct future rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4) and (10)(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)) Not later than 3 years after issuance of a final determination not to amend standards, 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)(3)(B))

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 dishwashers appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 430, subpart B, appendix C1 (“appendix C1”) and appendix C2 (“appendix C2”).

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including dishwashers. 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 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 manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard;

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

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

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

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

(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) considers relevant.

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

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 dishwashers address standby mode and off mode energy use. 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

In a direct final rule published on May 30, 2012 (“May 2012 Direct Final Rule”), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for dishwashers manufactured on or after May 30, 2013. 77 FR 31918. In a final determination published on December 13, 2016 (“December 2016 Final Determination”), DOE concluded that amended energy conservation standards would not be economically justified at any level above the standards established in the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, and therefore determined not to amend the standards. 81 FR 90072. The current energy and water conservation standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR part 430, § 430.32(f), and are repeated in Table II.1. The current applicable DOE test procedure for dishwashers appears at appendix C1.

Table II.1—Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Dishwashers

Product class

Maximum estimated

annual energy use *

(kWh/year)

Maximum per-cycle water consumption

(gal/cycle)

Standard-Size Dishwasher

307

5.0

Compact-Size Dishwasher

222

3.5

* Using appendix C1.

The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (“AHAM”) standard AHAM DW-1-2020 is also referenced in the amendatory text of this document but has already been approved for § 430.32. No changes are proposed.

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Dishwashers

The current energy conservation standards for dishwashers were submitted to DOE by groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, and consumer groups on July 30, 2010. This collective set of comments, titled “Agreement on Minimum Federal Efficiency Standards, Smart Appliances, Federal Incentives and Related Matters for Specified Appliances” (the “Joint Petition”),

recommended specific energy conservation standards for dishwashers that, in the commenters' view, would satisfy the EPCA requirements. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)) DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of multiple standard levels for residential dishwashers, including a standard level that corresponded to the recommended levels in the Joint Petition. 77 FR 31945, 31945-6. In the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, DOE established energy conservation standards for dishwashers manufactured on or after May 30, 2013, consistent with the levels suggested in the Joint Petition. 77 FR 31918.

DOE Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0060-0001.

In the December 2016 Final Determination, DOE concluded that amended energy conservation standards would not be economically justified at that time at any level above the standards established in the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, and therefore determined not to amend the standards. 81 FR 90072.

On March 21, 2018, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (“CEI”) submitted a petition for rulemaking requesting that DOE establish a new product class for dishwashers with a cycle time of less than one hour. DOE granted the petition and proposed a new product class for dishwashers with a “normal” cycle time of 60 minutes or less. 84 FR 33869 (July 16, 2019). On October 30, 2020, DOE published a final rule establishing a separate product class for standard-size dishwashers with a cycle time for the “normal” cycle of 60 minutes or less from washing through drying (“short cycle dishwashers”). 85 FR 68723 (“October 2020 Final Rule”).

Subsequently, in a final rule published on January 19, 2022, DOE revoked the final rule that established the new product class for dishwashers as it was improperly promulgated. 87 FR 2673.

EPCA requires that, not later than 3 years after the issuance of a final determination not to amend standards, 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)(3)(B)) DOE must make the analysis on which a determination is based publicly available and provide an opportunity for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2))

DOE is examining whether to amend the current standards pursuant to its obligations under EPCA. In an early assessment request for information published on October 14, 2020 (“October 2020 RFI”), DOE initiated the current rulemaking with an early assessment review to determine whether any new or amended standards would satisfy the relevant requirements of EPCA for a new or amended energy conservation standard for dishwashers. 85 FR 64981.

Subsequently, on January 24, 2022, DOE published a notification of a webinar and availability of preliminary technical support document (“January 2022 Preliminary Analysis”). 87 FR 3450. In that notification, DOE sought comment on the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE used to evaluate potential standards for dishwashers, the results of preliminary analyses performed, and the potential energy and water conservation standard levels derived from these analyses, which DOE presented in the accompanying preliminary TSD (“January 2022 Preliminary TSD”).

Id.

January 2022 Dishwashers Energy Conservation Standards Preliminary Technical Support Document. Available online at

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039-0015.

Prior to the publication of the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE published proposed amendments to the dishwashers test procedure at appendix C1 and proposed a new appendix C2 in a test procedure NOPR published on December 22, 2021 (“December 2021 TP NOPR”). 86 FR 72738. On January 18, 2023, DOE published the final test procedure rulemaking (“January 2023 TP Final Rule”) amending appendix C1 and establishing a new appendix C2. 88 FR 3234.The new appendix C2 specifies updated annual cycles and low-power mode hours, both of which are used to calculate the estimated annual energy use (“EAEU”) metric, and introduces a cleaning performance threshold requirement.

DOE held a public meeting on February 22, 2022 (“January 2022 Preliminary Analysis webinar”), to solicit feedback from stakeholders concerning the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis, and received comments in response from the interested parties listed in Table II.2.

Table II.2—January 2022 Preliminary Analysis Written Comments for Dishwashers

Commenter(s)

Abbreviation

Comment No. in the docket

Commenter type

Westview and Global Guideway

Individual.

Whirlpool Corporation

Whirlpool

Manufacturer.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc

Samsung

Manufacturer.

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

Joint Commenters

Efficiency Advocates.

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

NEEA

Efficiency Advocates.

GE Appliances, a Haier Company

GEA

Manufacturer.

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

AHAM

26, 31

Trade Association.

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

CA IOUs

Utilities.

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 February 22, 2022, public meeting, DOE cites the written comments throughout this final rule. Any oral comments provided during the webinar that are not substantively addressed by written comments are summarized and cited separately throughout this final rule.

AHAM's supplemental comment (No. 31) was received 161 days after the comment submission deadline. DOE generally will not consider late filed comments, but may exercise its discretion to do so where necessary and appropriate. In this case, DOE is considering AHAM's comment because its tardiness has not disrupted DOE's consideration of this matter and because the comment regards a subject important to this matter.

The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for dishwashers. (Docket No. EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039, which is maintained at

www.regulations.gov

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

C. Deviation From Appendix A

The timing of DOE's test procedures and energy conservation standards rulemakings are 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”). Section 6(f)(2) of appendix A provides that the length of the public comment period for

a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend an energy conservation standard will be at least 75 days. In accordance with section 3(a) of appendix A, DOE notes that it is deviating from the provision in appendix A regarding the pre- stages for an energy conservation standards rulemaking. DOE faces an overdue statutory deadline for this rulemaking and, furthermore, the analytical methods used for this NOPR are similar to those used in previous rulemaking notices. Consequently, DOE has determined it is necessary and appropriate to provide a 60-day comment period, which the Department has determined provides sufficient time for interested parties to review the NOPR and develop comments and for DOE to complete its analyses prior to the publication of the final rule by June 30, 2024, as required by a consent decree.

III. General Discussion

DOE developed this proposal after considering oral and written comments, data, and information submitted by stakeholders. 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 noted that DOE's comment period on the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis overlapped with the December 2021 TP NOPR comment period by 30 days. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 28) AHAM commented that DOE should have received and considered stakeholder comments on the December 2021 TP NOPR, which proposed a significant change (

i.e.,

a cleaning index threshold as a condition for a valid test cycle), before proceeding with the energy conservation standard itself, including the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis. (

Id.

) AHAM commented that it supported DOE's interest in moving rulemakings forward, but to provide stakeholders with a real opportunity to evaluate proposals, DOE should have released the test procedure proposal for comment before conducting its preliminary analysis. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 28)

AHAM commented that, regardless of the desire to rectify missed deadlines, DOE must ensure that its process allows early stakeholder engagement and that it meets other statutory criteria, such as ensuring that the standard is technically feasible and economically justified. (AHAM, No. 26 at pp. 28-29) AHAM commented that the process DOE had chosen for the dishwashers test procedure and standards rulemakings significantly undercuts commenters' ability to provide critical, early feedback to DOE on both the proposed test procedure and the preliminary analysis. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 28) AHAM commented that DOE's proposed dishwasher test procedure amendments would alter measured efficiency in many cases, that DOE did not fully analyze the impact of the December 2021 TP NOPR amendments on the standards rulemaking, and that DOE's process does not allow commenters sufficient time to analyze the implications. (

Id.

)

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. The procedures at appendix A inherently recognize a certain amount of overlap between test procedure and energy conservation standards rulemakings. In particular, appendix A 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 appendix A 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 issued the January 2023 TP Final Rule on December 16, 2022. The comment period for this standards NOPR will end more than 180 days after the issuance of the January 2023 TP Final Rule, in accordance with the requirements of appendix A.

As acknowledged by AHAM, DOE is conducting this rulemaking in fulfillment of its statutory obligations under EPCA. Furthermore, DOE expects to publicly post the intended final rule for this rulemaking by June 30, 2024, in fulfillment of the terms of a consent decree,

which necessitates timely issuance of this NOPR. DOE recognizes and appreciates the information and data provided by stakeholders in response to the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis. As discussed throughout this NOPR, DOE has incorporated data and other information received during the prior rulemaking stages into the analyses conducted for this NOPR.

On October 30, 2020, Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity, Consumer Federation of America, Massachusetts Union of Public Housing, and Sierra Club filed a lawsuit against DOE and the Secretary alleging that DOE failed to complete rulemakings by statutory deadlines for 25 consumer products and commercial equipment, including dishwashers.

See Natural Resources Defense Council, et al.

Granholm, et al.,

No. 1:20-cv-09127 (S.D.N.Y.) On November 9, 2020, the States of New York, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the People of the State of Michigan, the District of Columbia, and the City of New York filed a similar complaint, amended on January 29, 2021 to include the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the States of New Mexico and Nevada.

See State of New York, et al.

Granholm, et al.,

No. 1:20-cv-09362 (S.D.N.Y.) Under the terms of a negotiated consent decree to settle these lawsuits, entered on September 20, 2022, DOE is required, in part, to publicly post the intended final rule for dishwasher standards by June 30, 2024.

AHAM commented that DOE's test procedure proposal and preliminary analysis are missing key data and the data which are included are not transparent, which fails to meet EPCA, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Data Quality Act requirements. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 28)

DOE understands AHAM's above comment to be discussing the cleaning performance requirement in the January 2023 TP Final Rule. As noted in the January 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE discussed in the December 2021 TP NOPR its justification for including a cleaning performance measurement and establishing a minimum cleaning index threshold to define what constitutes completely washing a full load of normally soiled dishes. 88 FR 3234. The December 2021 TP NOPR presented details of a rigorous analysis performed by DOE, building upon a comprehensive investigation and analysis of dishwasher cleaning performance conducted by DOE over the course of the development of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (“EPA's”) ENERGY STAR Cleaning Performance Test Method

and previous dishwasher energy conservation standards rulemakings, and using the best available data of which it was aware at the time of the December 2021 TP NOPR to tentatively determine the specific cleaning index threshold that aligns with consumer expectations for completely washing a

full load of normally soiled dishes. 86 FR 72738, 72756-72759. DOE reiterated its results and analysis, and included additional resources, when it presented the final cleaning index threshold in newly established appendix C2 in the January 2023 TP Final Rule. 88 FR 3234. Similarly, in the January 2022 Preliminary TSD, DOE presented test results pertaining to energy use, water use, and cleaning performance by soil level (

i.e.,

heavy, medium, or light soil load) and efficiency level as determined by the rated energy and water use.

See

chapter 5, section 5.5.1 of the January 2022 Preliminary TSD. These aggregated data informed DOE's preliminary analysis and formed the basis for the efficiency levels presented in the January 2022 Preliminary TSD. Additionally, DOE released test data, including model name and numbers, to individual manufacturers that requested this information for their own models that were tested. These data were released under a non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”).

Available at

www.energystar.gov/products/spec/residential_dishwashers_specification_pd.

AHAM commented that dishwashers are an energy efficiency success story and that AHAM, DOE, EPA, and other interested parties should work to promote dishwasher ownership and proper use as the next step towards energy and water savings. (AHAM, No. 26 at pp. 1-2) AHAM suggested that non-regulatory options, such as government-industry partnerships, can significantly contribute to achieving the President's climate goals via non-regulatory programs to promote ownership and effective use of dishwashers, especially for low-income consumers. (AHAM, No. 26 at pp. 2-3) AHAM commented that DOE should amend standards to EL 1, but without the cleaning performance metric that was proposed in the December 2021 TP NOPR, and focus any additional resources on developing non-regulatory programs that will increase dishwasher ownership and proper use of dishwashers. (AHAM, No. 26 at pp. 3-4) AHAM commented that increasing dishwasher ownership and proper use of dishwashers has the potential to drive significant energy and water savings compared to savings attributable to amended standards. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 16) AHAM commented that from an environmental perspective, the preferred consumer behavior from most preferred to least preferred is: no pre-rinsing and running full or partial loads in a dishwasher; pre-rinsing and running full or partial loads in a dishwasher; and, complete hand washing. AHAM commented that hand washing and pre-rinsing consumes substantially more water than running a dishwasher with partial loads even twice as often (

i.e.,

every day rather than an average of 185 loads per year). (

Id.

)

Whirlpool supported AHAM's recommendation to explore non-regulatory options to promote broader dishwasher ownership and optimal usage. (Whirlpool, No. 21 at p. 2) Whirlpool commented that DOE's efforts to further improve energy and water savings should focus on non-regulatory options. (Whirlpool, No. 21 at p. 6)

GEA also supported AHAM's comment proposing a partnership between DOE, EPA, industry, and energy efficiency advocates to encourage non-regulatory options to further improve energy and water savings. (GEA, No. 25 at p. 2)

DOE acknowledges that non-regulatory options may exist to promote dishwasher ownership and proper use to further push the potential for energy and water savings. However, under EPCA, DOE is statutorily required to conduct energy conservation standards rulemaking for dishwashers to determine whether amending the current standards would achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency and are technologically feasible and economically justified.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(g), (m), and (o)) Since DOE published the December 2016 Final Determination not to amend dishwasher standards, it has initiated this current process to evaluate whether amended standards are economically justified and technologically feasible, warranting a NOPR or a determination that standards for dishwashers do not need to be amended. As discussed throughout this document, unlike the 2016 Final Determination, DOE has preliminarily determined that amended standards are economically justified, technologically feasible, and would result in significant energy savings. The vast majority, 93 percent, of the market currently meets or exceeds the ENERGY STAR V. 6.0

level, which corresponds to EL 1 in this document, compared to only 62 percent of the market that met or exceeded that level

in the December 2016 Final Determination. Further, as discussed in section IV.C.2 of this document, the anticipated requirement to increase dishwasher efficiency from EL 1 to EL 2 is estimated to be a zero-cost improvement in control strategies. Accordingly, DOE is proposing amended energy conservation standards for dishwashers in this NOPR.

DOE conducts an energy conservation standard every 3 to 6 years depending on whether DOE issued a determination not to amend standards or DOE amended standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)).

ENERGY STAR Program Requirements. Product Specification for Residential Dishwashers. Eligibility Criteria. Version 6.0. Effective date: January 29, 2016.

In the December 2016 Final Determination, EL 2 corresponded to the ENERGY STAR V. 6.0 level.

In response to results shown in the preliminary analysis, Whirlpool and GEA noted the estimates of consumers experiencing net costs of greater than 40 percent for both product classes analyzed beyond EL 1. (Whirlpool, No. 21 at p. 3; GEA, No. 25 at p. 2)

DOE updated its preliminary analysis for this NOPR. Between publication of the preliminary analysis and this NOPR some of the inputs into DOE's analysis have changed, greatly reducing the percentage of customers experiencing net costs. DOE uses the most currently available information at each stage of an energy conservation standards rulemaking. Updates in the NOPR analysis, compared to the preliminary analysis, include changes to the consumer sample, energy prices, discount rate, product costs at each efficiency level and market shares for the product classes (see sections IV.D and IV.F.8 of this document), which in turn update the net costs experienced by consumers as estimated in the LCC analysis (see Table V.2 through Table V.5). DOE's proposed standards are based on the updated analysis, as described in section V of this document.

B. Scope of Coverage

This NOPR covers those consumer products that meet the definition of “dishwasher” as codified at 10 CFR 430.2.

Dishwasher means a cabinet-like appliance which with the aid of water and detergent, washes, rinses, and dries (when a drying process is included) dishware, glassware, eating utensils, and most cooking utensils by chemical, mechanical and/or electrical means and discharges to the plumbing drainage system. 10 CFR 430.2.

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

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 dishwashers are expressed in terms of EAEU, in kWh/year, and water consumption, in gal/cycle, as

measured using appendix C1. (

See

10 CFR 430.32(f).)

As discussed, on January 18, 2023, DOE published a final rule amending the dishwashers test procedure at appendix C1 and adopting a new test procedure at appendix C2. 88 FR 3234. The amendments to appendix C1 establish requirements for water hardness, relative humidity, and loading pattern; update requirements for ambient temperature, detergent dosage, and standby power measurement; and include testing approaches from published waivers for dishwashers.

Id.

The new appendix C2 additionally includes updated annual number of cycles and low-power mode hours for the calculation of energy consumption, as well as provisions for a minimum cleaning index threshold of 70 to validate the selected test cycle.

Id.

Cleaning index is calculated based on the number and size of particles remaining on each item of the test load at the completion of a dishwasher cycle as specified in AHAM DW-2-2020.

Items that do not have any soil particles are scored 0 (

i.e.,

completely clean). No single item in the test load can exceed a score of 9. Individual scores for each item in the test load are combined as a weighted average to calculate the per cycle cleaning index. A cleaning index of 100 indicates completely clean test load. In the final rule, DOE specified that the cleaning index is calculated by only scoring soil particles on all items in the test load and that spots, streaks, and rack contact marks on glassware are not included in the cleaning index calculation.

88 FR 3234. The new appendix C2 will go into effect only at such time as compliance is required with any amended energy conservation standards. Accordingly, DOE used appendix C2 as finalized in the January 2023 TP Final Rule as the basis for the analysis in this NOPR. Specifically, in this NOPR, DOE's EAEU analysis is based on 184 cycles/year as specified in appendix C2.

In the December 2021 TP NOPR, DOE proposed a cleaning index threshold of 65 calculated by scoring soil particles on all items as well as spots, streaks, and rack contact marks on glassware. In the January 2023 TP Final Rule, DOE noted that the specified cleaning index threshold of 70 is equivalent to the cleaning index threshold of 65 that was proposed in the December 2021 TP NOPR.

In response to the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis, Whirlpool commented that DOE had not shown that any cleaning index score correlates strongly to high consumer satisfaction or prevents consumers from performing more energy- and water-intensive behaviors. Whirlpool further cited its comments on the December 2021 TP NOPR regarding the relationship between the cleaning index as calculated using AHAM DW-2-2020 and real world consumer satisfaction.

(Whirlpool, No. 21 at p. 4) GEA stated that DOE lacked data on the reproducibility and repeatability of the proposed cleaning performance metric, as well as data that indicate the cleaning index threshold is relevant to DOE's stated goal. (GEA, No. 25 at p. 2) GEA also stated that a requirement to test the most energy-intensive cycle as a result of failing DOE's cleaning metric is effectively a change to the standard. (

Id.

)

This comment was addressed by DOE in the January 2023 TP Final Rule, as such, DOE is not responding to this comment here.

AHAM stated it had concerns with DOE's cleaning performance metric, claiming that (1) EPCA does not authorize a cleaning performance metric in the test procedure; (2) DOE had failed to support its proposal with data; and (3) the December 2021 TP NOPR proposal was fraught with technical challenges and uncertainty. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 12)

AHAM further commented that DOE had not proven that the December 2021 TP NOPR proposal to include a minimum cleaning index threshold of 65 as a condition for a test cycle to be valid will protect product performance in the event of increased standards. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 11) AHAM commented that DOE's data were not transparent and DOE provided only summary information in graphs, which did not allow commenters to fully analyze the data and understand the relationship between cleaning indices and energy and water usage. (AHAM, No. 26 at pp. 12, 29) AHAM requested that DOE provide its full data set to facilitate complete evaluation by commenters. AHAM noted that failure to provide this data would be inconsistent with the requirements under the Data Quality Act and other applicable statutory provisions. AHAM requested that, if DOE provides its full data, it do so in a format that permits public comment for at least 60 days on both the December 2021 TP NOPR and the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 14) AHAM requested that DOE provide its full test data by model via a notice of data availability or other appropriate regulatory tool. AHAM requested that the data include, at a minimum, for each soil level, the following information: machine energy (in watt-hours (“Wh”)), water energy (in Wh), power dry energy (in Wh), total cycle energy (in Wh), annual energy (in kWh), water use (in gal), per-cycle cleaning index, and water energy during rinse (in Wh). AHAM also requested DOE to share the model numbers because it would help AHAM and its members determine representativeness of the sample. (AHAH, No. 26 at pp. 29-30) AHAM commented that it could not support DOE's test procedure proposal to include a performance metric in the test procedure without DOE providing data and information to address the significant concerns AHAM raised in its comments on the December 2021 TP NOPR. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 12) AHAM also commented that the impact of a test procedure amendment to include cleaning performance would be additional manufacturer cost and redesign to comply with future amended standards, and DOE's analysis should account for these costs. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 29)

DOE has addressed AHAM's bulleted comments in the January 2023 TP Final Rule.

The CA IOUs stated their support for the adoption of a cleaning index threshold to ensure dishwashers adequately clean dishes per consumer expectations while improving energy and water efficiency. The CA IOUs commented that greater satisfaction in dishwasher performance will increase the use and adoption of more-efficient dishwashers, resulting in a virtuous cycle that leads to even more significant real-world savings due to a reduction in pre-washing and pre-rinsing. (CA IOUs, No. 27 at p. 4) Samsung stated that it supports the cleaning index threshold of 65 as proposed in the December 2021 TP NOPR to incentivize adequate cleaning efficiency. (Samsung, No. 22 at p. 3) Samsung provided further comment acknowledging variability in the cleaning performance test method, but that variability could be compensated by adjusting the minimum threshold level using the observed standard deviation. (Samsung, No. 22 at p. 4)

DOE has responded to all of these comments in the January 2023 TP Final Rule when establishing the cleaning index threshold of 70 as a condition for a valid test cycle in new appendix C2. The December 2021 TP NOPR, stakeholder comments, January 2023 TP Final Rule, and supporting material are available on the docket at

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2016-BT-TP-0012.

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 product 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 appendix A.

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 appendix A. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for dishwashers, 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 dishwashers, 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 document and in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

For each trial standard level (“TSL”), DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to dishwashers 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 dishwashers purchased in the 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 dishwashers. 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. 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 product. 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. 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 of this document, DOE is proposing to adopt TSL 3, which would save an estimated 0.31 quads of energy (FFC) and 0.24 trillion gallons of water. 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 NOPR.

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 and Water 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.D 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 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 and Water 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 GHGs associated with energy production and use. As part of the analysis of the need for national energy and water conservation, 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 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 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 document.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking regarding dishwashers. 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. Additionally, this second spreadsheet 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?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0039.

Additionally, DOE used output from the latest version of the Energy Information Administration's (“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 dishwashers. 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 such factors 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 the following two product classes of dishwashers (10 CFR 430.32(f)):

(1) Standard-size dishwashers (capacity equal to or greater than eight place settings plus six serving pieces); and

(2) Compact-size dishwashers (capacity less than eight place settings plus six serving pieces).

For these two classes of dishwashers, DOE's current test procedure measures the energy consumption in terms of EAEU, in kWh/year, and water consumption, in gal/cycle (

see

10 CFR 430.32(f)).

As part of its rulemaking process, DOE considers, among other things, whether changes to the current product classes are warranted under the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). In surveying the dishwasher market, DOE determined that, in addition to a “normal” cycle, many dishwasher models offer a variety of other cycles,

e.g.,

delicate cycles, eco wash cycles, heavy soil cycles, pots and pans cycles, and quick or short cycles. In order to establish a separate product class for dishwasher models that offer any of these other cycles, DOE would have to determine that: (1) the other cycle is a performance-related feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have; and (2) such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B)) In making the latter determination, DOE considers such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a feature, and such other factors as the Department determines appropriate.

Id.

With respect to the first criterion for establishing product classes, DOE has preliminarily determined that these other cycles may constitute performance-related features. For example, in 2020, DOE analyzed he average “normal” and “quick” cycle times for 31 dishwasher models. The average cycle time for a “normal” cycle was 131.1 minutes, while the average “quick” cycle time was 75.5 minutes.

DOE recognizes that “quick” cycle options, which are on average approximately an hour shorter than a “normal” cycle, allow consumers access to clean dishes in an expedited manner.

The test results for the 31 units are available at:

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2018-BT-STD-0005-3213.

However, with respect to the second criterion for establishing product classes, DOE tentatively concludes that there is not a correlation between any of these additional cycles and energy and water use as measured by the DOE test procedure. In other words, DOE does not find a justification for setting a lower or higher standard for dishwasher models that offer any of these other cycles because only the “normal” cycle is tested pursuant to the DOE test procedure for compliance with the applicable standard. The current and proposed standards impose restrictions on energy or water use only when a dishwasher is operating in its “normal” cycle. Thus, there is no justification or need to establish separate product classes for dishwashers with these other cycles.

As a result, in this NOPR, DOE proposes to maintain the existing standard-size and compact-size product classes for dishwashers.

DOE requests comment on its preliminary determination to maintain the current product classes for dishwashers.

2. Technology Options

In the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE identified 19 technology options that would be expected to improve the efficiency of dishwashers, as measured by the DOE test procedure:

condensation drying; control strategies;

desiccant drying; fan/jet drying; flow-through heating; improved fill control; improved food filter; improved motor efficiency; improved spray-arm geometry; increased insulation; low-standby-loss electronic controls; microprocessor controls and fuzzy logic, including adaptive or soil-sensing controls; modified sump geometry, with and without dual pumps; reduced inlet-water temperature; supercritical carbon dioxide washing; thermoelectric heat pumps; ultrasonic washing; variable washing pressures and flow rates; and, water re-use system.

See

chapter 3, section 3.14.2 of the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis.

Control strategies refers to how manufacturers program the microprocessor to control a dishwasher to limit the amount of water used, or to reduce the set-point temperature of the wash or rinse water.

In the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE requested feedback on whether there are additional technologies available that may improve dishwasher performance. See chapter ES, section ES.4.3 of the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis.

Westview and Global Guideway commented that use of grey water and “back side heat recovery” design ideas from solar panels could be used to improve whole-home efficiency. (Westview and Global Guideway, No. 17 at p. 1) While DOE appreciates the comment, DOE notes that it identifies technology options that would improve the efficiency of the covered product itself, and typically, the technology exists as part of the product's design. Accordingly, DOE has not considered this technology option in this document.

Samsung commented that opportunities for improved energy efficiency beyond EL 1 exist, such as implementation of variable-speed motors. (Samsung, No. 22 at p. 2) DOE agrees and, as discussed in Chapter 5 of the January 2022 Preliminary TSD and this NOPR TSD, DOE implemented a 3-phase variable-speed motor design option at EL 3. Such a motor, along with more sophisticated electronic controls, allows the dishwasher to adjust the flow rate at which the water is pumped throughout the water system at different times during the cycle. Using the most energy-intensive pump operation only when needed eliminates excess energy consumption for portions of the wash cycle requiring less aggressive circulation.

AHAM commented that DOE should not be able to claim more efficient motors as a design option in this end-use product rulemaking and claim separate savings in a potential future motors standards rulemaking for those same motors. AHAM stated that if DOE regulates special and definite purpose motors in spite of AHAM's objection, then DOE must remove the savings from motors from amended standards for dishwashers. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 15) DOE acknowledges AHAM's comment, but notes that the drain and sump motors analyzed for this rulemaking are currently not subject to motor standards.

The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to reconsider its assumption that all dishwasher models above the baseline have the same standby power levels and recognize the potential for advanced electronics and power supplies to lower standby power. The CA IOUs commented that more advanced electronics and power supplies may translate to energy savings significantly greater than those calculated by DOE. (CA IOUs, No. 27 at p. 4) DOE used the efficiency-level approach to conduct its efficiency analysis for the engineering analysis, and identified the most likely design pathways to achieve the analyzed levels. DOE did not analyze incremental improvements to electronic controls because it implemented the improved electronic controls design option at EL 1.

DOE requests comment on specific technology options for reducing standby power, including the type of technologies implemented and the estimated improvement in standby power.

In this NOPR, DOE considered the same technology options as those considered in the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis. Additionally, DOE proposes to explicitly discuss variable-speed motors as a technology option in the market and technology assessment, since DOE included it in its design options for EL 3 and higher in the engineering analysis for the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis as well as the December 2016 Final Determination. Chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD includes the detailed descriptions of each technology option.

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 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.

Sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b) of appendix A.

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 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

The following sections detail the technology options that were screened out for this proposed rulemaking, and the reasons why they were eliminated.

a. Desiccant Drying

Desiccant drying relies on a material such as zeolite

to adsorb moisture to aid in the drying process and reduce drying energy consumption. In the January 2022 Preliminary TSD, DOE noted that it is aware of dishwashers

from one manufacturer on the market in the United States that use desiccant drying.

See

chapter 4, section 4.2.1.1 of the January 2022 Preliminary TSD.

Zeolite is a highly porous aluminosilicate mineral that adsorbs moisture and releases heat to aid in the drying process.

DOE has screened out desiccant drying from further consideration because it would not be practicable to manufacture on the scale necessary for the dishwasher market. Desiccant drying is a patented technology, and although multiple manufacturers hold patents for dishwasher designs with desiccant drying features, DOE is concerned that this technology option is not available for all manufacturers.

b. Reduced Inlet-Water Temperature

Reduced inlet-water temperature requires that dishwashers tap the cold water line for their water supply. Because most dishwashers in the United States tap the hot water line, this technology option would require significant alteration of existing dishwasher installations in order to accommodate newly purchased units incorporating this technology option. Therefore, DOE believes that it would not be practicable to install this technology on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the effective date of an amended standard.

c. Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Washing

Supercritical carbon dioxide washing, which uses supercritical carbon dioxide instead of conventional detergent and water to wash dishes, is currently being researched. Given that this technology is in the research stage, DOE believes that it would not be practicable to manufacture, install and service this technology on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the effective date of an amended standard. Furthermore, because this technology is in the research stage, it is not yet possible to assess whether it would have any adverse impacts on equipment utility to consumers or equipment availability, or any adverse impacts on consumers' health or safety.

d. Ultrasonic Washing

A dishwasher using ultrasonic waves to generate a cleaning mist was produced for the Japanese market in 2002; however, this model is no longer available on the market. Available information indicates that the use of a mist with ion generation instead of water with detergent would decrease cleaning performance, impacting consumer utility.

Ultrasonic dishwashing based upon soiled-dish immersion in a fluid that is then excited by ultrasonic waves has not been demonstrated. In an immersion-based ultrasonic dishwasher, standing ultrasonic waves within the washing cavity and the force of bubble cavitation implosion can damage fragile dishware. Because no manufacturers currently produce ultrasonic consumer dishwashers, it is impossible to assess whether this technology option would have any impacts on consumers' health or safety, or product availability.

Based on this information, DOE has screened out both identified product types that incorporate the ultrasonic washing technology option.

e. Thermoelectric Heat Pumps

The thermoelectric heat pump system aims to extract waste heat from drain water and recover heat normally lost during the drying process, and apply it to the washing, rinsing, and drying phases, effectively saving energy. The technology is not commercially available yet as research and development is still underway. Therefore, DOE believes that it would not be practicable to manufacture, install and service this technology on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the effective date of an amended standard. Furthermore, because this technology is in the research stage, it is not yet possible to assess whether it would have any adverse impacts on equipment utility to consumers or equipment availability, or any adverse impacts on consumers' health or safety.

f. Water Re-Use System

This system saves water from the final rinse of a given dishwasher cycle for use in a subsequent dishwasher cycle. A water re-use system dishwasher also performs “drain out” and “clean out” cycles if the dishwasher is not operated for a certain period of time. Both “drain out” and “clean out” events consume additional water and energy during the subsequent cycle, even though such a system saves water and energy consumption overall.

DOE has screened out this technology option as it believes that leaking and contamination from a water holding tank could potentially present negative health or safety impacts.

2. Remaining Technologies

Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that all of the other identified technologies listed in section IV.A.2 of this document, including variable-speed motors, met all five screening criteria to be examined further as design options in DOE's NOPR analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen out the following technology options: condensation drying; control strategies; fan/jet drying; flow-through heating; improved fill control; improved food filter; improved motor efficiency; variable-speed motors; improved spray-arm geometry; increased insulation; low-standby-loss electronic controls; microprocessor controls and fuzzy logic, including adaptive or soil-sensing controls; modified sump geometry, with and without dual pumps; and, variable washing pressures and flow rates.

DOE has initially determined that these technology options are technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in commercially-available products or working prototypes. DOE also finds that all of the remaining technology options meet the other screening criteria (

i.e.,

are practicable to manufacture, install, and service; do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product availability, health, or safety; and are not unique-pathway proprietary technologies). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.

C. Engineering Analysis

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the relationship between the efficiency and cost of dishwashers. There are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of efficiency levels to analyze (

i.e.,

the “efficiency analysis”) and the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (

i.e.,

the “cost analysis”). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency dishwashers, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each product class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the product at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency “curves” that are used in downstream analyses (

i.e.,

the LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).

1. Efficiency Analysis

DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed efficiency levels in the market (

i.e.,

the efficiency-level approach), or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (

i.e.,

the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on the range of

efficiencies and efficiency level “clusters” that already exist on the market). Using the design-option approach, the efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended using the design option approach to “gap fill” levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in cases where the max-tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on the market).

For this analysis, DOE used a combination of these engineering approaches. This approach involved physically disassembling commercially available products, reviewing publicly available cost information, and modeling equipment cost. From this information, DOE estimated the manufacturer production costs (“MPCs”) for a range of products currently available on the market. DOE then considered the incremental steps manufacturers may take to reach higher efficiency levels. In its modeling, DOE started with the baseline MPC and added the expected design options at each higher efficiency level to estimate incremental MPCs. By doing this, the engineering analysis did not factor in the additional higher-cost features with no impact on efficiency that are included in some models. However, at efficiency levels where the product designs significantly deviated from the baseline product, DOE used the efficiency-level approach to determine an MPC estimate, while removing the costs associated with non-efficiency-related components or features. DOE also provides further discussion on the design options and efficiency improvements in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

a. Baseline Efficiency

For each product/product class, DOE generally selects a baseline model as a reference point for each class, and measures changes resulting from potential energy conservation standards against the baseline. The baseline model in each product class represents the characteristics of a product typical of that class (

e.g.,

capacity, physical size). Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets current energy conservation standards, or, if no standards are in place, the baseline is typically the most common or least efficient unit on the market.

For dishwashers, DOE identified products available on the market rated at the current energy conservation standards levels for both standard-size and compact-size dishwasher product classes. Accordingly, DOE analyzed these products as baseline units. DOE uses the baseline unit for comparison in several phases of the NOPR analyses, including the engineering analysis, LCC analysis, PBP analysis, and NIA. To determine energy savings that will result from an amended energy conservation standard, DOE compares energy use at each of the higher energy efficiency levels to the energy consumption of the baseline unit. Similarly, to determine the changes in price to the consumer that will result from an amended energy conservation standard, DOE compares the price of a unit at each higher efficiency level to the price of a unit at the baseline. Additional details on the selection of baseline units may be found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

Table IV.1 presents the baseline levels identified for each dishwasher product class in the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis, and Table IV.2 presents the baseline levels identified for each dishwasher product class in this NOPR.

Table IV.1—Baseline Dishwasher Efficiency Levels Evaluated in the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis

Product class

Estimated annual energy use

(kWh/year) *

Estimated annual energy use

(kWh/year) **

Per-cycle water consumption

(gal/cycle)

Standard-size

307

263

5.0

Compact-size

222

178

3.5

* Using appendix C1.

** Using appendix C2.

Table IV.2—Baseline Dishwasher Efficiency Levels Proposed in This NOPR

Product class

Estimated annual energy use

(kWh/year) *

Estimated annual energy use

(kWh/year) **

Per-cycle water consumption

(gal/cycle)

Standard-size

307

263

5.0

Compact-size

222

191

3.5

* Using appendix C1.

** Using appendix C2.

DOE

updated the baseline efficiency level for the compact-size dishwasher product class from 178 kWh/year to 191 kWh/year, when using appendix C2, as shown in Table IV.1 and Table IV.2. In the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE translated the current compact-size product class standard level of 222 kWh/year, which is based on 215 annual cycles, to an EAEU based on 184 annual cycles using the baseline standby power energy use estimate of 2.3 watts from the December 2016 Final Determination (

See

chapter 7 of the December 2016 Final Determination TSD).

However, based on its most

recent testing of compact-size dishwashers, conducted in October 2020, DOE determined for this NOPR that current baseline compact-size dishwashers consume 0.5 watts in standby mode. Using this updated standby power value to translate 222 kWh/year from 215 annual cycles to 184 annual cycles, DOE calculated an updated baseline EAEU value of 191 kWh/year for compact-size dishwashers. Accordingly, DOE is proposing the baseline compact-size dishwasher efficiency level to be 191 kWh/year and 3.5 gal/cycle.

See

chapter 5, section 5.3.1 of the January 2022 Preliminary TSD for further information. The second Estimated Annual Energy Use column did not appear in the January 2022 Preliminary TSD, but has been added to reflect the changes in the January 2023 TP Final Rule.

To translate the current dishwasher EAEU standards from 215 annual cycles to 184 annual cycles, DOE separated the EAEU into annual active mode energy use and annual standby mode energy use. DOE multiplied the annual active mode energy use by 184 cycles/year and divided by 215 cycles/year, then added back the annual standby energy use to determine updated EAEU values based on 184 annual cycles.

DOE requests comment on the proposed baseline compact-size dishwasher EAEU of 191 kWh/year for this NOPR.

b. Higher Efficiency Levels

Using the efficiency-level approach, the higher efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on the range of efficiencies and efficiency level “clusters” that already exist on the market). Using this approach, DOE identified four efficiency levels beyond the baseline for standard-size dishwashers and two for the compact-size product class.

Table IV.3 and Table IV.4 present the efficiency levels for standard-size and compact-size dishwashers, respectively, from the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis.

Table IV.3—Efficiency Levels for Standard-Size Dishwashers Evaluated in the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis

Efficiency level

Estimated annual

energy use

(kWh/year) *

Estimated annual

energy use

(kWh/year) **

Per-cycle water

consumption

(gal/cycle)

Baseline

307

263

5.0

270

232

3.5

260

223

3.3

240

206

3.2

4 (Max-Tech)

225

193

2.4

* Using appendix C1.

** Using appendix C2.

Table IV.4—Efficiency Levels for Compact-Size Dishwashers Evaluated in the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis

Efficiency level

Estimated annual

energy use

(kWh/year) *

Estimated annual

energy use

(kWh/year) **

Per-cycle water

consumption

(gal/cycle)

Baseline

222

178

3.5

203

174

3.1

2 (Max-Tech)

144

124

1.6

* Using appendix C1.

** Using appendix C2.

In the January

2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE requested comment on whether the efficiency levels for each product class were appropriate. DOE also observed that the design options at baseline and EL 1 for compact-size dishwashers were the same and sought feedback on the differences, if any, between baseline and EL 1 compact-size dishwasher design options.

See

Executive Summary, section ES.4.4 of the January 2022 Preliminary TSD. DOE did not receive any comments on the similarities or differences in design options between baseline and EL 1 for compact-size dishwashers. The following paragraphs summarize the comments DOE received regarding the efficiency levels for each product class.

See

chapter 5, section 5.3.2 of the January 2022 Preliminary TSD for further information. The second Estimated Annual Energy Use column did not appear in the January 2022 Preliminary TSD, but has been added to reflect the changes in the January 2023 TP Final Rule.

AHAM commented that energy conservation standards more stringent than ENERGY STAR V. 6.0 criteria are likely to result in limited energy savings, degraded performance, and, due to undesirable consumer behaviors such as increased handwashing and pre-rinsing, increased water and energy consumption. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 2) Whirlpool commented that consumers would be dissatisfied with dishwasher performance at EL 2 and above, which will lead to compensatory behaviors, such as pre-rinsing, handwashing, using heavier cycles and options, and rewashing dishes, that lower the overall expected energy and water savings from such standards. Whirlpool requested that DOE assess and quantify this compensatory behavior in its analysis. (Whirlpool, No. 21 at p. 6)

AHAM commented that, if DOE did not include a cleaning index threshold in the dishwashers test procedure, the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis justified amended energy conservation standards for dishwashers up to, but not exceeding, EL 1. AHAM stated that products on the market have a demonstrated capability to achieve EL 1 while retaining consumer satisfaction with cleaning performance, drying performance, and cycle duration. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 3) AHAM commented that DOE's data demonstrate that many models at EL 1 would not meet DOE's cleaning index threshold of 65 proposed in the December 2021 TP NOPR, and would require re-testing. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 13) In late comments submitted after the close of the comment period, AHAM noted that its initial analysis indicating that many models at EL 1 would not meet DOE's cleaning index threshold of 65 proposed in the December 2021 TP NOPR is unchanged by its updated comments, wherein AHAM commented that its data from the 2013 round robin testing was more relevant, given that the test variation in cleaning index based on the 2013 round robin testing was also 7. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 4)

AHAM stated that dishwashers are nearing maximum efficiency under the available technology, and additional

efficiency gains are not available without increasing costs or sacrificing performance or product functionality. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 3) AHAM also commented that more radical or comprehensive the design change, the more likely retooling is necessary and the greater the product cost and the investment. AHAM also stated current dishwasher platforms are at the limit of energy and water use reduction achievable through changes in components. (AHAM, No. 26 at pp. 14-15)

DOE notes that its analyses account for consumer behaviors such as handwashing when conducting the energy and water use analyses.

DOE also notes that testing and teardowns showed that dishwashers that span a range of efficiencies are available currently, utilizing available technology options, and these models are capable of achieving a cleaning index of at least 70, as required by the test procedure adopted in the January 2023 TP Final Rule that would be applicable for any amended energy conservation standards. Additionally, DOE's teardown analysis showed that a product platform change would not be necessary until the max-tech efficiency level for standard-size dishwashers.

See section 10.4.2 in chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD.

Whirlpool commented that manufacturers typically underestimate product efficiency, meaning that the vast majority of existing dishwasher models already perform within the energy limit where DOE believes cleaning performance can be maintained, rendering amended energy conservation standards beyond EL 1 for standard-size dishwashers unnecessary. (Whirlpool, No. 21 at p. 4) Whirlpool provided an example to note that if manufacturers use a 3 to 5-percent safety factor, it will imply that units rated at EL 1 (

i.e.,

270 kWh/year and 3.5 gal/cycle when testing according to the currently applicable appendix C1) already perform between 257-262 kWh/year and 3.3-3.4 gal/cycle. Whirlpool stated that this indicates that many models are already currently within the energy limit to where DOE believes that cleaning performance can be maintained. (

Id.

) DOE notes that it evaluated dishwasher cleaning performance based on the rated energy and water use values certified by manufacturers. These results showed that units up to the rated efficiencies at EL 3 achieved the specified cleaning index threshold. Additionally, during manufacturer interviews, some manufacturers acknowledged that DOE's cleaning index threshold was achievable at efficiency levels up to EL 3 for standard-size dishwashers. These manufacturers also stated that for certain models that may not meet the cleaning index threshold, the safety margin already built into the rated energy and water use values for such models could be narrowed to maintain the existing efficiency level without requiring recertification or to exceed the existing efficiency level without requiring a redesign.

GEA supported increasing the minimum efficiency standard for standard-size dishwashers to EL 1. (GEA, No. 25 at p. 2) But, GEA commented that it opposed an increase to EL 1 if it were coupled with a cleaning performance metric because, according to GEA, DOE's cleaning performance metric as proposed in the December 2021 TP NOPR is flawed. (

Id.

) GEA commented that the limited data provided by DOE indicate that at least 73 percent of units would fail the cleaning performance score at EL 1. (

Id.

)

The CA IOUs commented that EL 2 is an appropriate higher efficiency level for both standard-size and compact-size dishwashers. The CA IOUs stated that EL 1 would not provide significant enough energy and water savings due to the fact that 100 percent of standard-size dishwasher shipments in 2020 already met this efficiency level, according to ENERGY STAR. Further, for standard-size dishwashers, the CA IOUs stated that EL 2 would provide an average lifetime savings of $4 per consumer and a net benefit to the majority of consumers, with an estimated payback period of 7 years that is less than half of the average dishwasher lifetime of 15.2 years. For compact-size dishwashers, the CA IOUs stated that EL 2 is a reasonable standard level noting that it would provide average lifetime cost savings of $36 per consumer with 60 percent of consumers experiencing a net benefit and a payback period of 7.1 years. (CA IOUS, No. 27 at pp. 1-2) The CA IOUs further commented that DOE should amend standards to EL 2 to coordinate with the adoption of the ENERGY STAR V. 7.0

specification, which finalized more stringent energy and water use qualification criteria. (

Id.

)

ENERGY STAR Program Requirements. Product Specification for Residential Dishwashers. Eligibility Criteria. Version 7.0. Effective date: July 19, 2023.

The Joint Commenters stated that dishwashers are able to meet EL 3 while providing high consumer satisfaction across various areas of performance. The Joint Commenters noted that: DOE investigated, in the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis, the potential impact of reduced energy and water consumption on dishwasher cleaning performance and cycle time; and (2) EPA analyzed during the development of the ENERGY STAR V. 7.0 Specification how dishwashers meeting the proposed requirements perform across a range of metrics that impact consumer satisfaction. (Joint Commenters, No. 23 at p. 1) The Joint Commenters stated that EPA's analysis found that all dishwasher models rated by Consumer Reports that met the ENERGY STAR V. 7.0 requirements (

i.e.,

EL 3) received a cleaning performance rating of Very Good or Excellent. The Joint Commenters additionally noted that both DOE and EPA found no clear correlation between cycle time and energy and water consumption and that the average cycle time of models rated by Consumer Reports for models that meet ENERGY STAR V. 7.0 was 142 minutes, which is less than the average cycle time of 148 minutes across all models rated by Consumer Reports. The Joint Commenters additionally noted that higher efficiency models are rated better than average for noise performance and there were minimum differences in drying performance when comparing models that met the ENERGY STAR V. 7.0 requirements to other reviewed models. Finally, the Joint Commenters noted that the overall satisfaction rating for models meeting the ENERGY STAR V. 7.0 requirements was 4.36 compared to 3.56 for all models. (Joint Commenters, No. 23 at p. 2) NEEA commented that its consumer satisfaction data for high efficiency dishwashers supports DOE's conclusion regarding cleaning performance (

i.e.,

cleaning performance can be maintained up to EL 3 for standard-size dishwashers) and demonstrates that noise and cycle time do not increase up to EL 3. Specifically, NEEA commented that its market research found that consumer satisfaction was higher at EL 1 and EL 3 compared to the baseline (

i.e.,

EL 0) and it was likely that these units operated quietly compared to baseline units. (NEEA, No. 24 at pp. 2-3)

Whirlpool commented that amended standards beyond EL 1 would allow only a third or less of the total allowable energy usage for drying after allocating energy to cleaning, which is less than the half or more of total energy use that Whirlpool would want to allocate to drying to ensure excellent performance. (Whirlpool, No. 21 at p. 4) Whirlpool commented that manufacturers struggle to deliver consistent drying performance due to existing efficiency standards, and

the problem would be exacerbated at all levels beyond EL 1. Whirlpool stated that there is not enough energy that can be allocated to drying performance after available energy is allocated to the core function of a dishwasher, cleaning performance, and that lower final rinse temperatures and shorter heated drying necessitated by efficiency standards make it difficult to completely dry all items in the consumer's load and the interior tub itself. (

Id.

) During the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis webinar, AHAM asked if DOE had evaluated the impact of potentially more stringent standards on drying performance, noise, or other factors. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 43) AHAM commented that in order to design dishwashers that meet the cleaning index threshold requirements proposed in the December 2021 TP NOPR as well as potentially more stringent standards, it is likely that manufacturers will need to reduce drying energy, lengthen cycles, and potentially impact noise levels. (AHAM, No. 31 at p. 4)

Whirlpool commented that beyond EL 1, plastic tub dishwashers which are lower priced and common amongst lower-income consumers, may not be able to retain enough heat to keep the internal temperature high enough with lower rinse temperatures and shorter heated drying durations, to adequately remove water from dishes and the interior tub surfaces. (Whirlpool, No. 21 at p. 4) Whirlpool further commented that if manufacturers cannot offer competitive plastic tub dishwashers, it would force low-income consumers to spend approximately $200 or more on the purchase of a new dishwasher, negating potential lifetime energy and water savings for the consumer. (Whirlpool, No. 21 at p. 5)

DOE notes that appendix C2 regulates only the normal cycle, as long as the normal cycle meets the specified cleaning index threshold. As such, DOE expects that a variety of other, non-regulated cycles available on current dishwasher models would continue to be available even if DOE were to amend existing standards, given that such cycle types and/or cycle options have not been, and would continue to not be, subject to any water or energy limits as a result of any energy conservation standards. Specifically, DOE expects quick cycles, which often clean a load within 1 hour or less, would still be available on dishwasher models that currently offer such a cycle. DOE also expects existing drying options would continue to be available on dishwashers regardless of amended standards up to at least EL 3. DOE additionally expects any amended standards up to at least EL 3 would not stifle innovation around drying options and other features that could be implemented on dishwashers outside the regulated cycle.

Additionally, while DOE's teardown analysis shows that plastic tubs are available in dishwasher models at efficiency levels higher than EL 1, and DOE estimates that plastic tubs can be used up to EL 3 based on its testing and teardowns, DOE also recognizes potential utility concerns associated with implementing plastic tubs at higher efficiency levels. DOE received similar feedback during manufacturer interviews that some aspect of dishwasher performance could be compromised particularly at EL 3 and beyond and DOE considered this feedback during its analysis.

DOE additionally notes that its testing demonstrated that standard-size dishwashers can achieve the threshold cleaning performance on the normal cycle at all soil levels up to EL 3 and at least one of the three soil levels at the max-tech efficiency level (EL 4). Additionally, the ENERGY STAR Most Efficient 2022

database includes other models besides the max-tech unit that DOE tested that meet or exceed EL 4. To qualify for ENERGY STAR Most Efficient 2022, units need to meet a minimum cleaning index of 70, including scores for spots, streaks, and rack contact marks which are excluded from DOE's test procedure at appendix C2, at each soil level on the normal cycle. Accordingly, standard-size dishwashers that can achieve the threshold cleaning performance on the normal cycle at EL 4 currently exist on the market. DOE's testing also indicated that compact-size dishwashers can achieve the threshold cleaning performance on the normal cycle even at the heavy soil load.

ENERGY STAR Most Efficient 2022. Dishwashers. Available at:

www.energystar.gov/most-efficient/me-certified-dishwashers/results?is_most_efficient_filter=Most+Efficient

(last accessed October 28, 2022).

All of the compact units in DOE's test sample were non-soil sensing dishwashers, which are not required under appendix C2 to be tested with lesser soil loads if the cleaning performance threshold is met with the heavy soil load.

During the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis webinar, AHAM asked if DOE had conducted any testing or crosswalk to evaluate the impact of the cleaning performance requirement proposed in the December 2021 TP NOPR on the efficiency levels presented in the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 15) AHAM commented that if DOE included a cleaning performance metric, DOE would need to account for the changes in measured energy and water efficiency that would likely result from the amendment and repeat its analysis to re-establish the baseline and examine the distribution of higher-efficiency models. (AHAM, No. 26 at pp. 3, 14) AHAM commented that, based on the data DOE presented in the January 2022 Preliminary TSD, most dishwashers would need to be re-rated, and many may be rated at lower efficiency levels because the cleaning index threshold proposed in the December 2021 TP NOPR would require the products be tested at their highest energy consuming cycle. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 13)

DOE notes that the January 2023 TP Final Rule has established the cleaning performance requirement in the dishwasher test procedure that will be required to demonstrate compliance with any amended standards. That is, any dishwasher manufactured or sold in the United States on or after the compliance date of any such amended standards will be required to meet a minimum cleaning index threshold of 70 as a condition of a valid test cycle. As such, no products would have to be re-rated to comply with the current standards. Based on an analysis of DOE's test data (presented previously in the December 2021 TP NOPR, January 2022 Preliminary TSD, and January 2023 TP Final Rule), dishwasher models that can meet or exceed the cleaning index threshold of 70 on the normal cycle for all test cycles are already available up to EL 3. Additionally, as mentioned elsewhere in this document, during manufacturer interviews, some manufacturers acknowledged that DOE's cleaning index threshold was achievable at efficiency levels up to EL 3 for standard-size dishwashers and, for certain models that may not meet this threshold, the rated energy and water use values have an allowance to allow potential increases in energy and water consumption without requiring models to be re-rated at a higher energy and water consumption value. Accordingly, DOE has not adjusted its baseline or higher efficiency levels in this NOPR.

Whirlpool reiterated its comments from the October 2020 RFI that until water filtration technology changes and poor water dilution issues were resolved by a new technology, Whirlpool expects cleaning performance will degrade at increasing efficiency levels. (Whirlpool, No. 21 at p. 3) While DOE recognizes that poor water dilution can impact cleaning performance, as mentioned elsewhere in this document, DOE's testing and analysis indicates that satisfactory cleaning performance is

achievable at all efficiencies. Additionally, the minimum cleaning index threshold requirement specified in the new appendix C2 ensures that cleaning performance will be maintained after the compliance date of any new standards.

The Joint Commenters commented that DOE should evaluate an additional intermediate efficiency level for compact-size dishwashers between EL 1 and EL 2 to cover a significant gap of models that meet the requirements of EL 1, but do not meet EL 2. The Joint Commenters noted that over half of the models listed in CCMS meet the requirements of EL 1, but fall short of EL 2. (Joint Commenters, No. 23 at pp. 2-3) NEEA also commented on the lack of gradation between EL 1 and EL 2 and stated that DOE should consider adding an efficiency level between EL 1 and EL 2 for compact-size dishwashers for similar reasons. NEEA stated that the TSD shows a group of products at 1.75 gal/cycle and 155 kWh/year as the water and energy values for the potential intermediate level. (NEEA, No. 24 at p. 2) DOE considered whether to include an additional gap-fill level between EL 1 and EL 2 for compact-size dishwashers in the NOPR analysis. However, DOE found only 11 compact-size basic models out of 65 compact-size basic models, excluding “ultra-compact” units with capacities less than 4 place settings,

that could be considered for such a gap-fill level, with EAEUs ranging from 155 kWh/year to 144 kWh/year and water consumption from 1.8 gal/cycle to 1.7 gal/cycle. Given that compact-size dishwashers comprise roughly 2 percent of the market, and the even smaller share of dishwashers at such an intermediate level, DOE determined that an additional gap-fill efficiency level is not warranted.

DOE did not include “ultra-compact” compact-size dishwashers when considering a gap-fill efficiency level because these dishwashers could limit utility for certain consumers given their small capacity.

The CA IOUs commented that DOE should revisit its analysis of the max-tech efficiency level for standard-size dishwashers. The CA IOUs commented that they reviewed DOE's Compliance Certification Database (“CCD”) and observed that the current market exceeds the max-tech level specified in the January 2022 Preliminary TSD. The CA IOUs noted that even though DOE screened out some technologies, it appeared that the max-tech units observed by the CA IOUs represent levels of efficiency available in today's market beyond DOE's max-tech level. (CA IOUs, No. 27 at pp. 5-6) DOE notes that while units exist that exceed the max-tech efficiency level presented in the January 2022 Preliminary TSD, DOE did not consider these units for the max-tech efficiency level for the following reasons: (1) they utilize a cold-water connection, which DOE eliminated from consideration as a technology option in the screening analysis; (2) they have a rated capacity of eight place settings, but do not use a typical standard dishwasher configuration (

i.e.,

they have an 18-inch width instead of the more common 24-inch width); (3) they are no longer available on the market; or (4) there is an inconsistency between the rated EAEU in DOE's CCD and the EAEU listed on the model's EnergyGuide label. DOE reviewed the CCD and proposes to maintain the current EL 4 level for the reasons stated.

Table IV.5 shows the efficiency levels DOE evaluated for standard-size dishwashers in this NOPR analysis.

Table IV.5—Efficiency Levels for Standard-Size Dishwashers Proposed in This NOPR

Efficiency Level

Estimated annual

energy use

(kWh/year) *

Estimated annual

energy use

(kWh/year) **

Per-cycle water consumption

(gal/cycle)

Baseline

307

263

5.0

270

232

3.5

260

223

3.3

240

206

3.2

4 (Max-Tech)

225

193

2.4

* Using appendix C1.

** Using appendix C2.

DOE selected EL 1 to correspond to the current ENERGY STAR V. 6.0 qualification criteria for standard-size dishwashers. Seventy percent of standard-size dishwasher basic models, as included in DOE's CCD,

are rated at EL 1. DOE considered an intermediate level between ENERGY STAR V. 6.0 and the baseline, but determined it to be unnecessary, since only 5 percent of standard-size dishwasher basic models do not meet the water and energy use criteria of the ENERGY STAR V. 6.0 level. Therefore, further disaggregation of such a small portion of the market is not warranted. DOE selected EL 3 as the level that corresponds to the energy and water consumption levels that correspond to the 2022 ENERGY STAR Most Efficient

qualification criteria as well as the finalized ENERGY STAR V. 7.0 criteria which have a scheduled effective date of July 2023.

Additionally, 10 percent of standard-size dishwasher basic models meet the EL 3 criteria according to DOE's CCD. DOE established EL 2 as a gap-fill level by identifying product efficiency “clusters” when analyzing the range of efficiencies available on the market. The EAEU and water consumption values associated with a significant cluster, comprising approximately 14 percent of basic models, between EL 1 and EL 3 served as the basis for selecting EL 2. DOE also defines a “max-tech” efficiency level to represent the maximum possible efficiency for a given product. EL 4 is the max-tech efficiency level, as defined by the maximum available technology that DOE identified on the market at the time of its analysis, excluding from consideration those models discussed previously. DOE did not identify any working prototypes that were more efficient than this maximum available technology.

U.S. Department of Energy's Compliance Certification Database. Dishwashers (last accessed: July 19, 2022).

2022 ENERGY STAR Most Efficient requirement for dishwashers:

www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/ENERGY%20STAR%20Most%20Efficient%202022%20Dishwasher%20Final%20Criteria%20Memo_0.pdf.

ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Residential Dishwashers:

www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/ENERGY%20STAR%20Version%207.0%20Residential%20Dishwasher%20Final%20Specification.pdf.

Table IV.6 shows the efficiency levels DOE evaluated for compact-size dishwashers in this NOPR analysis.

Table IV.6—Efficiency Levels for Compact-Size Dishwashers Proposed in This NOPR

Efficiency level

Estimated annual energy use (kWh/year) *

Estimated annual energy use (kWh/year) **

Per-cycle water

consumption (gal/cycle)

Baseline

220

191

3.5

203

174

3.1

2 (Max-Tech)

144

124

1.6

* Using appendix C1.

** Using appendix C2.

DOE evaluated two incremental efficiency levels above the baseline for compact-size dishwashers. DOE selected EL 1 to correspond to the current ENERGY STAR V. 6.0 qualification criteria for compact-size dishwashers. Sixty-six percent of compact-size dishwasher models in DOE's CCD are rated at EL 1. DOE identified EL 2 as the max-tech efficiency level, defined by the maximum available technology that DOE identified on the market at the time of its analysis.

Based on its analysis of the CCD, DOE identified EAEU and water consumption levels of 144 kWh/year, based on 215 annual cycles, and 1.6 gal/cycle for EL 2. Approximately 21 percent of compact-size basic models in DOE's CCD are rated at EL 2. At EL 2, all units in DOE's CCD are either under-counter drawer units or ultra-compact units with rated capacities of 1 or 2 place settings. DOE is not aware of any countertop compact-size dishwasher basic models on the market with rated capacities of 4 or more place settings beyond EL 1. However, based on its analysis, DOE understands that it is technologically feasible to design countertop compact-size dishwashers with 4 or more place settings that can meet the energy and water consumption requirements at EL 2.

For reasons similar to those described in the consideration of a potential compact-size dishwasher gap-fill level, ultra-compact dishwashers were excluding from consideration as the compact-size max-tech level. Additionally, as discussed previously, DOE did not consider those compact-size models with a discrepancy between the rated EAEU in the CCD and the value on the EnergyGuide label.

DOE requests feedback on the efficiency levels analyzed for each product class in this proposal.

2. Manufacturer Production Cost Analysis

The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated product, the availability and timeliness of purchasing the product on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:

•

Physical teardowns:

Under this approach, DOE physically dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.

•

Catalog teardowns:

In lieu of physically deconstructing a product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example) to develop the bill of materials for the product.

•

Price surveys:

If neither a physical nor catalog teardown is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise impractical (

e.g.,

large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and other commercial channels.

In the present case, DOE conducted the analysis using the physical teardown approach. For each product class, DOE tore down a representative sample of models spanning the entire range of efficiency levels, as well as multiple manufacturers within each product class. DOE aggregated the results so that the cost-efficiency relationship developed for each product class reflects DOE's assessment of a market-representative “path” to achieve each higher efficiency level. The resulting bill of materials provides the basis for the MPC estimates.

To develop the incremental MPCs associated with improving product efficiency, DOE started with the baseline unit cost model and added the expected changes associated with improving efficiency at each higher efficiency level. By doing this, DOE excluded the costs of any non-efficiency related components from the more efficient units.

Table IV.7 and Table IV.8 show incremental manufacturing costs developed in the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis for standard-size and compact-size dishwashers, in 2020 dollars.

See Chapter ES section ES.3.3.4 of the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis.

Table IV.7—Efficiency Levels and Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs for Standard-Size Dishwashers Evaluated in the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis

Efficiency level

Estimated annual energy use

(kWh/year) *

Per-cycle water

consumption

(gal/cycle)

Incremental MPC

(2020$)

Baseline

263

5.0

232

3.5

$18.27

223

3.3

27.53

206

3.2

71.12

4 (Max-Tech)

193

2.4

113.86

* Using appendix C2.

Table IV.8—Efficiency Levels and Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs for Compact-Size Dishwashers Evaluated in January 2022 Preliminary Analysis

Efficiency level

Estimated annual energy use

(kWh/year) *

Per-cycle water

consumption

(gal/cycle)

Incremental MPC

(2020$)

Baseline

178

3.5

174

3.1

2 (Max-Tech)

124

1.6

$37.41

* Using appendix C2.

In the

January 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE sought comment on whether the MPCs at each efficiency level were appropriate given the associated incremental changes manufacturers would likely make to meet these levels.

See Chapter ES section ES.3.3.5 of the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis.

The Joint Commenters and NEEA commented that DOE may be overestimating the incremental costs to meet intermediate efficiency levels for standard-size dishwashers, citing EPA's analysis of prices of available models on the market meeting the EL 3 level which is equivalent to the ENERGY STAR V. 7.0 criteria. While both commenters acknowledged that EPA's methodology is based on retail pricing instead of MPCs, the Joint Commenters and NEEA concluded that DOE should reevaluate the incremental costs at EL 3 since DOE's preliminary analysis showed an incremental cost of more than two times the EPA estimate. (Joint Commenters, No. 23 at p. 2; NEEA, No. 24 at pp. 1-2)

DOE notes that its incremental MPCs, which were determined from teardowns and reviewed with manufacturers during interviews, estimate the manufacturing cost of dishwashers including any necessary redesigns to meet potential standards. Topics of discussion with manufacturers included the design options that would be used to reach each efficiency level for standard-size products as well as the costs associated with those design options. DOE also reviewed its design options assumptions and cost estimates for all components at each EL to identify if any changes to its preliminary estimates would be appropriate. Based on these discussions and additional analysis, DOE estimated its standard-size dishwasher EL 3 costs to be the same as those presented in the January 2022 Preliminary TSD, adjusted to 2022$.

For the other efficiency levels above the baseline for standard-size dishwashers, DOE received manufacturer feedback that DOE had identified all of the design options manufacturers would use to improve efficiencies. Manufacturers also generally agreed with the design options DOE assumed for each efficiency level, but some manufacturers asserted that the distinction between EL 1 and EL 2 is less than DOE's preliminary estimates. Upon reviewing its teardown sample again, DOE observed that the same technology options exist at both EL 1 and EL 2, with the EL 2 units often being rated with a smaller tolerance on the rated EAEU and water consumption. In general, DOE observed that EL 2 units reduce rated energy and water use primarily by improving the control strategy and design tolerances that are implemented to more closely control water temperature, water fill volumes,

etc.

Accordingly, in this NOPR, DOE revised its estimated design options and MPC for standard-size dishwashers at EL 2. Specifically, DOE estimates that the same design options would be implemented at EL 2 as are used at EL 1, but with improved control strategies. Under this approach, the MPC at EL 2 would be the same as that at EL 1.

Table IV.9 shows the baseline MPCs for standard-size and compact-size dishwashers estimated for this NOPR. Table IV.10 and Table IV.11 show the incremental MPCs from the baseline for standard-size and compact-size dishwashers, respectively, that were estimated for this NOPR.

Table IV.9—Baseline Manufacturer Production Costs Estimated for This NOPR

Product class

Estimated annual energy use

(kWh/year) *

Per-cycle water

consumption

(gal/cycle)

Manufacturer

production cost

(2022$)

Standard-size

263

5.0

184.35

Compact-size

191

3.5

215.17

* Using appendix C2.

Table IV.10—Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs for Standard-Size Dishwashers Proposed for This NOPR

Efficiency level

Estimated annual energy use

(kWh/year) *

Per-cycle water

consumption

(gal/cycle)

Incremental MPC

(2022$)

Baseline

263

5.0

232

3.5

10.17

223

3.3

10.17

206

3.2

61.50

4 (Max-Tech)

193

2.4

91.25

* Using appendix C2.

Table IV.11—Incremental Manufacturer Production Costs for Compact-Size Dishwashers Proposed for This NOPR

Efficiency level

Estimated annual energy Use

(kWh/year) *

Per-cycle water

consumption

(gal/cycle)

Incremental MPC

(2022$)

Baseline

191

3.5

174

3.1

2 (Max-Tech)

124

1.6

39.45

*Using appendix C2.

The detailed description of DOE's determination of costs for baseline and higher efficiency levels is provided in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

DOE requests comment on the baseline MPCs and incremental MPCs developed for each dishwasher product class.

3. Manufacturer Selling Price

To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit margin, DOE applies a multiplier (the manufacturer markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (“MSP”) is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. DOE developed an average manufacturer markup by examining the annual Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) 10-K reports filed by publicly traded manufacturers primarily engaged in appliance manufacturing and whose combined product range includes dishwashers.

See chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for additional detail on the manufacturer markup.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,

Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system.

Available at

www.sec.gov/edgar/search/

(last accessed September 27, 2022).

D. Markups Analysis

The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (

e.g.,

retailer markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution chain and sales taxes to convert the MSP estimates derived in the engineering analysis to consumer prices which are then used in the LCC and PBP analysis. At each step in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product to cover business costs and profit margin.

For dishwashers, DOE further developed baseline and incremental markups for each link in the distribution chain (after the product leaves the manufacturer). Baseline markups are applied to the price of products with baseline efficiency, while incremental markups are applied to the difference in price between baseline and higher-efficiency models (the incremental cost increase). The incremental markup is typically less than the baseline markup and is designed to maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and after new or amended standards.

Because the projected price of standards-compliant products is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an outcome is possible, DOE maintains that in markets that are reasonably competitive it is unlikely that standards would lead to a sustainable increase in profitability in the long run.

DOE relied on economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate average baseline and incremental markups. Specifically, DOE used the 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey for the “electronics and appliance stores” sector to develop retailer markups.

U.S. Census Bureau,

Annual Retail Trade Survey.

2017.

www.census.gov/programs-surveys/arts.html.

AHAM commented that it objects to DOE's use of incremental markups in translating manufacturer costs to retail prices. AHAM stated that it has offered a wide range of actual results demonstrating that DOE's theoretical model has no empirical justification. (AHAM, No. 26 at p. 10)

DOE's incremental markup approach assumes that an increase in profitability, which is implied by keeping a fixed markup when the product price goes up, is unlikely to be viable over time in reasonably competitive markets. DOE recognizes that retailers are likely to seek to maintain the same markup on appliances in response to changes in manufacturer sales prices after an amendment to energy conservation standards for dishwashers. However, DOE believes that retail pricing is likely to adjust over time as retailers are forced to readjust their markups to reach a medium-term equilibrium in which per-unit profit is relatively unchanged before and after standards are implemented.

DOE acknowledges that retailer markup practices in response to amended standards are complex and vary with business conditions. However, DOE's analysis necessarily only considers changes in appliance offerings that occur in response to amended standards. DOE continues to maintain that its assumption that standards do not facilitate a sustainable increase in profitability is reasonable.

Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides additional detail on DOE's development of the baseline and incremental retail markups.

E. Energy and Water Use Analysis

The purpose of the energy and water use analysis is to determine the annual energy consumption of dishwashers at different efficiencies in representative U.S. single-family homes, multi-family residences, and mobile homes, and to assess the energy savings potential of increased dishwasher efficiency. The energy use analysis estimates the range of energy use of dishwashers in the field (

i.e.,

as they are actually used by consumers). The energy and water use analysis provides the basis for other analyses DOE performed, particularly assessments of the energy and water savings and the savings in consumer operating costs that could result from adoption of amended or new standards.

DOE determined the average annual energy and water consumption of dishwashers by multiplying the per-cycle energy and water consumption by the number of cycles per year. In the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE used the Energy Information Administration (“EIA”)'s 2015

Residential Energy Consumption Survey

(“

RECS”

) data to calculate an estimate of annual number of cycles.

Having determined number of cycles of dishwasher use per year for each RECS household, DOE determined the corresponding annual energy and water consumption. In the January 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE determined the average annual cycles of operation for dishwashers to be 185 cycles per year based on

RECS 2015.

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

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

The CA IOUs recommended that DOE reconsider its decision to use 185 average cycles per year in its analysis, and stated that

RECS 2015

may not accurately represent current consumer usage suggesting that later surveys may find that use bounces back. Additionally, the CA IOUs requested that DOE conduct a new survey on consumer usage to capture current usage patterns and dishwasher load levels. (CA IOUs, No. 27 at p. 3)

For this NOPR analysis, DOE primarily used data from

RECS 2020,

which provides information on the frequency of dishwasher usage per week for each household, to determine dishwasher utilization.

RECS 2020

is the most recent data available regarding consumer usage that is based on a nationally representative sample of housing units.

For surveyed households with a dishwasher for which usage was greater than zero,

RECS 2020

showed an increase, relative to

RECS 2015,

to an average of 197 cycles per year, which was used in this analysis.

A report from Sun

et al.

showed that the average annual dishwasher cycle counts obtained from Pecan Street field metered data based on a limited household sample size and limited geographic locations were comparable with the average cycle counts reported by

RECS 2015

and

RECS 2020.

DOE is not aware of any publicly available data source in which dishwasher load levels are reported.

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

www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/.

Compared to

RECS 2015, RECS 2020

has a 72-percent larger sample and more refined definition of household demographics, whi

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.