Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers

Federal RegisterMar 15, 2024

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014]

RIN 1904-AF58

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including residential clothes washers (“RCWs”). In this direct final rule, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) is adopting amended energy conservation standards for RCWs. DOE has determined that the amended energy conservation standards for these products would result in significant conservation of energy and are technologically feasible and economically justified.

DATES:

The effective date of this rule is July 15, 2024. If adverse comments are received by July 3, 2024, and DOE determines that such comments may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), a timely withdrawal of this rule will be published in the

Federal Register

. If no such adverse comments are received, compliance with the amended standards established for RCWs in this direct final rule is required on and after March 1, 2028. Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the standards contained in this direct final rule should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in the

ADDRESSES

section on or before April 15, 2024.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this rulemaking, which includes

Federal Register

notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at

www.regulations.gov.

All documents in the docket are listed in the

www.regulations.gov

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

The docket web page can be found at

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

The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

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

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

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 standards contained in this direct final rule. Interested persons may contact the Antitrust 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 direct final rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 586-2588. Email:

Amelia.Whiting@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Direct Final 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. Current Test Procedure

3. The Joint Agreement

III. General Discussion

A. Scope of Coverage

B. Fairly Representative of Relevant Points of View

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

2. Significance of Savings

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

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

c. Energy Savings

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

g. Other Factors

2. Rebuttable Presumption

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Product Classes

2. Technology Options

B. Screening Analysis

1. Screened-Out Technologies

2. Remaining Technologies

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Metric Translations

2. Efficiency Analysis

a. Baseline Efficiency Levels

b. Higher Efficiency Levels

c. Semi-Automatic

3. Cost Analysis

4. Cost-Efficiency Results

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 and Water Consumption

4. Energy and Water Prices

a. Energy Prices

b. Water and Wastewater 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

2. Senior-Only Households

3. Well-Water 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. 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

c. Sensitivity Analysis Using Updated 2023 SC-GHG Estimates

2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts

M. Utility Impact Analysis

N. Employment Impact Analysis

O. Regulatory Impact Analysis

P. Other Comments

1. Commerce Clause

2. Test Cloth

3. National Academy of Sciences Report

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions

A. Trial Standard Levels

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results

b. Direct Impacts on Employment

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

3. National Impact Analysis

a. Significance of Energy and Water Savings

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products

a. Performance Characteristics

b. Continued Availability of Small-Capacity Clothes Washers

c. Design Characteristics

d. Conclusion

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy

7. Other Factors

8. Summary of Economic Impacts

C. Conclusion

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

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards

VI. Severability

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094

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

M. Congressional Notification

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Direct Final Rule

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

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

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

clothes washers (“RCWs”), the subject of this direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7))

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

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

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

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must, among other things, 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 significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))

In light of the above and under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing this direct final rule amending energy conservation standards for RCWs.

The adopted standard levels in this direct final rule were proposed in a letter submitted to DOE jointly by groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and a utility. This letter, titled “Energy Efficiency Agreement of 2023” (hereafter, the “Joint Agreement”

), recommends specific energy conservation standards for RCWs that, in the commenters' view, would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). DOE subsequently received letters of support for the Joint Agreement from States including New York, California, and Massachusetts

and utilities including San Diego Gas and Electric (“SDG&E”) and Southern California Edison (“SCE”)

advocating for the adoption of the recommended standards.

This document is available in the docket at:

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0505.

This document is available in the docket at:

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0506.

This document is available in the docket at:

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0507.

In accordance with the direct final rule provisions at 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE has determined that the recommendations contained in the Joint Agreement are compliant with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i), DOE is also simultaneously publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) that contains identical standards to those adopted in this direct final rule. Consistent with the statute, DOE is providing a 110-day public comment period on the direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(B)) If DOE determines that any comments received provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or any other applicable law, DOE will publish the reasons for withdrawal and continue the rulemaking under the NOPR. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C))

See

section II.A of this document for more details on DOE's statutory authority.

The amended standards that DOE is adopting in this direct final rule are the efficiency levels recommended in the Joint Agreement (shown in Table I.1). The standards are expressed in terms of energy efficiency ratio (“EER”), measured in pounds per kilowatt-hour per cycle (“lb/kWh/cycle”), and water efficiency ratio (“WER”), measured in pounds per gallon per cycle (“lb/gal/cycle”), as determined in accordance with DOE's clothes washer test procedure codified at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”), part 430, subpart B, appendix J (“appendix J”). The EER metric includes active mode, inactive mode, and off mode energy use. The amended standards recommended in the Joint Agreement are represented as trial standard level (“TSL”) 2 in this document and described in section V.A of this document. The Joint Agreement's standards for RCWs apply to all products listed in Table I.1 manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on March 1, 2028.

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

[Compliance starting March 1, 2028]

Product class

Minimum energy efficiency ratio

(lb/kWh/cycle)

Minimum water

efficiency ratio

(lb/gal/cycle)

Automatic Clothes Washers:

Top-Loading Ultra-Compact (less than 1.6 ft

capacity)

3.79

0.29

Top-Loading Standard-Size (1.6 ft

or greater capacity) with an average cycle time of 30 minutes or greater

4.27

0.57

Front-Loading Compact (less than 3.0 ft

capacity) *

5.02

0.71

Front-Loading Standard-Size (3.0 ft

or greater capacity) with an average cycle time of 45 minutes or greater

5.52

0.77

Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers

2.12

0.27

* The standards in this table do not apply to front-loading clothes washers with a capacity greater than or equal to 1.6 ft

and less than 3.0 ft

with an average cycle time of less than 45 minutes.

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.2 summarizes DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the adopted standards on consumers of RCWs, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (“LCC”) savings and the simple payback period (“PBP”).

The average LCC savings are positive for all product classes, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of RCWs, which is estimated to be 13.4 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 Adopted Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of Residential Clothes Washers

Product class

Average LCC

savings

(2022$)

Simple payback period

(years)

Automatic Clothes Washers:

Top-Loading Ultra-Compact (less than 1.6 ft

capacity) *

n.a

n.a.

Top-Loading Standard-Size (1.6 ft

or greater capacity)

$111

6.2

Front-Loading Compact (less than 3.0 ft

capacity)

9.3

Front-Loading Standard-Size (3.0 ft

or greater capacity)

1.4

Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers

284

0.5

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

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted 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 2022 dollars and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2024 unless explicitly stated otherwise.

The industry net present value (“INPV”) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year (2024) through the end of the analysis period, which is 30 years from the analyzed compliance date.

Using a real discount rate of 9.3 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of RCWs in the case without amended standards is $1,707.9 million.

Under the adopted standards, which align with the efficiency levels recommended in the Joint Agreement (represented by TSL 2, hereafter, the “Recommended TSL”) for RCWs, DOE estimates the change in INPV to range from −16.3 percent to −8.6 percent, which is −$278.3 million to −$146.9 million. In order to bring products into compliance with amended standards, it is estimated that industry will incur total conversion costs of $320.0 million.

DOE's analysis period extends 30-years from the compliance year. The analysis period ranges from 2024-2056 for the no-new-standards case and all TSLs, except for TSL 2 (the Recommended TSL). The analysis period for the Recommended TSL ranges from 2024-2057 due to the 2028 compliance year.

The no-new-standards case INPV of $1,707.9 million reflects the sum of discounted free cash flows from 2024-2056 (from the reference year to 30 years after the 2027 compliance date) plus a discounted terminal value.

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on manufacturers is described in sections IV.J and V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs

All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2022 dollars and, where appropriate, are discounted to 2024 unless explicitly stated otherwise.

DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation standards for RCWs would save a significant amount of energy and water. Relative to the case without amended standards, the lifetime energy and water savings for RCWs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the amended standards (2028-2057), amount to 0.67 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads of energy and 1.89 trillion gallons of water, respectively.

This represents a savings of 3.1 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 standards for RCWs ranges from $3.28 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $8.71 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the

estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs and installation costs for RCWs purchased during the period 2028-2057.

In addition, the adopted standards for RCWs are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the standards will result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 13.96 million metric tons (“Mt”)

of carbon dioxide (“CO

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

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

”), 124.57 thousand tons of methane (“CH

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

O”), and 0.02 tons of mercury (“Hg”).

The estimated cumulative reduction in CO

emissions through 2030 amounts to 0.46 Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions resulting from the annual electricity use of more than 89 thousand homes.

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 2023

(

“AEO2023”

AEO2023

reflects, to the extent possible, laws and regulations adopted through mid-November 2022, including the Inflation Reduction Act.

See

section IV.K of this document for further discussion of

AEO2023

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 (in terms of benefit per ton of GHG avoided) 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 $0.84 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 IWG (“February 2021 SC-GHG TSD”). Available at

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 Environmental Protection Agency,

as discussed in section IV.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would be $0.73 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $1.62 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.

DOE is currently only monetizing health benefits from changes in ambient fine particulate matter (“PM

2.5

”) concentrations from two precursors (SO

and NO

), and from changes in ambient ozone from one precursor (for NO

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

2.5

emissions.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing Directly Emitted PM

2.5

, PM

2.5

Precursors and Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at

www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors.

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 amended standards for RCWs. There are other important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate benefits, unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits, and distributional effects, among others.

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

Billion $2022

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

17.92

Climate Benefits *

0.84

Health Benefits **

1.62

Total Benefits †

20.38

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡

9.20

Net Monetized Benefits

8.71

Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV ‡‡)

(0.28)-(0.15)

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

8.65

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)

0.84

Health Benefits **

0.73

Total Benefits †

10.22

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡

5.37

Net Monetized Benefits

3.28

Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV ‡‡)

(0.28)-(0.15)

Note:

* 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; however, DOE 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 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, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.

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

‡‡ Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in detail below.

See

sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE's national impacts analysis includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to manufacture the product and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (

i.e.,

manufacturer impact analysis, or “MIA”).

See

section IV.J of this document. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cash flow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. Change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 9.3 percent that is estimated in the MIA (

see

chapter 12 of the direct final rule technical support document (“TSD”) for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For RCWs, the change in INPV ranges from −$279 million to −$147 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified.

See

section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two manufacturer markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating Profit scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated change in INPV in the previous table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of this document to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this direct final rule to society, including potential changes in production and consumption, which is consistent with Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) Circular A-4 and Executive Order (“E.O.”) 12866. If DOE were to include the change in INPV into the net benefit calculation for this direct final rule, the net benefits would range from $8.43 billion to $8.56 billion at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $3.00 billion to $3.13 billion at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses () indicate negative values.

The benefits and costs of the adopted 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 2024, 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.,

2020 or 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year to 2024. 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 cost savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered products and are measured for the lifetime of RCWs shipped in 2028-2057. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the adopted standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of RCWs shipped in 2028-2057. 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 total benefits values are presented for all four SC-GHG discount rates in section V.B.6 of this document.

Table I.4 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the adopted 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 adopted in this rule is $530.1 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $853.9 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $46.9 million in climate benefits, and $71.9 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $442.5 million per year.

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the standards is $513.1 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $998.9 million in reduced operating costs, $46.9 million in climate benefits, and $90.3 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $623.0 million per year.

Table I.4—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Adopted Standards for Residential Clothes Washers

[2028-2057]

Million 2022$/year

Primary

estimate

Low-net-benefits estimate

High-net-benefits estimate

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

998.9

957.2

1,020.9

Climate Benefits *

46.9

45.2

47.5

Health Benefits **

90.3

87.1

91.6

Total Benefits †

1,136.1

1,089.5

1,160.0

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡

513.1

551.8

468.6

Net Benefits

623.0

537.7

691.4

Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV

‡‡

)

(27)-(14)

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings

853.9

821.2

871.7

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)

46.9

45.2

47.5

Health Benefits **

71.9

69.6

72.8

Total Benefits †

972.6

935.9

992.0

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡

530.1

564.6

489.5

Net Benefits

442.5

371.3

502.5

Change in Producer Cash Flow (INPV

‡‡

)

(27)-(14)

Note:

This table presents the costs and benefits associated with RCWs shipped in 2028-2057. These results include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2057 from the products shipped in 2028-2057. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the

AEO2023

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

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (

see

section IV.L of this document). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but 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 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, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.

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

‡‡ Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in detail below.

See

section IV.J of this document. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cash flow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. The annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 9.3 percent that is estimated in the MIA (

see

chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For RCWs, the annualized change in INPV ranges from -$27 million to -$14 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified.

See

section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two manufacturer markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating Profit scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated annualized change in INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of this document to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this direct final rule to society, including potential changes in production and consumption, which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the annualized change in INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for this direct final rule, the annualized net benefits, using the primary estimate, would range from $596 million to $609 million at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $415 million to $428 million at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses () indicate negative values.

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

D. Conclusion

DOE has determined that the Joint Agreement was submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A). After considering the recommended standards and weighing the benefits and burdens, DOE has determined that the recommended standards are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), which contains the criteria for prescribing new or amended standards. Specifically, the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) has determined that the adoption of the recommended standards would result in the significant conservation of energy and water and is the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. In determining whether the recommended standards are economically justified, the Secretary has determined that the benefits of the recommended standards exceed the burdens. The Secretary has further concluded that the recommended standards, when considering the benefits of energy and water savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions, and positive average LCC savings, would yield benefits that outweigh the negative impacts on some consumers and on manufacturers, including the conversion costs that could result in a reduction in INPV for manufacturers.

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

and SO

reduction benefits, and a 3-percent discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the standards for RCWs is $495.4 million per year in increased product costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $798.0 million in reduced product operating costs, $45.5 million in climate benefits, and $67.2 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $415.2 million per year. DOE notes that the net benefits are substantial even in the absence of the climate benefits,

and DOE would adopt the same standards in the absence of such benefits.

The information on climate benefits is provided in compliance with Executive Order 12866.

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.

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 standards are projected to result in estimated national energy savings of 0.67 quads FFC, the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 4.5 million homes. In addition, they are projected to reduce cumulative CO

emissions by 13.96 Mt. Based on these findings, DOE has determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this direct final rule are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed discussion of the basis for these conclusions is contained in the remainder of this document and the accompanying TSD.

The TSD is available in the docket for this rulemaking at

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

Under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing this direct final rule amending the energy conservation standards for RCWs. Consistent with this authority, DOE is also simultaneously publishing elsewhere in this

Federal Register

a NOPR proposing standards that are identical to those contained in this direct final rule.

See

42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i).

II. Introduction

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

A. Authority

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

In establishing energy conservation standards with both energy and water use performance standards for RCWs manufactured after January 1, 2011, Congress also directed DOE to “determin[e] whether to amend” those standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(B)) Congress's directive, in section 6295(g)(9)(B), to consider whether “to amend the standards in effect for RCWs” refers to “the standards” established in the immediately preceding paragraph, 6295(g)(9)(A). There, Congress established energy conservation standards with

both

energy and water use performance standards for RCWs. Indeed, the energy and water use performance standards for RCWs (both top-loading and front-loading) are each contained within a single subparagraph.

See id.

Everything in section 6295(g)(9) suggests that Congress intended both of those twin standards to be evaluated when it came time, “[n]ot later than December 13, 2011,” to consider amending them. (

Id.

6295(g)(9)(B)(i)) Accordingly, DOE understands its authority, under 6295(g)(9)(B), to include consideration of amended energy and water use performance standards for RCWs.

DOE similarly understands its authority under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m) to amend “standards” for covered products to include amending both the energy and water use performance standards for RCWs. Neither section 6295(g)(9)(B) nor section 6295(m) limit their application to “energy use standards.” Rather, they direct DOE to consider amending “the standards,” 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(9)(B), or simply “standards,”

id.

6295(m)(1)(B), which may include both energy use standards and water use standards.

Finally, DOE is promulgating these standards as a direct final rule pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). That section also extends broadly to any “energy or water conservation standard” without qualification. Thus, pursuant to section 6295(p)(4), DOE may, so long as the other relevant conditions are satisfied, promulgate a direct final rule that includes water use performance standards for a covered product like RCWs, where Congress has already established energy and water use performance standards.

DOE is aware that the definition of “energy conservation standard,” in section 6291(6), expressly references water use only for four products specifically named: showerheads, faucets, water closets, and urinals.

See id.

However, DOE does not read the language in 6291(6) as fully delineating the scope of DOE's authority under EPCA. Rather, as is required of agencies in applying a statute, individual provisions, including section 6291(6) of EPCA, must be read in the context of the statute as a whole.

The energy conservation program was initially limited to addressing the energy use, meaning electricity and fossil fuels, of 13 covered products. (

See

sections 321 and 322 of the Energy and Policy Conservation Act, Pub. L. 94-163, 89 Stat. 871 (December 22, 1975)) Since its inception, Congress has expanded the scope of the energy conservation program several times, including by adding covered products, prescribing energy conservation standards for various products, and by addressing water use for certain covered products. For example, in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Congress amended the list of covered products in 42 U.S.C. 6292 to include showerheads, faucets, water closets and urinals and expanded DOE's authority to regulate water use for these products. (

See

sec. 123, Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-486, 106 Stat. 2776 (Oct. 24, 1992)) When it did so, Congress also made corresponding changes to the definition of “consumer

product” (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)), the definition of “energy conservation standard” (42 U.S.C. 6291(6)), the section governing the promulgation of test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), the criteria for prescribing new or amended energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), and elsewhere in EPCA.

Later, Congress further expanded the scope of the energy conservation program several times. For instance, Congress added products and standards directly to 42 U.S.C. 6295, the section of EPCA that contains statutorily prescribed standards as well as DOE's standard-setting authorities.

See

42 U.S.C. 6295(a) (stating that the “purposes of this section are to—(1) provide Federal energy conservation standards applicable to covered products; and (2) authorize the Secretary to prescribe amended or new energy conservation standards for each type (or class) of covered product.”). When Congress added these new standards and standard-setting authorities to 42 U.S.C. 6295 after the Energy Policy Act of 1992, it often did so without making any conforming changes to other provisions in EPCA,

e.g.,

sections 6291 or 6292. For example, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress prescribed standards by statute, or gave DOE the authority to set standards for, battery chargers, external power supplies, ceiling fans, ceiling fan light kits, beverage vending machines, illuminated exit signs, torchieres, low voltage dry-type distribution transformers, traffic signal modules and pedestrian modules, certain lamps, dehumidifiers, and commercial prerinse spray valves in 42 U.S.C. 6295 without updating the list of covered products in 42 U.S.C. 6292. (

See

sec. 135, Energy Policy Act of 2005, 119 Stat. 594 (Aug. 8, 2005))

Congress also expanded the scope of the energy conservation program by directly adding water use performance standards for certain products to 42 U.S.C. 6295. For example, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress added a water use performance standard (but no energy use performance standard) for commercial prerinse spray valves (“CPSVs”) and did so without updating the list of covered products in 42 U.S.C. 6292 to include CPSVs and without adding CPSVs to the list of enumerated products with water use performance standards in the “energy conservation standard” definition in 42 U.S.C. 6291(6). In the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA 2007”), Congress amended 42 U.S.C. 6295 by prescribing standards for RCWs and dishwashers that included both energy and water use performance standards. (

See

sec. 301, EISA 2007, Pub. L. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (Dec. 19, 2007)) Again, when it did so, Congress did not add these products to the list of enumerated products with water use performance standards in the definition of “energy conservation standard” in 42 U.S.C. 6291(6).

In considering how to treat these products and standards that Congress has directly added to 42 U.S.C. 6295 without making conforming changes to the rest of the statute, including the list of covered products in 42 U.S.C. 6292, and the water-use products in the definition of an “energy conservation standard,” DOE construes the statute as a whole. When Congress added products and standards directly to 42 U.S.C. 6295 it must have meant those products to be covered products and those standards to be energy conservation standards, given that the purpose of 42 U.S.C. 6295 is to provide “energy conservation standards applicable to covered products” and to “authorize the Secretary to prescribe amended or new energy conservation standards for each type (or class) of covered product.” Elsewhere in EPCA, the statute's references to covered products and energy conservation standards can only be read coherently as including the covered products and energy conservation standards Congress added directly to section 6295, even if Congress did not make conforming edits to 6291 or 6292. For example, manufacturers are prohibited from “distribut[ing] in commerce any new

covered product

which is not in conformity with an applicable

energy conservation standard.”

(42 U.S.C. 6302(a)(5) (emphasis added)) It would defeat congressional intent to allow a manufacturer to distribute a product,

e.g.,

a CPSV or ceiling fan, that violates an applicable energy conservation standard that Congress prescribed simply because Congress added the product directly to 42 U.S.C. 6295 without also updating the list of covered products in 42 U.S.C. 6292(a). In addition, preemption in EPCA is based on “the effective date of an

energy conservation standard

established in or prescribed under section 6295 of this title for any

covered product.”

(42 U.S.C. 6297(c) (emphasis added)) Nothing in EPCA suggests that standards Congress adopted in 6295 lack preemptive effect, merely because Congress did not make conforming amendments to 6291, 6292, or 6293.

It would similarly defeat congressional intent for a manufacturer to be permitted to distribute a covered product,

e.g.,

a clothes washer or dishwasher, that violates a water use performance standard because Congress added the standard to 42 U.S.C. 6295 without also updating the definition of energy conservation standard in 42 U.S.C. 6291(6). By prescribing directly, in 6295(g)(9), energy conservation standards for RCWs that include both energy and water use performance standards, Congress intended that energy conservation standards for RCWs include both energy use and water use.

DOE recognizes that some might argue that Congress's specific reference in section 6291(6) to water standards for showerheads, faucets, water closets, and urinals could “create a negative implication” that energy conservations standards for other covered products may not include water use standards.

See Marx

Gen. Revenue Corp.,

568 U.S. 371, 381 (2013). “The force of any negative implication, however, depends on context.”

Id.; see also NLRB

SW Gen., Inc.,

580 U.S. 288, 302 (2017) (“The

expressio unius

canon applies only when circumstances support a sensible inference that the term left out must have been meant to be excluded.” (Alterations and quotation marks omitted)). In this context, the textual and structural cues discussed above show that Congress did not intend to exclude from the definition of energy conservation standard the water use performance standards that it specifically prescribed, and directed DOE to amend, in section 6295. To conclude otherwise would negate the plain text of 6295(g)(9). Furthermore, to the extent the definition of energy conservation standards in section 6291(6), which was last amended in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, could be read as in conflict with the energy and water use performance standards prescribed by Congress in EISA 2007, any such conflict should be resolved in favor of the more recently enacted statute.

See United States

Estate of Romani,

523 U.S. 517, 530-31 (1998) (“[A] specific policy embodied in a later Federal statute should control our construction of the priority statute, even though it had not been expressly amended.”). Accordingly, based on a complete reading of the statute, DOE has determined that products and standards added directly to 42 U.S.C. 6295 are appropriately considered “covered products” and “energy conservation standards” for the purposes of applying the various provisions in EPCA.

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 in limited instances 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 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for RCWs appear at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices J (“appendix J”) and J2 (“appendix J2”).

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

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 considers relevant.

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

Further, EPCA, as codified, 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, as codified, 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))

EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more subcategories. A rule prescribing an energy conservation standard for a type (or class) of product must specify a different standard level for a type or class of products 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 considers such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. (

Id.

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

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

Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE authority to issue a final rule (

i.e.,

a “direct final rule”) establishing an energy conservation standard upon receipt of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates), as determined by the Secretary, that contains recommendations with respect to an energy or water conservation standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the Secretary must also determine whether a jointly-submitted recommendation for an energy or water conservation standard satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable.

The direct final rule must be published simultaneously with a NOPR that proposes an energy or water conservation standard that is identical to the standard established in the direct final rule, and DOE must provide a public comment period of at least 110 days on the proposal. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) While DOE typically provides a comment period of 60 days on proposed standards, for a NOPR accompanying a direct final rule, DOE provides a comment period of the same length as the comment period on the direct final rule—

i.e.,

110 days. Based on the comments received during this period, the direct final rule will either become effective, or DOE will withdraw it not later than 120 days after its issuance if: (1) one or more adverse comments is received, and (2) DOE determines that those comments, when viewed in light of the rulemaking record related to the direct final rule, may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) Receipt of an alternative joint recommendation may also trigger a DOE withdrawal of the direct final rule in the same manner. (

Id.

)

DOE has previously explained its interpretation of its direct final rule authority. In a final rule amending the Department's “Procedures, Interpretations and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products” at 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (“Process Rule” or “appendix A”), DOE noted that it may issue standards recommended by interested persons that are fairly representative of relative points of view as a direct final rule when the recommended standards are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. 86 FR 70892, 70912 (Dec. 13, 2021). But the direct final rule provision in EPCA does not impose additional requirements applicable to other standards rulemakings, which is consistent with the unique circumstances of rules issued through consensus agreements under DOE's direct final rule authority.

Id.

DOE's discretion remains bounded by its statutory mandate to adopt a standard that results in the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified—a requirement found in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).

Id.

As such, DOE's review and analysis of the Joint Agreement is limited to whether the recommended standards satisfy the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).

B. Background

1. Current Standards

In a direct final rule published on May 31, 2012 (“May 2012 Direct Final Rule”), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for RCWs manufactured on or after January 1, 2018. 77 FR 32308.

These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(g)(4). These standards are consistent with a prior joint proposal submitted to DOE by interested parties representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, and consumer groups.

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

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

”), as measured according to appendix J2.

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

Available at

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

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

Product class

Minimum integrated modified energy factor

(ft

/kWh/cycle)

Maximum integrated water factor

(gal/cycle/ft

)

Top-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft

capacity)

1.15

12.0

Top-Loading, Standard (1.6 ft

or greater capacity)

1.57

6.5

Front-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft

capacity)

1.13

8.3

Front-Loading, Standard (1.6 ft

or greater capacity)

1.84

4.7

For top-loading semi-automatic clothes washers, a design standard currently applies, which requires such products to have an unheated rinse water option. 10 CFR 430.32(g)(1).

2. Current Test Procedure

As discussed, DOE's current energy conservation standards for RCWs are expressed in terms of IMEF and IWF as measured using appendix J2. (

See

10 CFR 430.32(g)(4))

In a final rule published on June 1, 2022 (“June 2022 TP Final Rule”), DOE finalized a new test procedure (TP) at appendix J, which defines new energy efficiency metrics: an energy efficiency ratio (

i.e.,

EER) and a water efficiency ratio (

i.e.,

WER). 87 FR 33316, 33319. EER is defined as the quotient of the weighted-average load size divided by the total clothes washer energy consumption per cycle, with such energy consumption expressed as the sum of (1) the machine electrical energy consumption, (2) the hot water energy consumption, (3) the energy required for removal of the remaining moisture in the wash load, and (4) the combined low-power mode energy consumption. 10 CFR part 430 subpart B, appendix J, section 1. WER is defined as the quotient of the weighted-average load size divided by the total weighted per-cycle water consumption for all wash cycles in gallons.

Id.

For both EER and WER, a higher value indicates more efficient performance. The standards enacted by this direct final rule are expressed in terms of the EER and WER metrics as measured according to the newly established test procedure contained in appendix J.

The signatories to the Joint Agreement include AHAM, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Alliance for Water Efficiency, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Earthjustice, National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Members of AHAM's Major Appliance Division that make the affected products include: Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC; Asko Appliances AB; Beko US Inc.; Brown Stove Works, Inc.; BSH Home Appliances Corporation; Danby Products, Ltd.; Electrolux Home Products, Inc.; Elicamex S.A. de C.V.; Faber; Fotile America; GE Appliances, a Haier Company; L'Atelier Paris Haute Design LLG; LG Electronics; Liebherr USA, Co.; Midea America Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Panasonic Appliances Refrigeration Systems (PAPRSA) Corporation of America; Perlick Corporation; Samsung Electronics America Inc.; Sharp Electronics Corporation; Smeg S.p.A; Sub-Zero Group, Inc.; The Middleby Corporation; U-Line Corporation; Viking Range, LLC; and Whirlpool Corporation.

3. The Joint Agreement

On September 25, 2023, DOE received a joint statement (

i.e.,

the Joint Agreement) recommending standards

for RCWs, that was submitted by groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and a utility.

In addition to the recommended standards for RCWs, the Joint Agreement also included separate recommendations for several other covered products.

And, while acknowledging that DOE may implement these recommendations in separate rulemakings, the Joint Agreement also stated that the recommendations were recommended as a complete package and each recommendation is contingent upon the other parts being implemented. DOE understands this to mean that the Joint Agreement is contingent upon DOE initiating rulemaking processes to adopt all of the recommended standards in the agreement. That is distinguished from an agreement where issuance of an amended energy conservation standard for a covered product is contingent on issuance of amended energy conservation standards for the other covered products. If the Joint Agreement were so construed, it would conflict with the anti-backsliding provision in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1), because it would imply the possibility that, if DOE were unable to issue an amended standard for a certain product, it would have to withdraw a previously issued standard for one of the other products. The anti-backsliding provision, however, prevents DOE from withdrawing or amending an energy conservation standard to be less stringent. As a result, DOE will be proceeding with individual rulemakings that will evaluate each of the recommended standards separately under the applicable statutory criteria.

The Joint Agreement contained recommendations for 6 covered products: refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; residential clothes washers; consumer clothes dryers; dishwashers; consumer conventional cooking products; and miscellaneous refrigeration products.

A court decision issued after DOE received the Joint Agreement is also relevant to this rule. On March 17, 2022, various States filed a petition seeking review of a final rule revoking two final rules that established product classes for residential dishwashers with a cycle time for the normal cycle of 60 minutes or less, top-loading RCWs and certain classes of consumer clothes dryers with a cycle time of less than 30 minutes, and front-loading RCWs with a cycle time of less than 45 minutes (collectively, “short cycle product classes”). The petitioners argued that the final rule revoking the short cycle product classes violated EPCA and was arbitrary and capricious. On January 8, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the petition for review and remanded the matter to DOE for further proceedings consistent with the Fifth Circuit's opinion.

See Louisiana

United States Department of Energy,

90 F.4th 461 (5th Cir. 2024).

On February 14, 2024, following the Fifth Circuit's decision in

Louisiana

United States Department of Energy,

DOE received a second joint statement from this same group of stakeholders in which the signatories reaffirmed the Joint Agreement, stating that the recommended standards represent the maximum levels of efficiency that are technologically feasible and economically justified.

In the letter, the signatories clarified that “short-cycle” product classes for RCWs, consumer clothes dryers, and dishwashers did not exist at the time that the signatories submitted their recommendations and it is their understanding that these classes also do not exist at the current time. Accordingly, the parties clarified that the Joint Agreement did not address short-cycle product classes. The signatories also stated that they did not anticipate that the recommended energy conservation standards in the Joint Agreement will negatively affect features or performance, including cycle time, for RCWs.

This document is available in the docket at:

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0509.

The Joint Agreement recommends amended standard levels for RCWs as presented in Table II.2. (Joint Agreement, No. 505 at p. 9) Details of the Joint Agreement recommendations for other products are provided in the Joint Agreement posted in the docket.

The Joint Agreement is available in the docket at

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0505.

Table II.2—Recommended Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers

Product class

Minimum energy

efficiency ratio

(lb/kWh/cycle)

Minimum water

efficiency ratio

(lb/gal/cycle)

Compliance date

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

capacity)

3.79

0.29

March 1, 2028.

Top-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft

or greater capacity)

4.27

0.57

Front-Loading, Compact (less than 1.6 ft

capacity)

5.02

0.71

Front-Loading, Standard-Size (1.6 ft

or greater capacity)

5.52

0.77

Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers

2.12

0.27

When the Joint Agreement was submitted, DOE was conducting a rulemaking to consider amending the standards for RCWs. As part of that process, DOE published a NOPR and announced a public meeting on March 3, 2023 (“March 2023 NOPR”), seeking comment on its proposed amended standards to inform its decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). 88 FR 13520. The March 2023 NOPR proposed amended standards defined in terms of the EER and WER metrics as measured according to appendix J.

Id.

at 88 FR 13522. The March 2023 NOPR also proposed to re-establish a product class, and establish new performance standards, for semi-automatic clothes washers.

Id.

at 88 FR 13541.

The March 2023 NOPR TSD is available at:

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0058.

Top-loading semi-automatic clothes washers were subject to a design standard requiring an unheated rinse water option, as established by section 5(g) of the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987, Public Law 100-12.

Although DOE is adopting the Joint Agreement as a direct final rule and no longer proceeding with its own rulemaking, DOE did consider relevant comments, data, and information obtained during that rulemaking process in determining whether the recommended standards from the Joint Agreement are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Any discussion of comments, data, or information in this direct final rule that were obtained during DOE's prior rulemaking will include a parenthetical reference that

provides the location of the item in the public record.

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

www.regulations.gov

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

III. General Discussion

DOE is issuing this direct final rule after determining that the recommended standards submitted in the Joint Agreement meet the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). More specifically, DOE has determined that the recommended standards were submitted by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view and the recommended standards satisfy the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).

On March 17, 2022, various States filed a petition seeking review of a final rule revoking two final rules that established product classes for residential dishwashers with a cycle time for the normal cycle of 60 minutes or less, top-loading RCWs and certain classes of consumer clothes dryers with a cycle time of less than 30 minutes, and front-loading RCWs with a cycle time of less than 45 minutes (collectively, “short cycle product classes”). The petitioners argued that the final rule revoking the short cycle product classes violated EPCA and was arbitrary and capricious. On January 8, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the petition for review and remanded the matter to DOE for further proceedings consistent with the Fifth Circuit's opinion.

See Louisiana

United States Department of Energy,

90 F.4th 461 (5th Cir. 2024).

Following the Fifth Circuit's decision, the signatories to the Joint Agreement submitted a second letter to DOE, which stated that Joint Recommendation did not “address” “short-cycle product classes.”

That is because, as the letter explained, such product classes “did not exist” at the time of the Joint Agreement.

This document is available in the docket at:

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0509.

In a recently issued request for information (“RFI”),

DOE is commencing a rulemaking process on remand from the Fifth Circuit (the “Remand Proceeding”) by soliciting further information, relevant to the issues identified by the Fifth Circuit, regarding any short cycle product classes. In that Remand Proceeding, DOE will conduct the analysis required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(B) to determine whether any short-cycle products have a “capacity or other performance-related feature [that] . . . justifies a higher or lower standard from that which applies (or will apply) to other products. . . .”

See

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=68.

The current standards applicable to any products within the scope of that proceeding remain unchanged by this rule.

See

10 CFR 430.32(g). Consistent with the Joint Parties' letter, short-cycle products are not subject to the amended standards adopted by this direct final rule (“DFR”). If the short-cycle products that DOE will consider in the Remand Proceeding were subject to these standards, that would have the practical effect of limiting the options available in the Remand Proceeding. That is because EPCA's anti-backsliding provision precludes DOE from prescribing any amended standard “which increases the maximum allowable energy use” of a covered product. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). Accordingly, were the products at issue in the Remand Proceeding also subject to the amended standards adopted here, the Department could only reaffirm the standards adopted in this direct final rule or adopt more stringent standards.

The Joint Agreement specifies the product classes for RCWs: semi-automatic; top-loading, ultra-compact; top-loading, standard-size; front-loading, compact; and front-loading, standard-size. Although these product classes were not further divided by cycle time, DOE understands them to exclude top-loading standard-size RCWs with an average cycle time of less than 30 minutes, and front-loading standard-size RCWs with an average cycle time of less than 45 minutes. As noted above, any such “short-cycle” RCWs will be considered in the Remand Proceeding; the current standards applicable to such “short-cycle” RCWs are unchanged by this rule.

Under the direct final rule authority at 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE evaluates whether recommended standards are in accordance with criteria contained in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). DOE does not have the authority to revise recommended standards submitted under the direct final rule provision in EPCA. Therefore, DOE did not analyze any additional product classes beyond those product classes included in the Joint Agreement. That is, DOE has not separately considered or established amended standards applicable to any short-cycle product classes. In the event that DOE establishes short-cycle product classes, pursuant to the rulemaking on remand from the Fifth Circuit, DOE will necessarily consider what amended standards ought to apply to any such product classes and will do so in conformance with EPCA.

DOE notes that the data and analysis used to support this direct final rule includes information for standard-size, top-loading and front-loading clothes washers that is not distinguished by cycle time and is representative of all clothes washers currently on the market today. To the extent that any short cycle products were included in this data and analysis, DOE believes the amount of such data is negligible.

A. Scope of Coverage

Before discussing how the Joint Agreement meets the requirements for issuing a direct final rule, it is important to clarify the scope of coverage for the recommended standards. EPCA does not define the term “clothes washer.” (

See

42 U.S.C. 6291) DOE has defined a “clothes washer” as a consumer product designed to clean clothes, utilizing a water solution of soap and/or detergent and mechanical agitation or other movement, and must be one of the following classes: automatic clothes washers, semi-automatic clothes washers, and other clothes washers. 10 CFR 430.2. This direct final rule covers those consumer products that meet the definition of “clothes washer,” as codified at 10 CFR 430.2.

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

Id.

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

Id.

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

Id.

See

section IV.A.1 of this document for discussion of the product classes analyzed in this direct final rule.

B. Fairly Representative of Relevant Points of View

Under the direct final rule provision in EPCA, recommended energy

conservation standards must be submitted by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates) as determined by DOE. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)) With respect to this requirement, DOE notes that the Joint Agreement included a trade association, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (“AHAM”), which represents 12 manufacturers of RCWs.

The Joint Agreement also included environmental and energy-efficiency advocacy organizations, consumer advocacy organizations, and a gas and electric utility company. Additionally, DOE received a letter in support of the Joint Agreement from the States of New York, California, and Massachusetts (

see

comment No. 506). DOE also received a letter in support of the Joint Agreement from the gas and electric utility, SDG&E, and the electric utility, SCE (

see

comment No. 507). As a result, DOE has determined that the Joint Agreement was submitted by interested persons who are fairly representative of relevant points of view.

These companies include: Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC; Asko Appliances AB; Beko US Inc.; BSH Home Appliances Corporation; Danby Products, Ltd.; Electrolux Home Products, Inc.; GE Appliances, a Haier Company; LG Electronics; Midea America Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Samsung Electronics America Inc.; and Whirlpool Corporation.

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General

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

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

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

When DOE proposes to adopt a new or 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(o)(2)(A)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for RCWs, using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C of this document and in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD.

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from application of the TSL to RCWs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the amended standards (2027-2056 for all TSLs except the Recommended TSL,

i.e.,

TSL 2, and 2028-2057 for TSL 2).

The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year analysis 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.

DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.

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

i.e.,

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

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

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

2. Significance of Savings

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

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

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 stated, the standard levels adopted in this direct final rule are projected to result in national energy savings of 0.67 quads, the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 4.5 million homes. Based on the amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in emissions,

and the need to confront the global climate crisis, DOE has determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this direct final rule are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

E. 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 rulemaking.

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

In determining the impacts of potential new or amended standards 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 payback period (“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 cost (including energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.

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

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

c. Energy Savings

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

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

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 adopted 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 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 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 direct final rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will consider DOJ's comments on the rule in determining whether to withdraw the direct final rule. DOE will also publish and respond to the DOJ's comments in the

Federal Register

in a separate document.

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

DOE also considers the need for national energy and water conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the adopted 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 adopted standards are likely to result in environmental

benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) associated with energy production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K of this document; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in section V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L of this document.

g. Other Factors

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

2. Rebuttable Presumption

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

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with regard to RCWs. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses, including relevant comments DOE received during its separate rulemaking to amend the energy conservation standards for RCWs prior to receiving the Joint Agreement.

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

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

Additionally, DOE used output from the latest version of the U.S. Energy Information Administration (“EIA”)

Annual Energy Outlook

(“

AEO”

) 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) identification of 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 RCW. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the direct final rule TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.

1. Product Classes

The Joint Agreement specifies the five product classes for RCWs. (Joint Agreement, No. 505 at p. 9) In this direct final rule, DOE is adopting the product classes from the Joint Agreement, as listed in Table IV.1.

Table IV.1—Joint Agreement Residential Clothes Washer Product Classes

Product class

Automatic Clothes Washers:

Top-Loading Ultra-Compact (less than 1.6 ft

capacity).

Top-Loading Standard-Size (1.6 ft

or greater capacity).

Front-Loading Compact (less than 3.0 ft

capacity).

Front-Loading Standard-Size (3.0 ft

or greater capacity).

Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers.

DOE further notes that product classes established through EPCA's direct final rule authority are not subject to the criteria specified at 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) for establishing product classes. Nevertheless, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)—which is applicable to direct final rules—DOE has concluded that the standards adopted in this direct final rule will not result in the unavailability in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics, features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States currently.

DOE's findings in this regard are discussed in detail in section V.B.4 of this document.

EPCA specifies that DOE may not prescribe an amended or new standard if the Secretary finds (and publishes such finding) that 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 at the time of the Secretary's finding. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)).

2. Technology Options

In this direct final rule, DOE considered the technology options listed in Table IV.2, consistent with the table of technology options presented in the March 2023 NOPR. See 88 FR 13520, 13541. DOE notes that it did not receive any comments regarding the technology options analyzed in the March 2023 NOPR.

In general, technology options for RCWs may reduce energy use alone, water use alone, or both energy and water use together. Because the energy used to heat any hot water consumed by the RCW is included as part of the EER metric, technologies that decrease hot water use also inherently decrease energy use. In Table IV.2, the technology options that reduce energy use alone are those indicated as methods for decreasing machine energy, drying energy, and standby energy. One

technology option—spray rinse—reduces water use alone, listed among the methods for decreasing water use.

The technology options that reduce both energy and water use together are the remaining three options among the methods for decreasing water use, as well as those indicated as methods for reducing water heating energy.

Since nearly all RCWs use only cold water in the rinse portion of the cycle (

i.e.,

generally no hot water is used in the rinse portion of the cycle), spray rinse reduces water use without any corresponding reduction in energy use.

Chapter 3 of the TSD for this direct final rule includes a detailed list and descriptions of all technology options identified for RCWs, including a discussion of how each technology option reduces energy use only, water use only, or both energy and water use together.

Table IV.2—Technology Options for Residential Clothes Washers

Methods for Decreasing Water Use: *

Adaptive water fill controls.

Hardware features enabling lower water levels.

Spray rinse.

Polymer bead cleaning.

Methods for Decreasing Machine Energy:

More efficient motor.

Direct drive motor.

Methods for Decreasing Water Heating Energy:

Wash temperature decrease.

Ozonated laundering.

Methods for Decreasing Drying Energy:

Hardware features enabling spin speed increase.

Spin time increase.

Methods for Decreasing Standby Energy:

Lower standby power components.

Methods for Increasing Overall Efficiency:

Capacity increase.

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

B. Screening Analysis

DOE uses the following 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.

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

In sum, 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 subsequent sections of this document discuss 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. The results of the screening analysis are discussed in greater detail in chapter 4 of the TSD for this direct final rule.

1. Screened-Out Technologies

DOE partially screened out capacity increase as a technology option. Specifically, DOE screened out any capacity increase that would require a corresponding increase in cabinet width larger than 27 inches, on the basis of the practicability to install and service RCWs with cabinet widths larger than 27 inches. DOE recognizes that products with a width greater than 27 inches may not be able to fit through many standards-size interior doorways.

DOE also screened out ozonated laundering and polymer bead cleaning on the basis of their practicability to install, manufacture, and service. Polymer bead cleaning is also a unique-pathway proprietary technology. DOE also screened out electrolytic disassociation of water on the basis that this technology could have impacts on product utility or availability. Chapter 3 of the TSD for this direct final rule includes a detailed description of each of these technology options.

DOE notes that the results of the screening analysis conducted for this direct final rule align with the screening analysis DOE conducted for the March 2023 NOPR. See 88 FR 13520, 13542-13453. In the March 2023 NOPR, DOE sought comment on whether any additional technology options should be screened out on the basis of any of the screening criteria.

Id.

at 88 FR 13543. In conducting the screening analysis for this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received in response to the March 2023 NOPR.

Fisher

et al.

commented that the proposed standards are not technologically feasible because they would require manufacturers to overhaul many design features that have the potential to impact performance.

(Fisher

et al.,

No. 463 at pp. 2-3)

“Fisher

et al.”

refers to a joint comment from Travis Fisher, Rachael Wilfong, and Kevin Dayaratna. Although these individual commenters are associated with The Heritage Foundation, the comment states that the views expressed in it should not be construed as representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation. (Fisher

et al.,

No. 463 at p. 1).

DOE did not include Fisher

et al.'

s comments about spin-time increase and wash temperature decrease in top-loading standard-size RCWs at the proposed standard level because the adopted standard level in this direct final rule is different than what was proposed in the March 2023 NOPR.

In response to Fisher

et al.'

s comment regarding technological feasibility due to potential impacts on certain aspects of clothes washer performance, DOE has concluded that the standards adopted in this direct final rule are technologically feasible as the technologies used to achieve the adopted standards are widely incorporated in commercial products already. Sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of the Process Rule. Furthermore, DOE has determined through analysis of test data that the standards adopted in this direct final rule will not lessen the utility or performance of the RCWs under consideration in this rulemaking, as discussed further in section V.B.4 of this document.

NEEA

et al.

supported the inclusion in the analysis of larger wash baskets for top-loading models at higher efficiency levels, assuming common sense limitations to ensure similar installation locations. (NEEA

et al.,

No. 455 at p. 5)

“NEEA

et al.”

refers to a joint comment from Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (“NEEA”), Commonwealth Edison Company, and Natural Resources Defense Council.

Appliance Standards Awareness Project (“ASAP”), American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (“ACEEE”), and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (“NYSERDA”) commented that, contrary to concerns raised at DOE's public meeting, manufacturers

have increased top-loading RCW capacity from 3.8 ft

to 5.3 ft

without a meaningful increase in cabinet dimensions, which supports DOE screening out from the analysis any capacity increase that would increase cabinet widths. (ASAP, ACEEE, and NYSERDA, No. 458 at p. 4)

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) commented that the necessary technological advancements and solutions identified by DOE are readily available and accessible, which aligned with DOE's assessment of the technological feasibility of the standards proposed in the March 2023 NOPR. (Samsung, No. 461 at p. 4)

Strauch commented that direct-drive or brushless permanent magnet (“BPM”) motors will increase RCW cost and decrease reliability. (Strauch, No. 430 at p. 2)

DOE notes that the incremental cost of higher-efficiency design options is considered as part of the engineering analysis, from which DOE derives its cost efficiency “curves.” DOE's analysis specifically accounts for the increased cost of implementing direct drive and BPM motors to improve efficiency. (

See

section IV.C.4 of this document and chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD) In response to Strauch's comment asserting that direct drive and BPM motors will decrease reliability, DOE does not have any data on the comparative reliability of RCWs that use various motor technologies. However, as discussed further in section IV.F.5 of this document, DOE's analysis does incorporate an assumption of increased repair costs for higher efficiency RCWs. DOE additionally notes that multiple RCW manufacturers offer warranties specifically for the direct drive motor component of the clothes washer ranging from 10-year

or 20-year

warranties to lifetime

warranties—indicative of manufacturers' expectation of the relatively high reliability of these components.

See, for example,

www.maytag.com/services/limited-10-year-warranty.html.

See, for example,

www.samsung.com/latin_en/microsite/20-years-warranty/.

See, for example,

www.kenmore.com/warranty-information/#washers.

Whirlpool Corporation (“Whirlpool”) commented that DOE's proposal may create consumer accessibility issues for shorter-than-average consumers and consumers with disabilities or limited mobility, as they may struggle to reach the bottom of larger-capacity RCWs, which manufacturers will have to deepen to satisfy the standards proposed in the March 2023 NOPR, because the width of cabinets cannot be increased beyond standard doorway clearance. (Whirlpool, No. 462 at p. 9) Whirlpool commented that people of average and below-average height may not be able to access the bottom of deeper-basket top-loading RCWs without bringing their feet off the ground, which could create a fall hazard and possible soft-tissue compression of the chest and abdominal area. (

Id.

at p. 10) Whirlpool commented that some people could be forced to shift to a front-loading configuration, further increasing the ownership cost and eliminating any potential operating cost savings for many consumers. (

Id.

) Whirlpool asserted that larger-capacity top-loading RCWs would be ineligible for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, due to strict requirements for height and depth of units. (

Id.

) Whirlpool also commented that there is a loss of utility as some consumers do not want or need to use larger load sizes as well as installation problems related to smaller doorways and basements. (Whirlpool, Public Transcript, No. 91 at pp. 82-83)

Mannino,

in referencing Whirlpool's comment during the public webinar that people have a hard time reaching the bottom of larger tubs,

added that many customers have a step stool next to their RCWs that they must stand on to get waist-high so they can bend over far enough to take their clothes out. (Mannino, Public Webinar Transcript, No. 91 at p. 84)

“Mannino” refers to comments made by Michael Mannino representing Appliance Service Systems during the public webinar held March 28, 2023.

Whirlpool, Public Webinar Transcript, No. 91 at pp. 8283.

DOE notes that, as discussed in section V.B.4.b of this document, for this direct final rule DOE has re-evaluated its assumption from the March 2023 NOPR that capacity increase would be required to meet the standards proposed in the March 2023 NOPR for top-loading standard-size RCWs. For this direct final rule, DOE has conducted additional analysis that indicates that the amended standards can be met by all capacities currently available on the market without the need to implement the design option of increasing capacity. Therefore, manufacturers will continue to be able to offer the same range of capacities as are currently available on the market. In chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD, DOE provides example design pathways that manufacturers could use to achieve higher efficiency without increasing capacity as a design option, such that DOE does not expect it will raise accessibility concerns.

Whirlpool further commented that DOE must work closely with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) to understand their work and ensure that RCWs can safely withstand high spin speeds under spontaneous unbalanced load conditions, given that the standards proposed in the March 2023 NOPR would effectively mandate higher spin speeds. (

Id.

at p. 13) AHAM noted that although higher spin speeds are an available option to increase efficiency, UL formed a working group to address recalls that happened with vertical axis clothes washers and instantaneous out-of-balance events that happened in the field. AHAM commented that DOE must coordinate with the CPSC as it considers certain technology options because manufacturers will need to dedicate resources to ensure that increased spin speeds do not decrease product safety. (AHAM, No. 464 at p. 17)

Representatives Latta

et al.

commented that increased spin speeds to meet amended standards could increase the potential for load imbalance issues. (Representatives Latta

et al.,

No. 456 at pp. 2-3)

“Representatives Latta

et al.”

refers to a joint comment from the following members of the U.S. House of Representatives: Robert E. Latta (OH), H. Morgan Griffith (VA), Russ Fulcher (ID), Rick W. Allen (GA), and Greg Pence (IN).

DOE only considered spin increase as a design option insofar as it is already demonstrated in RCWs available on the market. The prevalence of high-speed spin features currently available on the market is indicative that RCWs can be designed to safely withstand such spin speeds. DOE notes that models at the Recommended TSL would also require faster spin speeds compared to the baseline, and the Recommended TSL is supported by the Joint Commenters, which includes manufacturers with commercially available products that meet or exceed these levels being safely used today by consumers. As previously discussed, on February 14, 2024, DOE received a second joint statement from the same group of stakeholders that submitted the Joint Agreement (of which Whirlpool is a member) in which the signatories reaffirmed the standards recommended in the Joint Agreement.

In particular, the letter states that the joint stakeholders do not anticipate the recommended standards will negatively affect features or performance.

This document is available in the docket at:

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0509.

AHAM commented that high-frequency components (

e.g.,

variable-speed motors) in higher-efficiency RCWs contribute to RCWs losing power

due to so-called “nuisance tripping” of the electrical outlet. (AHAM, No. 464 at pp. 17-22) Specifically, AHAM explained that arc-fault circuit-interrupters (“AFCIs”) are devices required by the National Electrical Code and local building codes that trip and disable appliances when they detect certain electrical signals, including conducted emissions. (

Id.

at p. 17) AHAM commented that many AFCI manufacturers implement more stringent tripping thresholds than those recommended by the Federal Communications Commission or the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, and that the variability in AFCI tripping thresholds among AFCI manufacturers creates a major challenge for home appliance manufacturers in making products more efficient, noting that AFCI manufacturers are not required to publicize changes to the tripping thresholds or update the relevant industry standard with this information. (

Id.

at pp. 17-18) AHAM commented that DOE must not endanger manufacturers' ability to address this issue by pushing RCWs towards use of components that generate higher frequency conducted emissions, such as variable-speed motors. (

Id.

at p. 19) AHAM requested that DOE consider how updated standards will impact manufacturers' ability to meet the specifications required to prevent AFCI nuisance tripping, quantify this impact, and adjust its analysis accordingly. (

Id.

)

AHAM further commented on similar issues regarding ground-fault circuit interrupters (“GFCIs”), which are also devices required by the National Electrical Code that trip and disable appliances when they detect a ground-fault. (

Id.

at p. 20) AHAM commented that while appliance manufacturers can add filters to help avoid nuisance tripping, doing so increases energy consumption and does not solve the root cause, which AHAM states is highly variable GFCI tripping thresholds at high frequencies. (

Id.

) AHAM noted that the latest Underwriters Laboratory (“UL”) standard for GFCIs

does not define the electrical amperage tripping threshold for frequencies other than 60 Hertz. (

Id.

at p. 21) AHAM commented that UL has conducted a study that verified that components operating at high frequencies contribute to nuisance tripping, even when no electrical hazard exists. (

Id.

at p. 20) The UL study referenced by AHAM explored the root causes of reported interoperability incidents (

i.e.,

nuisance tripping) between certain GFCIs and home appliances, including RCWs. (

Id.

at pp. 59-68) The UL study referenced by AHAM noted that its results were used in a proposal to add a GFCI interoperability test to the UL standard for appliances that are plugged into GFCIs,

and that the results from the study are anticipated to facilitate the development of new performance requirements for UL 943 for frequencies other than 60 Hertz. (

Id.

)

UL 943 is the standard for Ground-Fault Circuit-Interrupters.

UL 101 is the standard for Leakage Current for Utilization Equipment.

AHAM requested that DOE use its expertise and resources to properly investigate what it characterizes as the technological incompatibility between high-frequency components and AFCIs/GFCIs and suggested that DOE adjust its analysis and quantify the impact from nuisance tripping. (

Id.

at p. 22)

In response to AHAM's concern regarding high-frequency components' impact on nuisance tripping, DOE emphasizes that it only considered design options that are already demonstrated in RCWs available on the market. DOE is aware of the potential for “nuisance tripping” of GFCI circuit protectors by high-frequency components such as variable-speed motors. However, DOE understands that nuisance tripping can generally be mitigated through the use of best practices for reducing leakage current, such as minimizing electrical cable lengths and ensuring that filtered and unfiltered cables are separated to whatever extent possible to reduce leakage current. Additionally, optimizing the variable-frequency controller power filter to reduce total leakage current to levels below the GFCI detection limits can further prevent GFCI tripping. To the extent that the use of additional electronic components is needed in conjunction with the use of design options with high-frequency components (such as variable-speed motors), and to the extent that such additional electronic components are provided in RCWs currently on the market that make use of such design options, DOE's teardown analysis captures any additional cost associated with such components.

DOE notes that despite any potential for nuisance tripping, a wide range of appliances on the market today, including clothes washers, implement variable-frequency drives in their designs. The inclusion of these variable-frequency drive designs in units on the market suggests that they do not have a significant impact on the consumer utility of these products. DOE notes that variable-speed motors have been used in RCWs for over a decade

and observes the widespread usage of variable-speed motors in RCWs currently on the market, as discussed further in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD. DOE is not aware of widespread issues with the currently available products that would warrant exclusion from consideration. Further, as indicated by the Joint Agreement of which AHAM was a signatory, products at the standard level being adopted in this direct final rule are widely available, have significant market share—as the adopted standard represents the ENERGY STAR level—and manufacturers have not indicated consumer dissatisfaction with the clothes washers commercially available today.

See,

for example, discussion of variable-speed motors in chapter 5 of the TSD accompanying the energy conservation standards May 2012 Direct Final Rule. Available at

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019-0047.

2. Remaining Technologies

Through a review of each technology, DOE concludes that all of the other identified technologies listed in Table IV.3 meet all screening criteria to be examined further as design options in DOE's direct final rule analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen out the following technology options:

Table IV.3—Retained Design Options for Residential Clothes Washers

Methods for Decreasing Water Use *

Adaptive water fill controls.

Hardware features enabling lower water levels.

Spray rinse.

Methods for Decreasing Machine Energy

More efficient motor.

Direct drive motor.

Methods for Decreasing Water Heating Energy

Wash temperature decrease.

Methods for Decreasing Drying Energy

Hardware features enabling spin speed increase.

Spin time increase.

Methods for Decreasing Standby Energy

Lower standby power components.

Methods for Increasing Overall Efficiency

Capacity increase (without requiring a cabinet width increase).

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

As discussed, technology options for RCWs may reduce energy use alone, water use alone, or both energy and water use together. The technology options that reduce energy use alone are those indicated as methods for decreasing machine energy, drying energy, and standby energy. Spray rinse, indicated as one of the methods for reducing water use, reduces water use alone. The technology options that reduce both energy and water use

together are the remaining two options among the methods for decreasing water use, as well as those indicated as methods for reducing water heating energy.

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

i.e.,

practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product availability, health, or safety). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the direct final rule TSD.

C. Engineering Analysis

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

i.e.,

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

i.e.,

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

i.e.,

the LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).

1. Metric Translations

As discussed in section II.B.2 of this document, the June 2022 TP Final Rule established a new test procedure, appendix J, which established new EER and WER efficiency metrics. 87 FR 33316. Appendix J also incorporates a number of revisions that affect the per-cycle energy and water use in comparison to results obtained under the current appendix J2 test procedure. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J. In the March 2023 NOPR, DOE identified efficiency levels initially in terms of the existing IMEF and IWF metrics and used a translation equation to convert the identified IMEF and IWF levels into corresponding EER and WER levels as the basis for the proposed amended standards. 88 FR 13520, 13545. The translation equation was based on testing performed by DOE on a representative sample of RCW models.

Id.

at 88 FR 13555-13559.

In this direct final rule, DOE used the same translation equations presented in the March 2023 NOPR to translate efficiency levels from the appendix J2 metrics (

i.e.,

IMEF and IWF) into the appendix J metrics (

i.e.,

EER and WER).

2. Efficiency Analysis

DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed efficiency levels in 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 interpolate to define “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 direct final rule, DOE used an efficiency-level approach, supplemented with the design-option approach for certain “gap fill” efficiency levels. The efficiency-level approach is appropriate for RCWs given the availability of certification data to determine the market distribution of existing products and to identify efficiency level “clusters” that already exist on the market.

In conducting the efficiency analysis for the automatic clothes washer product classes, DOE first identified efficiency levels in terms of the current IMEF and IWF metrics defined in appendix J2 that are the most familiar to interested parties. DOE also initially determined the cost-efficiency relationships based on these metrics. Following that, DOE translated each efficiency level into its corresponding EER and WER values using the translation equations developed for each product class, as discussed previously in section IV.C.1 of this document.

For the semi-automatic product class, for which reliable certification data is unavailable, DOE tested a representative sample of units to appendix J and used that set of data points to determine the baseline and higher efficiency levels, as described further in section IV.C.2.c of this document.

The efficiency levels that DOE considered in the engineering analysis are attainable using technologies currently available on the market in RCWs. DOE used the results of the testing and teardown analyses to determine a representative set of technologies and design strategies that manufacturers use to achieve each higher efficiency level. This information provides interested parties with additional transparency of assumptions and results, and the ability to perform independent analyses for verification. Chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD describes the methodology and results of the analysis used to derive the cost-efficiency relationships.

a. Baseline Efficiency Levels

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

e.g.,

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

In defining the baseline efficiency levels for this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received in response to the baseline efficiency levels proposed in the March 2023 NOPR.

In the March 2023 NOPR, DOE analyzed the baseline efficiency levels shown in Table IV.4 for each automatic product class. 88 FR 13520, 13546. The semi-automatic product class is discussed separately in section IV.C.2.c of this document.

Table IV.4—Baseline Efficiency Levels Analyzed in the March 2023 NOPR

Product class

Description

Minimum IMEF

(ft

/kWh/cycle)

Maximum IWF

(gal/cycle/ft

)

Minimum EER

(lb/kWh/cycle)

Minimum WER

(lb/gal/cycle)

Top-Loading Ultra-Compact (<1.6 ft

)

Current DOE standard

1.15

12.0

3.79

0.29

Top-Loading Standard-Size (≥1.6 ft

)

Current DOE standard

1.57

6.5

3.50

0.38

Front-Loading Compact (<3.0 ft

)

Current DOE standard for front-loading standard-size (≥1.6 ft

) *

1.84

4.7

4.41

0.53

Front-Loading Standard-Size (≥3.0 ft

)

ENERGY STAR v. 7.0 **

2.38

3.7

5.02

0.64

* Although the current DOE standard for front-loading compact (<1.6 ft

) is 1.13 IMEF/8.3 IWF, no front-loading units are currently on the market with a capacity <1.6 ft

. The baseline efficiency level proposed in the March 2023 NOPR reflected the currently applicable standard for front-loading RCWs with capacities between 1.6 and 3.0 ft

** Although the current DOE standard for front-loading standard-size (≥1.6 ft

) is 1.84 IMEF/4.7 IWF, at the time of analysis, the least efficient front-loading standard-size RCW available on the market had an efficiency rating of 2.38 IMEF/3.7 IWF. DOE noted in the March 2023 NOPR that although DOE's Compliance Certification Database (“CCD”) includes front-loading standard-size RCWs that are rated at the current standard level of 1.84 IMEF, it had determined through testing that these units perform significantly above their rated value at the current standard level. 88 FR 13520, 13545.

In the March 2023 NOPR, DOE discussed an alternate approach it was considering for defining the baseline levels.

Id.

at 88 FR 13561. The baseline efficiency levels defined in the March 2023 NOPR represented an IMEF-to-EER translation based on “consistent spin” performance

across all the cycle settings required for testing. DOE observed through testing, however, that some units on the market are designed such that only the cycle setting required for measuring the remaining moisture content (“RMC”) under appendix J2 (

i.e.,

the Cold/Cold cycle with maximum load size) is optimized

to achieve a favorable RMC value; on such units, the spin portion of the cycle is significantly faster or longer on the Cold/Cold setting with a maximum load size than for the other temperature settings or load sizes that are tested as part of the energy test.

Id.

at 88 FR 13556. As discussed in the March 2023 NOPR, comments submitted by a manufacturer suggested that, were DOE to amend standards based on appendix J, manufacturers that currently use “Cold/Cold optimized spin” would likely increase the spin speeds or spin durations across all temperature settings to match the spin behavior of the Cold/Cold temperature setting;

i.e.,

such units would be redesigned to exhibit “consistent spin” performance to provide the lowest possible (

i.e.,

best possible) RMC measurement under appendix J.

Id.

at 88 FR 13557. Under the alternate approach to defining the baseline efficiency levels discussed in the March 2023 NOPR, DOE would define the baseline efficiency levels based on a translation between appendix J2 and appendix J metrics without consideration of any changes to spin implementations as a result of adopting the new appendix J test procedure.

Id.

at 88 FR 13561. DOE referred to this in the March 2023 NOPR as the “unadjusted” baseline approach.

Id.

Using this approach, the baseline level presented in the March 2023 NOPR would instead be considered efficiency level (“EL”) 1.

In the March 2023 NOPR, DOE discussed its observation of various approaches used by manufacturers for the final spin portion of the wash cycle across all the cycle setting required for testing. 88 FR 13520, 13561. DOE used the term “consistent spin” to refer to units in which the characteristics of the spin cycle (

e.g.,

spin speed, spin time) are consistent across temperature selections.

Id.

at 88 FR 13556. On such units, RMC values measured on Warm/Cold, Hot/Cold, and Extra Hot/Cold cycles are substantially similar to the RMC value measured on the Cold/Cold cycle.

Id.

DOE used the term “Cold/Cold optimized spin” in the March 2023 NOPR to refer to units in which the spin cycle is optimized on the Cold/Cold setting with maximum load size.

Id.

DOE sought comment on the baseline efficiency levels analyzed in the March 2023 NOPR for each product class.

Id.

at 88 FR 13546. DOE also sought comment on whether it should consider defining an “unadjusted” baseline efficiency level based on a translation between appendix J2 and appendix J metrics without consideration of any changes to spin implementations as a result of adopting the appendix J test procedure.

Id.

at 88 FR 13561.

AHAM agreed with DOE's proposal to establish the baseline at the current DOE standard for top-loading standard-size RCWs and at the current standard for front-loading standard-size RCWs for the front-loading compact product class. (AHAM, No. 464 at pp. 16-17)

AHAM opposed DOE's proposal to establish the baseline for front-loading standard-size RCWs at the ENERGY STAR v. 7.0 level and instead recommended establishing the baseline at the current DOE standard. (

Id.

at p. 17) AHAM commented that even if DOE tested some products that meet higher levels of efficiency than their rated values, that may not universally be the case; and that even if it is, the DOE standard does continue to represent the baseline, as those products are designed in order to ensure they meet the current energy conservation standard. (

Id.

) AHAM further commented that DOE's approach does not match the intent of establishing the baseline, which is to identify the least-efficient product and set the baseline at that level. (

Id.

) As such, AHAM recommended that DOE establish the baseline at the current DOE standard for front-loading standard-size products. (

Id.

)

In response to AHAM's comment regarding the definition of the baseline level for front-loading standard-size RCWs, DOE is adopting AHAM's recommended approach for this direct final rule and defining the baseline level for the front-loading standard-size product class as the current DOE standard (corresponding to 1.84 IMEF/5.7 IWF).

In this direct final rule (“DFR”), DOE labels the EL corresponding to the current DOE standard as “DFR Baseline” and the EL corresponding to ENERGY STAR v. 7.0 as “NOPR Baseline.”

The California Investor-Owned Utilities (“CA IOUs”)

recommended that DOE use an “unadjusted” baseline efficiency level as presented in appendix 5A of the March 2023 NOPR TSD and update the market share distributions by including a “consistent spin” implementation technology option reflecting the existing market. (CA IOUs, No. 460 at pp. 3-4) The CA IOUs stated that they acknowledge the challenges of transitioning to the new test procedure's energy and water metrics, but maintain that assuming all

units will adopt the “consistent spin” implementation method and that incorporating this assumption as the baseline for each product class does not represent real-world usage. (

Id.

) The CA IOUs recommended DOE use the least efficient tested EER in its test sample to define the baseline efficiency level and that DOE may apply consistent spin implementation and the associated cost and energy savings as a technology improvement at EL 1. (

Id.

at p. 4) The CA IOUs noted that this method would respect DOE's expectation that manufacturers adopt a consistent spin profile in response to appendix J. (

Id.

) The CA IOUs commented that this approach should also result in updates to the efficiency distribution for all product classes where DOE found units with a non-consistent spin implementation. (

Id.

) The CA IOUs stated the same market distribution calculations and adjustments should be implemented for top-loading standard-size, front-loading compact, and semi-automatic product classes since all were found to have products with non-consistent spin implementation in DOE's testing. (

Id.

) The CA IOUs further stated that these adjustments to DOE's analysis will accurately represent energy savings from this rulemaking by properly characterizing existing products and their variety of spin implementations. (

Id.

at pp. 4-5) The CA IOUs requested that, should DOE decline to adopt the proposed methodology, DOE clarify its position on the inclusion of the costs associated with the spin improvements. (

Id.

at p. 5) The CA IOUs requested that DOE ensure uniformity in its treatment of consistent spin profiles to account for both or none of the savings and costs. (

Id.

)

The “CA IOUs” includes Pacific Gas and Electric Company, SDG&E, and SCE.

In response to the CA IOUs' recommendation to use the “unadjusted” baseline approach to define the baseline efficiency levels, DOE has further evaluated this approach and determined that DOE would not be able to reliably extrapolate its test results to the entire market to determine how market shares would need to be apportioned between an “unadjusted” baseline level and the baseline level defined in the March 2023 NOPR using the translation equations. More specifically, although DOE identified units in its test sample with “Cold/Cold optimized” spin characteristic, DOE was not able to determine a consistent pattern of implementation of this characteristic—either among manufacturers or product platforms—that could be used to extrapolate to the entire RCW market. For example, DOE's test results indicated that some individual manufacturers use different spin characteristics across their RCW model offerings (

e.g.,

using “consistent spin” on some models, while using “Cold/Cold optimized spin” on other model), and in some cases across different individual models within the same product family (

e.g.,

among front-loading standard-size models designed and built on the same underlying product platform). DOE recognizes that by not explicitly accounting for changes to spin implementation at the baseline level for some portion of the market, any incremental energy savings attributable to the change in test procedure to appendix J are not accounted for in DOE's assessment of the total energy savings resulting from the amended standards enacted by this direct final rule. Regarding DOE's accounting of any costs associated with such changes in spin implementation, DOE is not assigning any additional manufacturing cost to the baseline level with respect to this issue. The design changes incorporated into DOE's cost-efficiency curves at the amended standard level already include any necessary structural improvements that would potentially be required to convert a product from using a “Cold/Cold optimized” spin implementation to a “consistent spin” implementation (

e.g.,

more robust bearings or suspension to accommodate increased spin speeds).

b. Higher Efficiency Levels

To establish higher efficiency levels for the analysis, DOE reviewed data in DOE's CCD to evaluate the range of efficiencies for RCWs currently available on the market.

DOE's Compliance Certification Database is available at

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

Analysis conducted May 2023.

As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE also defines a “max-tech” efficiency level to represent the maximum possible efficiency for a given product in each product class. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) DOE typically determines max-tech levels based on technologies that are either commercially available or have been demonstrated as working prototypes. If the max-tech design meets DOE's screening criteria, DOE considers the design in further analysis.

In defining the higher efficiency levels for this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received in response to the higher efficiency levels proposed in the March 2023 NOPR.

In the March 2023 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that the max-tech efficiency level for each RCW product class corresponds to the maximum available level for each product class. 88 FR 13520, 13546. In other words, DOE did not define or analyze any efficiency levels higher than those currently available on the market.

Id.

As noted, EPCA requires that any new or amended energy conservation standard be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) For RCWs, a determination of technological feasibility must encompass not only an achievable reduction in energy and/or water consumption, but also the ability of the product to perform its intended function (

i.e.,

wash clothing) at reduced energy or water levels.

Attributes that are relevant to consumers encompass multiple aspects of RCW operation such as stain removal, solid particle removal, rinsing effectiveness, fabric gentleness, cycle time, noise, vibration, and others. Each of these attributes may be affected by energy and water efficiency levels, and achieving better performance in one attribute may require a tradeoff with one or more other attributes. DOE does not have the means to be able to determine whether a product that uses less water or energy than the maximum efficiency level available on the market would represent a viable (

i.e.,

technologically feasible) product that would satisfy consumer expectations regarding all the other aspects of RCW performance that are not measured by the DOE test procedure. As far as DOE is aware, the complexity of the interdependence among all these attributes precludes being able to use a computer model or other similar means to predict changes in these product attributes as a result of reduced energy and water levels. Rather, as far as DOE is aware, such determinations are made in an iterative fashion through extensive product testing as part of manufacturers' design processes.

As an extreme example, DOE could consider a hypothetical RCW that reduces its water consumption to near-zero, but such a product would not be viable for washing clothing, given current technology.

DOE sought comment on the higher efficiency levels analyzed in the March 2023 NOPR for each product class.

Id.

at 88 FR 13549.

DOE did not receive any comments regarding the higher efficiency levels analyzed in the March 2023 NOPR.

At each higher efficiency level, both energy use and water use decrease through the implementation of

combinations of design options that individually either reduce energy use alone, reduce water use alone, or reduce both energy and water use together, as discussed previously in section IV.A.2 of this document. Chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD provides a detailed discussion of the specific design changes that DOE believes manufacturers would typically use to meet each higher efficiency level considered in this engineering analysis, including a discussion of whether such design changes would reduce energy use only, water use only, or reduce both energy and water use together.

In this direct final rule, DOE analyzed the higher efficiency levels shown in Tables IV.5 through IV.8, consistent with the levels analyzed in the March 2023 NOPR.

Table IV.5—Top-Loading Ultra-Compact (<1.6 ft

) Efficiency Levels

Efficiency level description

IMEF

(ft

/kWh/cycle)

IWF

(gal/cycle/ft

)

EER

(lb/kWh/cycle)

WER

(lb/gal/cycle)

Baseline

Current DOE standard

1.15

12.0

3.79

0.29

Table IV.6—Top-Loading Standard-Size (≥1.6 ft

) Efficiency Levels

Efficiency level description

IMEF

(ft

/kWh/cycle)

IWF

(gal/cycle/ft

)

EER

(lb/kWh/cycle)

WER

(lb/gal/cycle)

Baseline

Current DOE standard

1.57

6.5

3.50

0.38

Gap fill

1.82

5.4

3.89

0.47

ENERGY STAR v. 8.1

2.06

4.3

4.27

0.57

2015-2017 Consortium for Energy Efficiency (“CEE”) Tier 1

2.38

3.7

4.78

0.63

Maximum available (2016/2017 ENERGY STAR Most Efficient)

2.76

3.2

5.37

0.67

Table IV.7—Front-Loading Compact (<3.0 ft

) Efficiency Levels

Efficiency level description

IMEF

(ft

/kWh/cycle)

IWF

(gal/cycle/ft

)

EER

(lb/kWh/cycle)

WER

(lb/gal/cycle)

Baseline

Current DOE standard for front-loading standard-size (≥1.6 ft

)

1.84

4.7

4.41

0.53

ENERGY STAR v. 8.1 level for units ≤2.5 ft

2.07

4.2

4.80

0.62

2023 ENERGY STAR Most Efficient for units ≤2.5 ft

2.20

3.7

5.02

0.71

Gap fill

2.50

3.5

5.53

0.75

Maximum available (ENERGY STAR v. 8.1 level for units >2.5 ft

)

2.76

3.2

5.97

0.80

Table IV.8—Front-Loading Standard-Size (≥3.0 ft

) Efficiency Levels

Efficiency level description

IMEF

(ft

/kWh/cycle)

IWF

(gal/cycle/ft

)

EER

(lb/kWh/cycle)

WER

(lb/gal/cycle)

DFR Baseline

Current DOE standard

1.84

4.7

4.31

0.38

NOPR Baseline

ENERGY STAR v. 7.0

2.38

3.7

5.02

0.64

Gap fill

2.60

3.5

5.31

0.69

ENERGY STAR v. 8.1

2.76

3.2

5.52

0.77

2023 ENERGY STAR Most Efficient

2.92

3.2

5.73

0.77

Maximum available

3.10

2.9

5.97

0.85

c. Semi-Automatic

As discussed in section IV.A.1 of this document, this direct final rule re-establishes a separate product class for semi-automatic clothes washers and establishes performance-based standards for semi-automatic clothes washers. In considering the definition of efficiency levels for semi-automatic clothes washers for this direct final rule, DOE used the same methodology it had proposed in the March 2023 NOPR.

As discussed in the March 2023 NOPR, given the lack of specificity in appendix J2 regarding the testing of semi-automatic clothes washers, and the significant differences in testing between appendix J2 versus appendix J for semi-automatic clothes washers, DOE tentatively determined that it could not develop an accurate correlation between appendix J2 metrics (

i.e.,

IMEF and IWF) and appendix J metrics (

i.e.,

EER and WER) for semi-automatic clothes washers.

Id.

at 88 FR 13549. Therefore, DOE proposed to define efficiency levels in terms of EER and WER directly rather than first defining efficiency levels in terms of IMEF and IWF and then developing translation equations to translate those levels to EER and WER.

Id.

As discussed in the March 2023 NOPR, DOE determined efficiency levels for the semi-automatic clothes washer product class by testing a representative sample of models on the market and observing the range of EER and WER results.

Id.

DOE sought comment on the efficiency levels analyzed in the March 2023 NOPR for semi-automatic RCWs.

Id.

DOE did not receive any comments regarding the efficiency levels analyzed in the March 2023 NOPR for semi-automatic RCWs. In this direct final rule, DOE used the efficiency levels defined in the March 2023 NOPR for semi-automatic RCWs.

Table IV.9 shows the efficiency levels for the semi-automatic product class. See chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD for more details.

Table IV.9—Semi-Automatic Efficiency Levels

Efficiency level description

EER

(lb/kWh/cycle)

WER

(lb/gal/cycle)

Baseline

Minimum available

1.60

0.17

Gap fill

2.12

0.27

Maximum available

2.51

0.36

3. Cost Analysis

The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated product, and 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 manufacturer production cost (“MPC”) estimates.

To account for manufacturers' 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 RCWs.

See

chapter 12 of the TSD for this direct final rule 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 June 30, 2023).

4. Cost-Efficiency Results

In developing the baseline and incremental MPCs for each defined product class for this direct final rule, DOE considered comments it had received in response to the cost-efficiency results presented in the March 2023 NOPR.

As discussed in the March 2023 NOPR, in support of this rulemaking, DOE conducted teardowns on 47 RCW models, which covered the entire range of efficiency levels within each analyzed product class.

See

chapter 5 of the March 2023 NOPR TSD.

DOE sought comment in the March 2023 NOPR on the baseline and incremental MPCs developed for each product class.

Id.

at 88 FR 13553.

ASAP, ACEEE, and NYSERDA commented that they believe DOE is likely overestimating incremental cost increases, especially for top-loading standard-size RCWs. (ASAP, ACEEE, and NYSERDA, No. 458 at p. 2) ASAP, ACEEE, and NYSERDA stated that while DOE assumes in the engineering analysis that baseline top-loading RCWs have enameled baskets and that units meeting the standards proposed in the March 2023 NOPR would have stainless steel baskets, NEEA market research found that almost two-thirds of baseline top-loading standard-size RCW sales already include stainless steel baskets, including half of the least-expensive baseline models. (

Id.

) ASAP, ACEEE, and NYSERDA further commented that DOE has historically overestimated cost increases from energy efficiency standards, and they noted that a 2022 Spurlock & Fujita study

concluded that baseline RCW prices stayed flat while efficiency increased by 30 percent, demonstrating that efficiency standards for RCWs benefit all consumers and that low-income consumers were not priced out of the market. (

Id.

at pp. 2-3) ASAP, ACEEE, and NYSERDA commented that historical trends suggest that any incremental increases in first cost experienced by customers will likely be smaller than those estimated by DOE. (

Id.

at p. 3)

C.A. Spurlock & K.S. Fujita, “Equity implications of market structure and appliance energy efficiency regulation,” Energy Policy, 2022, Vol. 165, 112943.

In response to the comment from ASAP, ACEEE, and NYSERDA regarding the prevalence of stainless steel wash baskets at the baseline level, in this direct final rule, DOE has updated its approach to calculating the baseline MPC for top-loading standard-size RCWs to reflect a market-weighted average of the use of stainless steel wash baskets versus enameled steel at the baseline level. DOE used information derived through confidential manufacturer interviews to determine the market we

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.