After a regulatory action has been completed, Executive Order 12866 requires agencies 

to identify the substantive changes between the draft submitted to Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review and the action subsequently announced, and to 

identify those changes made at the suggestion or recommendation of OIRA.
6450-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket Number EERE–XXXX–BT–STD–XXXX]

RIN: 1904-AD24

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential 

Dishwashers

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and public meeting.

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended,

prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, including residential dishwashers. EPCA also 

requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to determine whether amended standards 

would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would save a 

significant amount of energy. In this notice, DOE proposes amended energy conservation 

standards for residential dishwashers. The notice also announces a public meeting to 

receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

1
DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting on [Day of week, Month, Day, Year], from 9 

a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast as a webinar. See 

section VII Public Participation for webinar registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants. 

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the public meeting, but no later than 

[INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER PUBLICATION]. See section VII Public Participation for details.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room [NUMBER], 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, 

DC 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945. Please note 

that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to advance security 

screening procedures. Any foreign national wishing to participate in the meeting should 

advise DOE as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Edwards to initiate the necessary 

procedures. Please also note that those wishing to bring laptops into the Forrestal 

Building will be required to obtain a property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing 

laptops, or allow an extra 45 minutes. Persons can attend the public meeting via webinar.

For more information, refer to the Public Participation section near the end of this notice.

Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Energy Conservation 

Standards for residential dishwashers, and provide docket number EE-XXXX–BT–STD–

2
XXXX and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AD24. Comments 

may be submitted using any of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for 

submitting comments. 

2. E-mail: [EMAIL ADDRESS FOR RULEMAKING]. Include the docket number 

and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies 

Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 

20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a CD. It is not necessary to 

include printed copies.

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC, 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, please submit 

all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the 

collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted 

to Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy through the methods listed above 

and by e-mail to Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov.

For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on 

the rulemaking process, see section VII of this document (Public Participation).

3
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the 

regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those 

containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly 

available.

A link to the docket web page can be found at: [Web site. THIS WEB PAGE 

WILL CONTAIN A LINK TO THE DOCKET FOR THIS NOTICE ON THIS NOTICE 

ON THE REGULATIONS.GOV SITE]. This web page will contain a link to the docket 

for this notice on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov web page will contain 

simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the 

docket. See section VII for further information on how to submit comments through 

www.regulations.gov.

For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

[PROJECT MANAGER], U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 

4
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-

XXXX. E-mail: XXX@ee.Doe.Gov.

Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 

202-586-7796. E-mail: Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

B. Impact on Manufacturers

C. National Benefits

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

1. Current Standards

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Residential Dishwashers

3. Residential Dishwasher Test Procedure History

III. General Discussion

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

B. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

C. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

2. Significance of Savings

D. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

a. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price

b. Energy Savings

c. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

d. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

e. Need for National Energy Conservation

f. Other Factors

2. Rebuttable Presumption

5
IV. Methodology and Discussion

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Scope and Product Classes

2. Technology Options

B. Screening Analysis

1. Screened-Out Technologies

2. Remaining Technologies

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Efficiency Levels

a. Baseline Efficiency Levels

b. Higher Energy Efficiency Levels

2. Manufacturer Production Cost Estimates

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 Prices

5. Water and Wastewater Prices

6. Maintenance and Repair Costs

7. Product Lifetime

8. Discount Rates

9. Base-Case Efficiency Distribution

10. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis

11. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Period

G. Shipments

H. National Impact Analysis

1. National Energy and Water Savings

a. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case and Standards Cases

2. Net Present Value Analysis

a. Total Installed Cost per Unit

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

a. Phase 1, Industry Profile

b. Phase 2, Industry Cash Flow Analysis

c. Phase 3, Sub-Group Impact Analysis

2. GRIM

a. GRIM Key Inputs

b. GRIM Scenarios

3. Manufacturer Interviews

K. Emissions Analysis

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

1. Social Cost of Carbon

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions

6
b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon Values

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions

2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions

M. Utility Impact Analysis

N. Employment Impact Analysis

V. Analytical Results

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. Impacts on Employment

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity

d. Impacts on Sub-Groups of Manufacturers

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

3. National Impact Analysis

a. Significance of Energy Savings

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits

c. Impacts on Employment

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy

7. Summary of National Economic Impacts

8. Other Factors

C. Conclusion

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Residential Dishwashers

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Standards

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

VII. Public Participation

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements For Distribution

7
C. Conduct of the Public Meeting

D. Submission of Comments

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

Title III, Part B1 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

the Act), established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles. Pub. L. 94-163 (as codified in 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309).2 These 

products include residential dishwashers, the subject of today’s notice.

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be 

designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))

Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of 

energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In accordance with these and other statutory 

provisions discussed in this notice, DOE proposes amended energy conservation 

standards for residential dishwashers. The proposed standards, which are the maximum 

annual energy use and maximum per-cycle water consumption for each product class, are 

shown in Table I.1. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all products 

listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after the 

date 3 years after the publication of any final rule for this rulemaking. For purposes of the 

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

2 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy 

Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Pub. L. 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).

8

 
analysis conducted in support of today’s rule, DOE used 2016 as the expected year of 

publication of any final standards.

Table I.1 Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Dishwashers

(Compliance Starting 2019)

Product Class Maximum Annual 

Energy Use*

Maximum Per-Cycle 

Water Consumption

1. Standard (≥8 place settings 

plus 6 serving pieces) 

234 kilowatt-hours per 

year (kWh/year)

3.1 gallons per cycle

(gal/cycle)

2. Compact (<8 place settings 

plus 6 serving pieces) 203 kWh/year 3.1 gal/cycle

*

Annual energy use, expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, is calculated as: the sum of the annual 

standby electrical energy in kWh and the product of (1) the representative average dishwasher use cycles 

per year and (2) the sum of machine electrical energy consumption per cycle in kWh, the total water energy 

consumption per cycle in kWh, and, for dishwashers having a truncated normal cycle, the drying energy 

consumption divided by 2 in kWh. A truncated normal cycle is defined as the normal cycle interrupted to 

eliminate the power-dry feature after the termination of the last rinse option.

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.2 presents DOE’s evaluation of the economic impacts of the proposed 

standards on consumers of residential dishwashers, as measured by the average life-cycle 

cost (LCC) savings and the simple payback period (PBP).

3 The average LCC savings are 

positive for both the standard and compact product classes. The PBP for both product 

classes are also less than the projected average lifetime of this product of approximately 

15 years.

3 The average LCC savings are measured relative to the base-case efficiency distribution, which depicts the 

dishwasher market in the compliance year (see section IV.F.9). The simple PBP, which is designed to 

compare specific dishwasher efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline dishwasher (see section 

IV.C.1.a).

Comment [A1]: Change recommended by OIRA

9

 
Table I.2 Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of 

Residential Dishwashers

Product Class Average LCC Savings 

(2013$)

Simple Payback Period 

(years)

Standard $21 9.0

Compact $8 4.5

B. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to 

the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2014 to 2048). 

Using a real discount rate of 8.5 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers 

of residential dishwashers is $586.6 million in 2013$. Under the proposed standards, 

DOE expects that manufacturers may lose up to 34.7 percent of their INPV, which is 

approximately $203.7 million. Additionally, based on its analysis of available 

information, DOE does not expect any plant closings or significant loss of employment.

C. National Benefits4

DOE’s analyses indicate that the proposed standards would save a significant 

amount of energy. The lifetime savings for residential dishwashers purchased in the 30-

year period that begins in the year of compliance with amended standards (2019–2048) 

amount to 1.06 quadrillion Btu (quads)

5 and 0.24 trillion gallons of water. The annual 

energyThis is a savings in 2030 are equivalent to 0.17of 12 percent of total U.S. 

residentialrelative to the energy use in 2013.of this product in the base case.6

4 All monetary values in this section are expressed in 2013 dollars and are discounted to 2014. 5 A quad is equal to 1015 British thermal units (Btu). 6 The base case assumptions are described in section IV.G.

Comment [A2]: Change recommended by OIRA

10

 
The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and savings of

the proposed standards for residential dishwashers ranges from $0.23 billion (at a 7-

percent discount rate) to $ 2.14 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses 

the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased 

product costs for products purchased in 2019–2048. 

In addition, the proposed standards would have significant environmental 

benefits. The energy savings described above would result in cumulative emission

reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 61.9 million metric tons (Mt)7

of carbon dioxide (CO2), 345.1 thousand tons of methane, 42.9 thousand tons of sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), 126.7 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NOX), 0.7 thousand tons of 

nitrous oxide (N2O), and 0.1 tons of mercury (Hg).

8 The cumulative reduction in CO2

emissions through 2030 amounts to 14.6 Mt.

The value of the CO2 reductions is calculated using a range of values per metric 

ton of CO2 (otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) developed by a 

recent Federal interagency process.9 The derivation of the SCC values is discussed in 

section IV.L of this notice. Using discount rates appropriate for each set of SCC values, 

7 A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for emissions other than CO2 are presented in short 

tons.

8 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the Annual Energy Outlook 2014 (AEO 2014) Reference 

case, which generally represents current legislation and environmental regulations for which implementing 

regulations were available as of October 31, 2013. 9 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 

12866. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government. May 2013; 

revised November 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technicalupdate-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf.

Comment [A3]: Change recommended by OIRA

Comment [A4]: Change recommended by OIRA

11

 
DOE estimates the present monetary value of the CO2 emissions reduction described 

above is between $0.4 billion and $6.1 billion. DOE also estimates the present monetary 

value of the NOX emissions reduction is $0.08 billion at a 7-percent discount rate and 

$0.17 billion at a 3-percent discount rate.10

Table I.3Error! Reference source not found. summarizes the national economic 

costs and benefits expected to result from the proposed standards for residential 

dishwashers.

10 DOE is currently investigating valuation of avoided Hg and SO2 emissions.

Comment [A5]: Change recommended by OIRA

12

 
Table I.3 Summary of National Economic Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy 

Conservation Standards for Residential Dishwashers*

Category

Present 

Value

Billion 2013$

Discount 

Rate

Benefits

Operating Cost Savings

4.1 7%

9.2 3%

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.0/t case)** 0.4 5%

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($40.5/t case)** 2.0 3%

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($62.4/t case)** 3.1 2.5%

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($119/t case)** 6.1 3%

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,684/ton)

0.1 7%

0.2 3%

Total Benefits†

6.2 7%

11.4 3%

Costs

Incremental Installed Costs 3.9 7%

7.1 3%

Total Net Benefits

Including Emissions Reduction Monetized Value† 2.3 7%

4.3 3%

* This table presents the costs and benefits associated with residential dishwashers shipped in 2019−2048. 

These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2048 from the products purchased in 

2019−2048. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due 

to the standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule.

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios 

of the updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 

3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC 

distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an 

escalation factor.

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC

with 3-percent discount rate.

The benefits and costs of today’s proposed standards, for products sold in 2019–

2048, can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary 

values are the sum of (1) the annualized national economic value of the benefits from 

consumer operation of products that meet the new or amended standards (consisting 

13
primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in equipment 

purchase and installation costs, which is another way of representing consumer NPV),

and (2) the annualized monetary value of the benefits of emission reductions, including 

CO2 emission reductions.11

Although combining the values of operating savings and CO2 emission reductions 

provides a useful perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the national 

operating savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of

market transactions, whereas the value of CO2 reductions is based on a global value. 

Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and CO2 savings are performed with 

different methods that use different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost 

savings is measured for the lifetime of residential dishwashers shipped in 2019–2048.

The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of some future climaterelated impacts resulting from the emission of one ton of carbon dioxide in each year.

These impacts continue well beyond 2100.

Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed standards are shown in

Table I.4. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent 

discount rate for benefits and costs other than CO2 reduction, for which DOE used a 3-

11 To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 

2014, 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 2014. The calculation uses

discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO2 reductions, for which 

DOE used case-specific discount rates, as shown in Table I.3. 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.

14

 
percent discount rate along with the average SCC series that has a value of $40.5/t in 

2015, the cost of the standards proposed in today’s rule is $413million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the benefits are $437 million per year in reduced 

equipment operating costs, $113 million in CO2 reductions, and $8.37 million in reduced 

NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $146 million per year. Using a 3-

percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the average SCC series that has a value 

of $40.5/t in 2015, the cost of the standards proposed in today’s rule is $406 million per 

year in increased equipment costs, while the benefits are $529 million per year in reduced 

operating costs, $113 million in CO2 reductions, and $9.95 million in reduced NOX

emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $246 million per year.

15
Table I.4 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation 

Standards for Residential Dishwashers 

Discount Rate

Primary 

Estimate*

Low Net 

Benefits 

Estimate*

High Net 

Benefits 

Estimate*

Million 2013$/year

Benefits

Operating Cost Savings

7% 437 388 506

3% 529 462 624

CO2 Reduction Monetized 

Value ($12.0/t case)* 5% 34 30 39

CO2 Reduction Monetized 

Value ($40.5/t case)* 3% 113 100 131

CO2 Reduction Monetized 

Value ($62.4/t case)* 2.5% 165 146 191

CO2 Reduction Monetized 

Value ($119/t case)* 3% 351 311 406

NOX Reduction Monetized 

Value (at $2,684/ton)

7% 8.37 7.53 9.49

3% 9.95 8.86 11.43

Total Benefits†

7% plus CO2

range

479 to 796 425 to 706 555 to 921

7% 558 496 647

3% plus CO2

range

572 to 890 501 to 782 674 to 1,041

3% 652 572 766

Costs

Consumer Incremental 

Product Costs

7% 413 468 371

3% 406 465 361

Net Benefits

Total†

7% plus CO2

range

66 to 383 -43 to 238 183 to 550

7% 146 28 275

3% plus CO2

range

167 to 484 36 to 317 313 to 680

3% 246 106 405

16
* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with residential dishwashers shipped in

2019−2048. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2048 from the products

purchased in 2019−2048. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by 

manufacturers due to the standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary, 

Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO 2014

Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental product costs 

reflect a medium decline rate for projected product prices in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate for 

projected product prices in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate for projected product prices

in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section 

IV.H.2 of this notice.

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios 

of the updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 

3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC 

distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an 

escalation factor. 

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to the average 

SCC with 3-percent discount rate. In the rows labeled “7% plus CO2 range” and “3% plus CO2 range,” the

operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added

to the full range of CO2 values.

DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent the 

maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would result in the significant conservation of energy. DOE 

further notes that products achieving these standard levels are already commercially 

available for the product classes covered by today’s proposal.

12 See chapter 10, section 

10.2 for more discussion of the base case efficiency distribution. Based on the analyses 

described above, DOE has tentatively concluded that the benefits of the proposed 

standards to the nation (energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, consumer

LCC savings, and emission reductions) would outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV for 

manufacturers and LCC increases for some consumers). 

12 Currently 12.1 percent of the standard product class and 48.1 percent of the compact product class are at 

the minimum efficiency level.

Comment [A6]: Change recommended by OIRA

17

 
DOE also considered more and less stringent energy efficiency levels as trial 

standard levels, and is still considering them in this rulemaking. However, DOE has 

tentatively concluded that the proposed standard level achieves the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically 

justified. Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in response to 

this notice and related information collected and analyzed during the course of this 

rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt energy efficiency levels presented in this notice that 

are either higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) 

that incorporate the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying today’s 

proposal, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the 

establishment of standards for residential dishwashers.

A. Authority

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the 

Act), established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles. Pub. L. 94-163 (as codified in 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309). The program covers 

most major household appliances (collectively referred to as “covered products”), which 

includes the types of residential dishwashers that are the subject of this rulemaking. (42 

U.S.C. 6292(a)(6)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these products 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(1) and (10)(A)), and directed DOE to conduct further rulemakings to 

determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4) and (10)(B)) In 

18
addition, the agency must periodically review its already established energy conservation 

standards for a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) Under this requirement, the next 

review that DOE would need to conduct must occur no later than six years from the 

issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard for a covered product.

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE’s energy conservation program for covered products 

consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing; (2) labeling; (3) the establishment of Federal 

energy conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The 

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is primarily responsible for labeling, and DOE 

implements the remainder of the program. Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE 

is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or 

estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6293) Manufacturers 

of covered products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for 

certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding 

the energy use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, 

DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. Id. The DOE test procedures for residential 

dishwashers currently appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

430, subpart B, appendix C1 (appendix C1).

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing amended standards for 

covered products. As indicated above, any amended standard for a covered product must 

19
be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) 

Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant 

conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a 

standard: (1) for certain products, including residential dishwashers, if no test procedure 

has been established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the proposed 

standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(A)–(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 factors:

1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the 

products subject to the standard;

2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the 

covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial 

charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from 

the imposition of the standard; 

3. The total projected amount of energy, or as applicable, water, savings likely to 

result directly from the imposition of the standard;

4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to 

result from the imposition of the standard;

20
5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

6. The need for national energy and water conservation; and

7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII))

EPCA, 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 of any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics

(including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the 

same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))

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))

21
Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating a standard for a 

type or class of covered product that has two or more subcategories. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) DOE must specify a different standard level than that which applies generally 

to such type or class of products for any group of covered products that have 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. 6294(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related 

feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE must consider such 

factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems

appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the 

basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))

Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State laws or 

regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(a)–(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular 

State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth 

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

Any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated 

after July 1, 2010 must also 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 

22
date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into the standard, or, if that 

is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)) DOE’s current test procedures and standards for residential 

dishwashers address standby mode and off mode energy use. In this rulemaking, DOE 

intends to incorporate such energy use into any amended energy conservation standards it 

adopts in the final rule. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 13563, 

issued on January 18, 2011. 76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011). EO 13563 is supplemental to 

and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory 

review established in EO 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by 

EO 13563 to: (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that 

its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to 

quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent 

practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 

than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; 

and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing 

23
economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable 

permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

DOE emphasizes as well that EO 13563 requires agencies to use the best 

available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance 

costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE believes that today’s NOPR is consistent 

with these principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, 

benefits justify costs and that net benefits are maximized. Consistent with EO 13563, and 

the range of impacts analyzed in this rulemaking, the energy efficiency standards

proposed herein by DOE achieve maximum net benefits.

B. Background

1. Current Standards

In a direct final rule published on May 30, 2012 (hereinafter the “May 2012 direct 

final rule”), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for residential 

dishwashers manufactured on or after May 30, 2013. 77 FR 31918. The current standards 

are set forth in Table II.1.

Table II.1 Federal Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Dishwashers 

Product Class Annual Energy Use

(kWh/year)

Per-Cycle Water Consumption

(gal/cycle)

Standard 307 5.0

Compact 222 3.5

24
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Residential Dishwashers

The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), Pub. L. 

100-12 (March 17, 1989), amended EPCA and required that residential dishwashers be 

equipped with an option to dry without heat. NAECA further required that DOE conduct 

two cycles of rulemakings to determine if amended standards are justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(g)(1) and (4))

On May 14, 1991, DOE issued a final rule establishing performance standards for 

residential dishwashers to complete the first required rulemaking cycle. 56 FR 22250.

Compliance with the new standards, codified at 10 CFR 430.32(f), was required on May 

14, 1994. 

DOE then conducted a second standards rulemaking for residential dishwashers. 

DOE issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) on November 14, 1994

to consider amending the energy conservation standards for residential clothes washers, 

dishwashers, and clothes dryers. 59 FR 56423. Subsequently, DOE published a Notice of 

Availability of the “Rulemaking Framework for Commercial Clothes Washers and 

Residential Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, and Cooking Products.” 71 FR 15059 (Mar. 27, 

2006). On November 15, 2007, DOE published a second ANOPR addressing energy 

conservation standards for these products. 72 FR 64432. On December 19, 2007, 

Congress enacted EISA 2007, which, among other things, established maximum energy 

and water use levels for residential dishwashers manufactured on or after January 1, 

25
2010. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)) DOE codified the statutory standards for these products in 

a final rule published March 23, 2009. 74 FR 12058. 

The current energy conservation standards for residential dishwashers were 

submitted to DOE by groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental 

advocates, and consumer groups. on September 25, 2010. This collective set of 

comments, titled “Agreement on Minimum Federal Efficiency Standards, Smart 

Appliances, Federal Incentives and Related Matters for Specified Appliances” (the “Joint 

Petition”13), recommended specific energy conservation standards for residential 

dishwashers that, in the commenters’ view, would satisfy the EPCA requirements. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)) DOE conducted its rulemaking analyses on multiple residential 

dishwasher efficiency levels, including those suggested in the Joint Petition. In the May 

2012 direct final rule, DOE established energy conservation standards for residential 

dishwashers manufactured on or after May 30, 2013, consistent with the levels suggested 

in the Joint Petition. 77 FR 31918 (May 30, 2012).

DOE is conducting the current energy conservation standards rulemaking 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(m).), which requires that within 6 years of issuing any final 

rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE shall publish either a notice of 

determination that amended standards are not needed or a NOPR including new proposed 

standards. Because the current standards were established in the final rule issued on May 

12, 2012, publication of this notice within the 6-year timeframe satisfies these 

13 DOE Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0060, Comment 1.

Comment [A7]: Change recommended by OIRA

26

 
requirements. The rulemaking will consider any information not available at the time of 

the May 2012 direct final rule. The definition of the TSLs considered in this NOPR is 

discussed in section V.A of this notice.

3. Residential Dishwasher Test Procedure History

DOE originally established its test procedure for residential dishwashers at Title 

10 of CFR, part 430, subpart B, appendix C (appendix C) in 1977. 42 FR 39964 (Aug. 8, 

1977). In 1983, DOE amended the test procedure to revise the representative average-use 

cycles to more accurately reflect consumer use and to address products that use 120 

degrees Fahrenheit (°F) inlet water. 48 FR 9202 (Mar. 3, 1983). DOE amended the test 

procedure again in 1984 to redefine the term “water heating dishwasher.” 49 FR 46533 

(Nov. 27, 1984). In 1987, DOE amended the test procedure to address models that use 50 

°F inlet water. 52 FR 47549 (Dec. 15, 1987). 

In 2001, DOE revised the test procedure’s testing specifications to improve 

testing repeatability, changed the definitions of “compact dishwasher” and “standard 

dishwasher,” and reduced the average number of use cycles per year from 322 to 264. 66 

FR 65091, 65095–97 (Dec. 18, 2001). 

In 2003, DOE again revised the test procedure to more accurately measure 

residential dishwasher efficiency, energy use, and water use. The 2003 residential 

dishwasher test procedure amendments included the following revisions: (1) the addition 

of a method to rate the efficiency of soil-sensing products; (2) the addition of a method to 

Comment [A8]: Change recommended by OIRA

27
measure standby power; and (3) a reduction in the average-use cycles per year from 264 

to 215. 68 FR 51887, 51899–903 (Aug. 29, 2003). 

In 2012, DOE established a new test procedure for residential dishwashers in 

appendix C1. Appendix C1 follows the same general procedures as those included in the 

previously used appendix C, with updates to: (1) revise the provisions for measuring 

energy consumption in standby mode or off mode; (2) add requirements for residential 

dishwashers with water softeners to account for regeneration cycles; (3) require an 

additional preconditioning cycle; (4) include clarifications regarding certain definitions, 

test conditions, and test setup; and (5) replace obsolete test load items and soils. 77 FR 

65942, 65982–87 (Oct. 31, 2012).

The current version of the test procedure at 10 CFR 430.23(c) includes provisions 

for determining estimated annual energy use (EAEU), estimated annual operating cost 

(EAOC), and water consumption expressed in gal/cycle. Because appendix C is now 

obsolete, DOE proposes to delete it in this rulemaking and re-designate appendix C1 as 

appendix C.

III. General Discussion

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides 

covered products into product classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or other 

performance-related features that justifies a different standard. In making a determination

28
whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider 

such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE 

determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))

Existing energy conservation standards divide residential dishwashers into two 

product classes based on capacity (i.e., the number of place settings and serving pieces 

that can be loaded in the product as specified in American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI)/Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) Standard DW-1-2010, 

Household Electric Dishwashers):

• Standard (capacity equal to or greater than eight place settings plus six 

serving pieces); and

• Compact (capacity less than eight place settings plus six serving pieces).

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to maintain the existing standard and compact 

product classes for residential dishwashers. Based on a survey of products available on 

the market, DOE determined that compact residential dishwashers provide unique utility 

by means of their countertop or drawer configurations.

B. 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 working 

29
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. As defined in 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i), DOE considers technologies incorporated in 

commercially available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible.

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; and (3) adverse impacts on health or safety. 10 

CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(ii)–(iv). Section IV.B of this notice 

discusses the results of the screening analysis for residential dishwashers, particularly the 

designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the TSLs 

in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see 

chapter 4 of the NOPR Technical Support Document (TSD).

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class of covered 

product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum 

reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum 

30
technologically feasible (“max-tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for residential 

dishwashers, using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the 

market or in working prototypes. (See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.) The max-tech levels 

that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C.1.b of this 

proposed rule.

C. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from the residential dishwashers 

that are the subject of this rulemaking purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the 

expected year of compliance with any amended standards (2019–2048).14 The savings are 

measured over the entire lifetime of residential dishwashers purchased in the 30-year 

analysis period.15 DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the 

difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the base case. The 

base case represents a projection of energy consumption in the absence of amended 

mandatory efficiency standards, and it considers market forces and policies that affect 

demand for more efficient products.

DOE used its national impact analysis (NIA) spreadsheet model to estimate 

energy savings from amended standards for the products that are the subject of this 

14 DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period. 15 In the past, DOE presented energy savings results for only the 30-year period that begins in the year of 

compliance. In the calculation of economic impacts, however, DOE considered operating cost savings 

measured over the entire lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year period. DOE has modified its 

presentation of national energy savings consistent with the approach used for its national economic 

analysis.

31

 
rulemaking. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this notice) 

calculates energy savings in 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 the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit 

the site electricity. To calculate this quantity, DOE derives annual conversion factors 

from the model used to prepare the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) most 

recent Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). The AEO used for this rulemaking is AEO 2014.

DOE has begun to also estimate full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings, as 

discussed in DOE’s statement of policy and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51281

(Aug. 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). 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 efficiency standards. DOE’s evaluation of FFC savings resulted in part by the 

National Academy of Science’s (NAS) report on FFC measurement approaches for 

DOE’s Appliance Standards Program.16 The FFC methodology estimates how much 

additional energy, and in turn how many tons of emissions, may be displaced if the 

estimated quantity of energy was not consumed by the residential dishwashers covered in 

this rulemaking. For more information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.1 of this 

notice.

16 “Review of Site (Point-of-Use) and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to DOE/EERE Building 

Appliance Energy- Efficiency Standards,’’ (Academy report) was completed in May 2009 and included 

five recommendations. A copy of the study can be downloaded at: 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12670.

Comment [A9]: Change recommended by OIRA

32

 
2. Significance of Savings

To adopt more-stringent 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))

Although the term “significant” is not defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in 

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), 

indicated that Congress intended “significant” energy savings in the context of EPCA to 

be savings that were not “genuinely trivial.” The energy savings for today’s proposed 

standards (presented in section V.B.3.a of this notice) are nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE 

considers them “significant” within the meaning of section 325 of EPCA.

D. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether a potential 

energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The 

following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this 

rulemaking.

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

In determining the impacts of a potential amended standard on manufacturers, 

DOE conducts a manufacturer impact analysis (MIA), as discussed in section IV.J of this 

notice. 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 

33
must comply with the regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The 

industry-wide impacts analyzed include INPV, which values the industry on the basis of 

expected future cash flows; cash flows by year; changes in revenue and income; and 

other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts 

on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, 

DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment and 

manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant closures 

and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts of 

various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.

For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in 

LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These measures are discussed 

further in the following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the 

national net present value of the economic impacts applicable to a particular rulemaking.

DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a national standard.

a. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price

EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs throughout the 

estimated average life of the covered product compared to any increases in the price of 

the covered product that are likely to result from the imposition of the standard. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis. 

34
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including its installation) 

and the operating expense (including energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures) 

discounted over the lifetime of the product. 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. For its analysis, DOE assumes that 

consumers will purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with 

amended standards. 

The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are calculated relative to a 

base case that reflects projected market trends in the absence of amended standards. 

DOE’s LCC and PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this notice.

b. 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.1 of this notice, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet to project 

national energy savings.

c. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

In establishing classes of products, and in evaluating design options and the 

impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates standards that would not lessen the 

35
utility or performance of the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based 

on data from internal testing and the availability of products on the market, DOE has 

determined that the standards proposed in today’s notice would not reduce the utility or 

performance of the products under consideration in this rulemaking.

d. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of competition, as 

determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from a proposed

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to 

determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a 

proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60

days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and 

extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2) (B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of today’s 

proposed rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of Justice 

(DOJ) provide its determination on this issue. DOE will address the Attorney General’s 

determination in the final rule.

e. Need for National Energy Conservation

In evaluating the need for national energy conservation, DOE expects that the 

energy savings from the proposed standards are likely to provide improvements to the 

security and reliability of the nation’s energy system. Reductions in the demand for 

electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the nation’s 

36
electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how standards may 

affect the nation’s needed power generation capacity. 

The proposed standards also are likely to result in environmental benefits in the 

form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with energy 

production. DOE reports the emissions impacts from today’s standards, and from each 

TSL it considered, in section V.B.6 of this notice. DOE also reports estimates of the 

economic value of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed 

in section IV.L of this notice.

f. Other Factors

EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, to consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be 

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

2. Rebuttable Presumption

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 savings in energy (and water, 

if applicable) resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test 

procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE’s LCC and PBP analyses generate values 

used to calculate the effects that proposed energy conservation standards would have on 

the payback period for consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-

37
year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, 

DOE routinely conducts the required economic analysis that considers the full range of 

impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the nation, and the environment. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE’s evaluation of 

the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting 

the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). The rebuttable 

presumption payback calculation is discussed in section IV.F.11 of this proposed rule.

IV. Methodology and Discussion

DOE used two spreadsheet tools to estimate the impact of today’s NOPR. The 

first spreadsheet calculates LCCs and PBPs of potential new energy conservation 

standards. The second provides shipments forecasts and then calculates impacts of 

potential energy efficiency standards on national energy savings and net present value. 

The two spreadsheets are available online at: [INSERT URL]. The Department also 

assessed manufacturer impacts, largely through use of the Government Regulatory 

Impact Model (GRIM). 

Additionally, DOE estimated the impacts on utilities and the environment of 

energy conservation standards for residential dishwashers. DOE used a version of EIA’s 

National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) for the utility and environmental analyses. 

The NEMS model simulates the energy sector of the U.S. economy. EIA uses NEMS to 

prepare its Annual Energy Outlook, a widely known baseline energy forecast for the 

United States. For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy Modeling 

38
System: An Overview, DOE/EIA–0581 (98) (Feb.1998), available at: 

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview/.

The version of NEMS used for appliance standards analysis, which makes minor 

modifications to the AEO version, is called NEMS-BT.17 NEMS-BT accounts for the 

interactions among the various energy supply and demand sectors and the economy as a 

whole.

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 residential dishwasher rulemaking include: (1) scope 

and product classes; (2) manufacturers and industry structure; (3) existing efficiency

programs; (4) shipments information; (5) market and industry trends; and (6) 

technologies that could improve the energy efficiency of residential dishwashers. The key 

findings of DOE’s market assessment are summarized below. See chapter 3 of the NOPR 

TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.

17 EIA approves the use of the name “NEMS” to describe only an AEO version of the model without any 

modification to code or data. Because the present analysis entails some minor code modifications and runs 

the model under various policy scenarios that deviate from AEO assumptions, the name “NEMS-BT” refers 

to the model as used here. (BT stands for DOE’s Building Technologies Program.)

39

 
1. Scope and Product Classes

In 10 CFR 430.2, DOE defines dishwasher as “a cabinet-like appliance which 

with the aid of water and detergent, washes, rinses, and dries (when a drying process is 

included) dishware, glassware, eating utensils, and most cooking utensils by chemical, 

mechanical and/or electrical means and discharges to the plumbing drainage system.” 

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides 

covered products into product classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or other 

performance-related features that justify a different standard. In making a determination 

whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider 

such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE 

determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) For this rulemaking, DOE proposes to 

maintain the scope of coverage as defined by its current regulations for residential 

dishwashers, which include two product classes based on capacity as specified in 

ANSI/AHAM Standard DW-1-2010:

• Compact (capacity less than eight place settings plus six serving pieces); and

• Standard (capacity equal to or greater than eight place settings plus six serving 

pieces). 

2. Technology Options

DOE identified 16 technology options that would be expected to improve the 

efficiency of residential dishwashers: condensation drying; control strategies; fan or jet 

40
drying; flow-through heating; improved fill control; finer filters; increased motor 

efficiency; optimized spray-arm geometry; increased insulation; low standby-loss 

electronic controls; microprocessor controls (including soil-sensing controls); modified 

sump geometry, with and without dual pumps; reduced inlet water temperature; 

supercritical carbon dioxide washing; ultrasonic washing; and variable washing pressures 

and flow rates.

After identifying all potential technology options for improving the efficiency of 

residential dishwashers, DOE performed the screening analysis (see section IV.B of this 

notice and chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD) on these technologies to determine which to 

consider further in the analysis and which to eliminate.

B. Screening Analysis

DOE uses the following four 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 working prototypes will not be considered further.

2. Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is determined that mass 

production and reliable installation and servicing of a technology in commercial 

products could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market 

41
at the time of the compliance date of the standard, then that technology will not be 

considered further.

3. Impacts on product utility or product availability. If it is determined that a 

technology would have significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to 

significant subgroups of consumers or would result in the unavailability of any 

covered product type with performance characteristics (including reliability), 

features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products 

generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be considered 

further.

4. Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a technology would 

have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not be considered 

further.

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 4(a)(4) and 5(b).

In sum, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, 

fails to meet one or more of the above four criteria, it will be excluded from further 

consideration in the engineering analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are 

discussed below.

1. Screened-Out Technologies

Reduced inlet-water temperature

42
Reduced inlet-water temperature requires that residential dishwashers tap the cold 

water line for their water supply. Because most residential dishwashers in the United 

States tap the hot water line, this design option would require significant alteration of 

existing residential dishwasher installations to accommodate newly purchased units 

incorporating this design option. Therefore, DOE believes that it would not be practicable 

to install this technology on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of 

the effective date of an amended standard.

Supercritical carbon dioxide washing

Supercritical carbon dioxide washing, which uses supercritical carbon dioxide 

instead of conventional detergent and water to wash dishes, has been researched but has 

not been implemented in commercially available dishwashers. Thus, DOE believes that it 

would not be practicable to manufacture, install and service this technology on the scale 

necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the effective date of an amended 

standard. Furthermore, because this technology has not progressed beyond the research 

stage, it is not yet possible to assess whether it will have any adverse impacts on 

equipment utility to consumers or equipment availability, or any adverse impacts on 

consumers' health or safety.

Ultrasonic washing

A residential dishwasher using ultrasonic waves to generate a cleaning mist was 

produced for the Japanese market in 2002. However, this model is no longer available on 

the market. Available information indicates that the use of a mist with ion generation 

43
instead of water with detergent would decrease cleaning performance, impacting 

consumer utility. 

Ultrasonic dishwashing based upon soiled-dish immersion in a fluid that is then 

excited by ultrasonic waves has not been demonstrated. In an immersion-based ultrasonic 

dishwasher, standing ultrasonic waves within the washing cavity and the force of bubble 

cavitation implosion can damage fragile dishware. Because no manufacturers currently 

produce ultrasonic dishwashers, it is impossible to assess whether this design option 

would have any impacts on consumers’ health or safety, or product availability.

2. Remaining Technologies

Through a review of each technology, DOE found that all of the other identified 

technologies met all four screening criteria to be examined further in DOE’s analysis. In 

summary, DOE did not screen out the following technology options: condensation 

drying; control strategies; fan or jet drying; flow-through heating; improved fill control; 

finer filters; increased motor efficiency; optimized spray-arm geometry; increased 

insulation; low standby-loss electronic controls; microprocessor controls (including soilsensing controls); modified sump geometry, with and without dual pumps; and variable 

washing pressures and flow rates.

All of these technology options are technologically feasible, given that the 

evaluated technologies are being used in commercially available products or working 

prototypes. Therefore, all of the energy conservation levels evaluated in this notice are 

44
technologically feasible. DOE also finds that all of the remaining technology options also 

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 NOPR TSD.

C. Engineering Analysis

In the engineering analysis DOE establishes the relationship between the 

manufacturer production cost (MPC) and improved residential dishwasher efficiency. 

This relationship serves as the basis for cost-benefit calculations for individual 

consumers, manufacturers, and the nation. DOE typically structures the engineering 

analysis using one of three approaches: (1) design option; (2) efficiency level; or (3) 

reverse engineering (or cost assessment). The design-option approach involves adding the 

estimated cost and associated efficiency of various efficiency-improving design changes 

to the baseline to model different levels of efficiency. The efficiency-level approach uses 

estimates of costs and efficiencies of products available on the market at distinct 

efficiency levels to develop the cost-efficiency relationship. The reverse-engineering 

approach involves testing products for efficiency and determining cost from a detailed 

bill of materials (BOM) derived from reverse engineering representative products. 

For this analysis, DOE relied on a hybrid approach of the three methods. DOE 

selected units available at each of the analyzed efficiency levels to develop a detailed 

BOM for each product, similar to the reverse-engineering approach. However, DOE did 

not assume the costs derived from the BOMs represented the MPC at each efficiency 

45
level. DOE used the design option approach to add features that can improve efficiency 

to the baseline BOM to estimate the MPC at higher efficiency levels, similar to the 

design-option approach. For residential dishwashers, it is difficult to assign a specific 

energy or water savings to a particular design option. DOE observed the sets of design 

options incorporated into units available on the market at each efficiency level to assign 

design options to each of the analyzed efficiency levels, similar to the efficiency-level 

approach. Using this hybrid approach, DOE developed the relationship between MPC 

and residential dishwasher efficiency. 

This section provides more detail on how DOE selected the efficiency levels used 

for its analysis and developed the MPC at each efficiency level. Chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD contains further description of the engineering analysis. 

1. Efficiency Levels

a. Baseline Efficiency Levels

A baseline unit is a unit that just meets current Federal energy conservation 

standards and provides basic consumer utility.

18 DOE identified products available on the 

market rated at the current energy conservation standards levels. (see Table IV.1 below).

Accordingly, DOE analyzed these products as baseline units. DOE uses the baseline unit 

for comparison in several phases of the NOPR analyses, including the engineering 

analysis, LCC analysis, PBP analysis, and NIA. To determine energy savings that will 

result from an amended energy conservation standard, DOE compares energy use at each 

18 The current Federal energy conservation standards went into effect on May 30, 2013.

Comment [A10]: Change recommended by 

OIRA

Comment [A11]: Change recommended by 

OIRA

46

 
of the higher energy efficiency levels to the energy consumption of the baseline unit. 

Similarly, to determine the changes in price to the consumer that will result from an 

amended energy conservation standard, DOE compares the price of a unit at each higher 

efficiency level to the price of a unit at the baseline. Additional details on the selection of 

baseline units may be found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

Table IV.1 presents the baseline levels identified for each residential dishwasher 

product class. 

Table IV.1 Baseline Efficiency Levels

Product Class Annual Energy Use 

(kWh/year)

Per-Cycle Water 

Consumption

(gal/cycle)

Standard 307 5.0

Compact 222 3.5

b. Higher Energy Efficiency Levels

Table IV.2 shows the efficiency levels DOE selected for standard residential 

dishwashers in this NOPR analysis.

Table IV.2 Residential Dishwasher Efficiency Levels – Standard Product Class

Efficiency Level Annual Energy Use 

(kWh/year)

Per-Cycle Water 

Consumption

(gal/cycle)

0 – Baseline 307 5.00

1 295 4.25

2 280 3.50

3 234 3.10

4 – Max-Tech 180 2.22

For standard residential dishwashers, DOE selected efficiency levels according to 

key levels identified in other efficiency programs and based on availability of products on 

47
the market. Efficiency Level 1 corresponds to the existing ENERGY STAR19 criteria for 

standard residential dishwashers. Efficiency Level 2 corresponds to potential ENERGY 

STAR criteria identified during the process of setting the current ENERGY STAR 

criteria. This level was included in the Draft 2 V5.0 Dishwashers Specification, released

on February 3, 2011.20 Efficiency Level 3 is a gap-fill level developed as described 

below. Efficiency Level 4 is the max-tech efficiency level, as defined by the maximum 

available technology that DOE identified on the market at the time of its analysis. DOE 

did not identify any working prototypes that were more efficient than this maximum 

available technology.

21

To determine the appropriate Efficiency Level 3, DOE surveyed the products 

currently available on the market in the United States. DOE’s Compliance Certification 

Database22 contains standard residential dishwasher models with a range of rated annual 

energy consumption and per-cycle water consumption between the max-tech and 

baseline. However, after removing products certified using a cold-water connection, 

which DOE screened out as a technology option as discussed in section IV.B of this 

notice, DOE observed that very few products are available with rated annual energy 

consumption below 234 kWh/year and per-cycle water consumption below 3.1 gal/cycle. 

19 Information on the ENERGY STAR program can be found at energystar.gov. 20 The draft specification document is available at 

https://www.energystar.gov/products/specs/sites/products/files/ES_Draft_2_V5.0_Dishwashers_Specificati

on.pdf. DOE notes that this level was removed from the Final V5.0 Dishwashers Specification, and 

subsequent specification versions 5.1 and 5.2; however, the energy and water consumption represent a 

technically feasible efficiency level beyond the current ENERGY STAR criteria.

21 DOE notes that a standard residential dishwasher is available with rated annual energy consumption of 

171 kWh/year and water consumption of 4.1 gal/cycle. These ratings are based on a cold-water connection, 

which DOE eliminated from consideration as a technology option in the screening analysis. 22 DOE’s Compliance Certification Database is accessible at http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certificationdata/. 

48

 
Figure IV.1 shows the distribution of standard residential dishwashers included in DOE’s 

Compliance Certification Database, after removing models certified using a cold-water 

connection. DOE developed efficiency level 3 based on this distribution.

Figure IV.1: Market Availability of Standard Residential Dishwashers23

Table IV.3 shows the efficiency levels DOE considered for compact residential 

dishwashers in this NOPR analysis.

Table IV.3: Residential Dishwasher Efficiency Levels – Compact Product Class

Efficiency Level Annual Energy Use 

(kWh/year)

Per-Cycle Water 

Consumption

(gal/cycle)

0 – Baseline 222 3.50

1 203 3.10

2 – Max-Tech 141 2.00

Based on basic model numbers listed in DOE’s Compliance Certification 

Database, DOE expects that fewer than 10 individual compact basic models are currently 

23 Units certified using a cold-water connection removed. Database accessed on May 22, 2014.

49

 
available on the market. The majority of models included in the Compliance Certification 

Database are also rated either at the baseline or max-tech efficiency level. In the

ENERGY STAR Draft 2 Version 6.0 Residential Dishwasher Specification24, however, 

the Environmental Protection Agency proposed eligibility criteria for compact residential 

dishwashers consistent with Efficiency Level 1 shown in Table IV.3. As part of its 

proposal, ENERGY STAR discussed feasible energy and water improvements for 

compact products with manufacturers. ENERGY STAR’s supporting analysis included 

the expected design options manufacturers would use to reach this intermediate 

efficiency level. Accordingly, DOE considered the proposed compact ENERGY STAR 

criteria as an efficiency level in this analysis. Efficiency Level 2 is the maximum 

available efficiency level, as defined by the maximum available technology that DOE 

could identify on the market at the time of its analysis. DOE did not identify any working 

prototypes that were more efficient than the maximum available technology.

2. Manufacturer Production Cost Estimates

Based on product teardowns and cost modeling, DOE developed overall costefficiency relationships for the standard and compact residential dishwasher product 

classes. DOE selected products covering the range of efficiencies available on the market 

for the teardown analysis. During the teardown process, DOE created detailed BOMs that 

included all components and processes used to manufacture the products. DOE used the 

BOMs from the teardowns as an input to a cost model, which was used to calculate the 

MPC for each product torn down. 

24 Information on the ENERGY STAR specification is available at: 

https://www.energystar.gov/products/specs/residential_dishwasher_specification_version_6_0_pd. 

50

 
As discussed earlier in this section, DOE used a hybrid approach of the designoption, efficiency-level, and reverse-engineering approaches in this engineering analysis. 

During the teardown process, DOE observed the combinations of design options 

manufacturers used to reach higher efficiency levels. Using the BOMs from the products 

torn down, DOE constructed typical BOMs for each efficiency level to estimate the MPC 

based on the expected combinations of design options at each efficiency level. Table IV.4

and Table IV.5 show the incremental MPCs for each of the analyzed residential 

dishwasher efficiency levels compared to the baseline efficiency level MPC. For 

additional details, see chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

Table IV.4 Cost-Efficiency Relationship for Standard Residential Dishwashers

Efficiency 

Level

Annual 

Energy Use

(kWh/year)

Per-Cycle Water 

Consumption

(gal/cycle)

Incremental Manufacturer 

Production Cost

(2013$)

0 – Baseline 307 5.00 $ -

1 295 4.25 $ 9.52

2 280 3.50 $ 36.53

3 234 3.10 $ 74.72

4 – Max-Tech 180 2.22 $ 74.72

Table IV.5 Cost-Efficiency Relationship for Compact Residential Dishwashers

Efficiency 

Level

Annual 

Energy Use

(kWh/year)

Per-Cycle Water 

Consumption

(gal/cycle)

Incremental Manufacturer 

Production Cost

(2013$)

0 – Baseline 222 3.50 $ -

1 203 3.10 $ 8.01

2 – Max-Tech 141 2.00 $ 21.50

51
D. Markups Analysis

The markups analysis develops appropriate markups in the distribution chain to 

convert the MPC estimates derived in the engineering analysis to consumer prices. At 

each step in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product to cover 

business costs and profit margin. For residential dishwashers, the main parties in the 

distribution chain are manufacturers and retailers. 

The manufacturer markup converts MPC to manufacturer selling price (MSP). 

DOE developed an average manufacturer markup by examining the annual Securities and 

Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports filed by publicly traded manufacturers 

primarily engaged in appliance manufacturing and whose combined product range 

includes residential dishwashers. 

For retailers, DOE developed separate markups for baseline products (baseline 

markups) and for the incremental cost of more efficient products (incremental markups). 

Incremental markups are coefficients that relate the change in the MSP of higherefficiency models to the change in the retailer sales price. DOE relied on economic data 

from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate average baseline and incremental markups.25

Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE’s development of markups 

for residential dishwashers.

25 U.S. Census, 2007 Annual Retail Trade Survey (ARTS), Electronics and Appliance Stores sectors

52

 
E. Energy and Water Use Analysis

DOE’s energy and water use analysis estimated the range of energy and water use 

of residential dishwashers in the field, i.e., as they are actually used by consumers. The 

energy and water use analysis provided the basis for other analyses DOE performed, 

particularly assessments of the energy and water savings and the savings in consumer 

operating costs that could result from DOE’s adoption of amended standards. 

DOE determined a range of annual energy use and per-cycle water consumption 

of residential dishwashers by multiplying the per-cycle energy use and per-cycle water 

use of each considered design by the number of cycles per year in a representative sample 

of U.S. households.

26

DOE analyzed per-cycle energy consumption based on two components: (1) 

water-heating energy, and (2) machine (motor) and drying energy., values for which are 

taken from data developed by DOE in the engineering analysis. See chapter 5 of the 

NOPR TSD for more information. The largest component of residential dishwasher 

energy consumption is water-heating energy use, which is the energy required to heat the 

inlet water to the temperature for dishwashing. The machine energy consists of the motor 

energy (for water pumping and food disposal), and drying energy consists of heat to dry 

cleaned dishes. 

26 For the dishwasher standards rulemaking, DOE estimated consumer usage (cycles per year) to establish 

dishwasher annual energy use within the life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) analysis. To 

estimate average dishwasher usage, DOE utilized a 2001 Arthur D. Little (ADL) report that focused solely 

on dishwashers. Information from the ADL report was used to determine an average usage of 215 cycles 

per year. DOE used the Residential Energy Consumption Survey 2009 (RECS 2009) to characterize 

household variability of dishwasher usage. 

Comment [A12]: Change recommended by 

OIRA

Comment [A13]: Change recommended by 

OIRA

53

 
DOE estimated the per-cycle water-heating energy consumption based on DOE’s 

residential dishwasher test procedure (which refers to this quantity as “water energy 

consumption”). DOE estimated this energy consumption for residential dishwashers that 

operate with a nominal inlet water temperature of 120 oF27, the most common situation in 

U.S. homes. For a residential dishwasher using electrically heated water, the waterheating energy consumption, expressed in kWh per cycle, is equal to the water 

consumption per cycle times a nominal water heater temperature rise of 70 oF times the 

specific heat of water (0.0024 kWh per gallon per oF).28 For a residential dishwasher 

using gas-heated or oil-heated water, the calculation is the same, but also incorporates a 

nominal water heater recovery efficiency of 0.80 for gas-fired water heating and 0.78 for 

oil-fired water heating.

29

The energy used to operate the machine powers the motor (to pump water and 

dispose of food) and the heating element, which boosts the supplied water’s temperature 

to the required washing temperature. DOE estimated the per-cycle machine and drying

energy consumption for representative units at each efficiency level by subtracting the 

per-cycle water-heating energy consumption from the per-cycle dishwasher energy 

consumption as determined in the engineering analysis. 

27 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, and 

Conventional Cooking Products. Available at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/05/25/2012-

11155/energy-conservation-program-test-procedures-for-residential-dishwashers-dehumidifiers-and#h-58. 28 The water heater temperature rise of 70 oF assumes an average water heater inlet temperature of 50 oF, as 

specified as the national average in the dishwasher test procedure.

29 The recovery efficiency indicates how efficient a water heater is at heating water. The DOE test 

procedure for dishwashers specifies a recovery efficiency of 0.80 for gas-fired water heating and 0.78 for 

oil-fired water heating, which is representative of gas and oil water heaters currently in the housing stock.

54

 
Standby power is defined as a product’s minimum power consumption while 

plugged in and not performing any active mode function.

30 DOE estimated the per-cycle 

energy use by subtracting the annual energy use associated with standby power from the 

total annual energy use and dividing the result by the national average number of 

residential dishwasher cycles per year. DOE used data provided by AHAM for the May 

2012 direct final rule on the total annual residential dishwasher energy use and the 

standby power use for each considered efficiency level.31

DOE determined the standby annual energy consumption by multiplying the 

energy use in standby mode per hour by the hours the residential dishwasher is in standby 

mode, which is the difference between the number of hours in a year and the active hours, 

which is equal to the number of residential dishwasher cycles per year multiplied by 

cycle time, which is estimated to be 1 hour.32

DOE estimated the per-cycle water use by efficiency level in its engineering 

analysis, as described in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

30 Active mode includes the main functions of washing, rinsing, or drying (when a drying process is 

included), or is involved in functions necessary for these main functions, such as admitting water into the 

dishwasher, pumping water out of the dishwasher, circulating air, or regenerating an internal water 

softener. For more information, see the DOE dishwasher test procedure at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix C1.

31 For more information, see chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD. 32 The 1-hour cycle time is an estimate of the typical cycle time for a dishwasher. Actual cycle times vary 

based on wash selection, load, and model of dishwasher.

Comment [A14]: Change recommended by 

OIRA

Comment [A15]: Change recommended by 

OIRA

55

 
To estimate the number of cycles per year in a representative sample of U.S. 

households, DOE considered the following data sources. DOE analyzed data from the 

Energy Information Administration (EIA)’s 2009 Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey (RECS 2009), which was the most recent such survey available at the time of 

DOE’s analysis.33 RECS is a national sample survey of housing units that collects 

statistical information on the consumption of and expenditures for energy in housing 

units along with data on energy-related characteristics of the housing units and occupants. 

Of the more than 12,000 households in RECS, almost 7,400 have residential dishwashers. 

For each household using a residential dishwasher, RECS provides data on the number of 

residential dishwasher cycles in the following bins: (1) less than once per week, (2) once 

per week, (3) 2–3 times per week, (4) 4–6 times per week, (5) at least once per day. 

DOE converted the above information to annual values and created a triangular or 

uniform distribution for each bin. DOE randomly assigned a specific numerical value 

from within the appropriate bin to each household in the residential dishwasher sample. 

The average number of cycles per year derived from the RECS 2009 data is 171.

While the RECS data represent the most recent nationally representative sample 

of dishwasher usage, the binning approach that the RECS survey uses to collect the data 

does not allow for the derivation of a point estimate to help determine annual energy and 

water use without making assumptions about the distribution of usage within bins. For 

example, of the 18% of national households that responded that they used their 

33 Arthur D. Little. “Review of Survey Data to Support Revisions to DOE’s Dishwasher Test Procedure,” 

December 18, 2001. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy by Arthur D. Little: Cambridge, MA. 

Available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/survey_data.pdf

For information on RECS, see ..

Comment [A16]: Change recommended by 

OIRA

56

 
dishwashers at least once per day, it is not known what percentage of these households 

use their dishwashers more than once a day or if viewed weekly, more than 7 times a 

week. Because the RECS data do not include point estimates of usage, DOE relies on 

survey data it used to develop the 2003 residential dishwasher test procedure amendments 

and analyzed again during the 2012 standards rulemaking, DOE analyzed a review of 

survey data34 to estimate the average number of residential dishwasher cycles per year. In 

the review, survey data on consumers’ residential dishwasher usage habits from the 

1990’s were collected from a number of sources including several residential dishwasher 

manufacturers, detergent manufacturers, energy and consumer interest groups, 

independent researchers, and government agencies. These data were also used to develop 

the 2003 residential dishwasher test procedure amendments, This study provides a large 

data set of point estimates which included a reductionDOE believes is the best source of 

information on usage rates at present. This survey review was used in the development of 

the 2003 residential dishwasher test procedure amendments to reduce the average cycles 

per year from 264 to 215.

35 Because the survey data are more comprehensive than the 

RECS data, for , which DOE believed was more reflective of dishwasher use nation-wide 

at the time and was not inconsistent with the steady decrease over the previous 20 years 

34 Arthur D. Little. “Review of Survey Data to Support Revisions to DOE’s Dishwasher Test Procedure,” 

December 18, 2001. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy by Arthur D. Little: Cambridge, MA. 

Available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/survey_data.pdf

Note that several of the surveys used in this review share the problem of defining a single value for a 

category (i.e, a point estimate), but to a much less extent than the RECS data. Generally the other surveys 

minimize this issue by including more categories, by better distributing categories, and by having more 

bounded categories.

35 68 FR 51887 (Aug. 29, 2003). The 215 value was based on the review’s recommendation that the 

number of average-use cycles per year be reduced into the range of 200 to 233 cycles.

Comment [A17]: Change recommended by 

OIRA

Comment [A18]: Change recommended by 

OIRA

57

 
in the average-use cycles for a dishwasher.

36 Because of the facts detailed above, DOE is 

proposing in today’s proposed rule DOE choseto use an average usage of 215 cycles per 

year as the most representative value for average residential dishwasher use.

To estimate the annual instead of 171 cycles estimated from the RECS survey 

data. DOE notes that 215 cycles per year is the number of cycles for each RECS 

household in the residential dishwasher sample, DOE multiplied the specific value 

derived from RECS by the ratio of 215 cycles to 171 cycles (the RECS average).required 

to be used to calculate energy usage in DOE’s test procedure for residential dishwashers 

which is also the basis for the ENERGY GUIDE label administered by the Federal Trade 

Commission. DOE further notes that alternative analysis that relies on additional 

assumptions regarding use patterns within the “binned” RECS data could yield results 

similar to those from the earlier data, depending on the assumptions made for each of the 

bins. DOE does recognize that dishwasher usage data are a key input when calculating 

energy and water use and ultimately have a direct effect on the benefits derived from 

estimated energy and water use savings described by this proposed rulemaking. DOE is 

aware that a point estimate for the annual number of dishwasher cycles is subject to 

uncertainty given how data on this topic are collected. Given this uncertainty, DOE 

encourages the public to comment on its use of these surveys and the limitations of each.

36 68 FR 51887 (Aug. 29, 2003) and Arthur D. Little. “Review of Survey Data to Support Revisions to 

DOE’s Dishwasher Test Procedure,” December 18, 2001. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy by 

Arthur D. Little: Cambridge, MA. Available at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/survey_data.pdf . The 215 

value was based on the review’s recommendation that the number of average-use cycles per year be 

reduced into the range of 200 to 233 cycles.

Comment [A19]: Change recommended by 

OIRA

Comment [A20]: Change recommended by 

OIRA

58

 
DOE did not assume that all dishwashers are operated exactly at the average 

usage per year and used other survey data to characterize the variability in the usage. For 

purposes of conducting the LCC and PBP analysis, DOE characterized each usage bin 

with a probability distribution. To capture the uncertainty inherent to the usage response 

for each household in the RECS sample, DOE used a Monte Carlo simulation in the LCC 

and PBP analysis that selects a value for usage within the distribution that is used to 

characterize each bin. The result of using probability distribution to characterize the 

RECS response bins provided a weighted-average dishwasher usage of 171 cycles per 

year.

Although DOE characterized the usage bins with probability distributions, it is 

certainly possible and equally likely that the weighted-average value is as low as 146 and 

as high as 453. This uncertainty led DOE to conclude that the ADL survey review, which 

focused more closely and solely on dishwasher usage habits, provided a more 

representative value for the average number of cycles per year that did the RECS survey. 

The sorting of user responses in RECS into usage frequency bins, however, allowed DOE 

to use RECS 2009 to capture dishwasher usage variability from household to household 

(since not every household will run the average number of dishwasher cycles per year). 

The LCC and PBP analysis normalized the dishwasher usage by the ratio of 215-to-171

cycles per year. The resulting range of values used in the LCC analysis is consistent with 

the average use in the DOE residential dishwasher test procedure.

Comment [A21]: Change recommended by 

OIRA

59
Table IV.6 and Table IV.7 show the estimated average annual energy and water 

use for each efficiency level analyzed for standard residential dishwashers.

Table IV.6 Standard Residential Dishwashers: Average Annual Energy and Water 

Use by Efficiency Level

Efficiency 

Level

Annual Energy Use Annual

Water

Use Water Heating* Machine + Drying Standby† Total

kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year gal/year

Baseline 177.0 130.0 0.0 307 1,075.0

1 150.4 140.3 4.3 295 913.8

2 123.9 151.8 4.3 280 752.5

3 109.7 120.0 4.3 234 666.5

4 78.6 97.1 4.3 180 477.3

* Shown for the case of electrically heated water.

† Standby annual energy use based on a dishwasher cycle length of one hour. 

Standby hours = 8760 hours – (215 cycles x 1 hour) = 8545 hours.

Table IV.7 Compact Residential Dishwashers: Average Annual Energy and Water 

Use by Efficiency Level

Efficiency 

Level

Annual Energy Use Annual

Water

Use Water Heating* Machine + Drying Standby† Total

kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year gal/year

Baseline 123.9 78.4 19.7 222 752.5

1 109.7 78.7 14.5 203 666.5

2 70.8 65.9 4.3 141 430.0

* Shown for the case of electrically heated water.

† Standby annual energy use based on a dishwasher cycle length of 1 hour. 

Standby hours = 8760 hours – (215 cycles x 1 hour) = 8545 hours.

Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE’s energy and water use 

analysis for residential dishwashers.

60
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts on 

individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for residential 

dishwashers. The LCC is the total consumer expense over the life of a product, consisting 

of purchase and installation costs plus operating costs (expenses for energy use, 

maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future 

operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the product. 

The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the 

increased purchase cost (including installation) of a more efficient product through lower 

operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost due to a 

more stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost for the year that new 

standards are assumed to take effect.

For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC relative to an 

estimate of the base-case appliance efficiency distribution. The base-case estimate 

reflects the market in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards, 

including the market for products that exceed the current energy conservation standards.

In contrast, the PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.

For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE calculated the 

LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of housing units. As stated previously, 

DOE developed household samples from the 2009 RECS. For each sample household, 

DOE determined the energy consumption for the residential dishwasher and the 

61
appropriate electricity price. By developing a representative sample of households, the 

analysis captured the variability in energy consumption and energy prices associated with 

the use of residential dishwashers.

Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost of the product—

which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, retailer and distributor markups, and sales 

taxes—and installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses include 

annual energy consumption, energy and water prices and price projections, repair and 

maintenance costs, product lifetimes, discount rates, and the year that compliance with 

standards is required. DOE created distributions of values for product lifetime, discount 

rates, and sales taxes, with probabilities attached to each value, to account for their 

uncertainty and variability. 

The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC and PBP, which incorporates 

Crystal BallTM (a commercially available software program), relies on a Monte Carlo 

simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the analysis. The Monte Carlo 

simulations randomly sample input values from the probability distributions and 

residential dishwasher user samples. The model calculated the LCC and PBP for products 

at each efficiency level for 10,000 housing units per simulation run. 

DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all customers as if each were to purchase a 

new product in the year that compliance with any amended standards is expected to be

required. Any amended standards would apply to residential dishwashers manufactured 3 

62
years after the date on which any final amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(g)(10)(B)) For today’s NOPR, DOE estimates publication of any final standards in 

2016. Therefore, for purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2019 as the first year of 

compliance with any amended standards.

Table IV.8 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive inputs to the 

LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow provide further discussion. 

Details of the spreadsheet model, and of all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are 

contained in chapter 8 and its appendices of the NOPR TSD.

63
Table IV.8 Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis*

Inputs Source/Method

Product Cost Derived by multiplying MPCs by manufacturer and retailer markups and 

sales tax, as appropriate. Used historical data to derive a price scaling 

index to forecast product costs.

Installation Costs Baseline installation cost determined with data from RS Means. Assumed 

no change with efficiency level.

Annual Energy and 

Water Use

The sum of the total per-cycle annual energy and water use multiplied by 

the number of cycles per year and the standby annual energy use. 

Average number of cycles based on ADL field data.

Variability: Based on the 2009 RECS normalized to the average number 

of cycles.

Energy and Water 

Prices

Electricity: Based on EIA’s Form 861 data for 2012. 

Gas: Based on EIA’s Natural Gas Navigator for 2012.

LPG: Based on EIA’s State Energy Consumption, Price and Expenditures

Estimates for 2012.

Variability: Regional energy prices determined for 27 regions. 

Water: Based on 2012 AWWA/Raftelis Survey.

Variability: By census region.

Energy and Water 

Price Trends

Energy: Forecasted using AEO 2014 price forecasts.

Water: Forecasted using BLS historic water price index information.

Repair and 

Maintenance Costs

Assumed no change with efficiency level.

Product Lifetime Estimated using survey results from RECS (1990, 1993, 1997, 2001, 

2005, 2009) and the U.S. Census American Housing Survey (2005, 

2007), along with historic data on appliance shipments.

Variability: Characterized using Weibull probability distributions.

Discount Rates Approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might 

be used to purchase the considered appliances, or might be affected 

indirectly. Primary data source was the Federal Reserve Board’s SCF** 

for 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2010. 

Compliance Date 2019

* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or 

in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.

** Survey of Consumer Finances.

1. Product Cost

To calculate consumer product costs, DOE multiplied the MPCs developed in the 

engineering analysis by the supply-chain markups described above (along with sales 

taxes). DOE used different markups for baseline products and higher-efficiency products, 

64
because DOE applies an incremental markup to the increase in MSP associated with 

higher-efficiency products. 

Economic literature and historical data suggest that the real costs of many 

products may trend downward over time according to “learning” or “experience” curves.

Experience curve analysis focuses on entire industries (often operating globally) and 

aggregates over many causal factors that may not be well characterized. Experience curve 

analysis implicitly includes factors such as efficiencies in labor, capital investment, 

automation, materials prices, distribution, and economies of scale at an industry-wide 

level.37

For the default price trend for this NOPR, DOE estimated an experience rate for 

residential dishwashers based on an analysis of long-term historical data. Producer Price 

Index (PPI) data specific to residential dishwashers were not available. Instead, DOE 

derived a residential dishwasher price index from 1988 to 2013 using Producer Price 

Index (PPI) data for miscellaneous household appliances from the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS). An inflation-adjusted price index was calculated using the implicit price 

deflators for GDP for the same years. This proxy for historic price data was then 

regressed on the cumulative quantity of residential dishwashers produced, based on a 

corresponding series for total shipments of residential dishwashers.

37 Taylor, M. and Fujita, K.S. Accounting for Technological Change in Regulatory Impact Analyses:

The Learning Curve Technique. LBNL-6195E. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. 

April 2013. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3c8709p4#page-1

65

 
To calculate an experience rate, a least-squares power-law fit was performed on 

the residential dishwasher price index versus cumulative shipments (including imports). 

DOE then derived a price factor index, with the price in 2013 equal to 1, to forecast 

prices in the year of compliance for amended energy conservation standards in the LCC 

and PBP analysis, and for the NIA, for each subsequent year through 2048. The index 

value in each year is a function of the experience rate and the cumulative production 

through that year. To derive the latter, DOE used projected shipments from the base-case 

projections made for the NIA (see section IV.G of this notice). The average annual rate of 

price decline in the default case is 1.33 percent. 

2. Installation Cost 

Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and 

parts needed to install the product. DOE used data from the 2013 RS Means Plumbing 

Cost data book38 to estimate the baseline installation cost. DOE found no evidence that 

installation costs would be impacted with increased efficiency levels.

3. Annual Energy and Water Consumption

For each sampled household, DOE determined the energy and water consumption 

for a residential dishwasher at different efficiency levels using the approach described 

above in section IV.E of this notice.

38 RS Means, Residential Cost Data, 2013.

66

 
4. Energy Prices

DOE derived average annual residential electricity prices for 27 geographic 

regions using data from EIA’s Form EIA-861 database (based on “Annual Electric Power 

Industry Report”).39 DOE calculated an average annual regional residential price by: (1) 

estimating an average residential price for each utility (by dividing the residential 

revenues by residential sales); and (2) weighting each utility by the number of residential 

consumers it served in that region. The NOPR analysis used the data for 2012. 

DOE calculated average residential natural gas prices for each of the 27

geographic regions using data from EIA’s “Natural Gas Monthly.”40 DOE calculated 

average annual regional residential prices by: (1) estimating an average residential price 

for each state; and (2) weighting each state by the number of residential consumers. The 

NOPR analysis used the data for 2012.

DOE calculated average residential LPG prices for each of the 27 geographic 

regions using data from EIA’s “State Energy Consumption, Price, and Expenditures 

Estimates (SEDS).”41 DOE calculated average annual regional residential prices by: (1) 

estimating an average residential price for each State; and (2) weighting each State by the 

number of residential consumers. The NOPR analysis used the data for 2012.

39 Available at: www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html 40 Available at: http://www.eia.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/natural_gas_monthly/ngm.html. 41 Available at: http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/seds-data-fuel.cfm?sid=US

67

 
To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the average regional 

energy prices discussed in the preceding section by the forecast of annual nationalaverage residential energy price changes in the Reference case from AEO 2014, which 

has an end year of 2040.

42 To estimate price trends after 2040, DOE used the average 

annual rate of change in prices from 2020 to 2040.

5. Water and Wastewater Prices

For today’s NOPR, DOE obtained data on water and wastewater prices for 2012

from the Water and Wastewater Rate Survey conducted by Raftelis Financial Consultants 

and the water utility association, American Water Works Association. The survey, which 

analyzes each industry separately, covers approximately 290 water utilities and 214

wastewater utilities. The water survey includes, for each utility, the cost to consumers of 

purchasing a given volume of water or treating a given volume of wastewater. The data 

provide a division of the total consumer cost into fixed and volumetric charges. DOE’s 

calculations use only the volumetric charge to calculate water and wastewater prices, 

because only this charge is affected by a change in water use. Average water and 

wastewater prices were estimated for each of four census regions. Each RECS household 

was assigned a water and wastewater price depending on its census region location. 

To estimate the future trend for water and wastewater prices, DOE used data on 

the historic trend in the national water price index (U.S. city average) from 1970 through 

2012, combined with the all-products CPI for this same period. It extrapolated a future 

42 U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2013 with 

Projections to 2040 (Available at: <http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/>). 

68

 
trend based on the linear inflation-adjusted growth during the 1970 to 2012 period. DOE 

used the projected inflation-adjusted water price trend to forecast water and wastewater 

prices for residential dishwashers.

Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD provides more detail about DOE’s approach to 

developing water and wastewater prices.

6. Maintenance and Repair Costs

Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing components that have 

failed in an appliance; maintenance costs are associated with maintaining the operation of 

the product. Typically, small incremental increases in product efficiency produce no, or 

only minor, changes in repair and maintenance costs compared to baseline efficiency 

products. 

During the rulemaking for the May 2012 direct final rule, DOE requested 

information as to whether maintenance and repair costs are a function of efficiency level 

and product class. Manufacturers responded that these costs would not increase with 

efficiency. DOE does not expect repair costs to have changed since the last rulemaking; 

therefore, DOE did not assume that more efficient residential dishwashers would have 

greater repair or maintenance costs.

DOE did not have data showing how many households would repair rather than 

replace their dishwashers. The replacement frequency is determined by a survival 

69
function which is part of the shipments model. DOE used an accounting method that 

tracks the total stock of units by vintage. DOE estimated a stock of dishwashers by 

vintage by integrating historical shipments starting from 1972. Depending on the vintage, 

a certain percentage of units will fail and need to be replaced. To estimate how long a 

unit will function before failing, DOE used a survival function based on a product 

lifetime distribution having an average value of approximately 15 years. Because DOE 

assumed that a consumer's decision to replace or repair their dishwasher was not 

impacted by an increase in dishwasher efficiency, the replacement frequency was 

unaffected by the increased installed cost, the repair cost, and the energy costs savings 

associated with more efficient dishwashers. 

7. Product Lifetime

Because the lifetime of appliances varies depending on utilization and other 

factors, DOE develops a distribution of lifetimes from which specific values are assigned 

to the appliances in the household sample. DOE conducted an analysis of residential 

dishwasher lifetimes in the field based on a combination of shipments data and RECS

2009 data on the ages of the residential dishwashers reported in the household stock. As 

described in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD, the analysis yielded an estimate of mean age 

for residential dishwashers of approximately 15 years. It also yielded a survival function 

that DOE incorporated as a probability distribution in its LCC analysis. See chapter 8 of 

the NOPR TSD for further details on the method and sources DOE used to develop 

product lifetimes.

Comment [A22]: Change recommended by 

OIRA

70
8. Discount Rates

In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate to households 

to estimate the present value of future operating costs. DOE estimated a distribution of 

residential discount rates for dishwashers based on consumer financing costs and 

opportunity cost of funds related to appliance energy cost savings and maintenance costs. 

To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE’s approach 

involved identifying all relevant household debt or asset classes in order to approximate a 

consumer’s opportunity cost of funds related to appliance energy cost savings and 

maintenance costs. It estimated the average percentage shares of the various types of debt 

and equity by household income group using data from the Federal Reserve Board’s 

Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) for 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2010.43

Using the SCF and other sources, DOE then developed a distribution of rates for each 

type of debt and asset by income group to represent the rates that may apply in the year in 

which amended standards would take effect. DOE assigned each sample household a 

specific discount rate drawn from one of the distributions. The average rate across all 

types of household debt and equity and income groups, weighted by the shares of each 

class, is 4.49 percent. See chapter 8 in the NOPR TSD for further details on the 

development of consumer discount rates.

43 Note that two older versions of the SCF are also available (1989 and 1992); these surveys are not used in 

this analysis because they do not provide all of the necessary types of data (e.g., credit card interest rates). 

DOE determines that the 15-year span covered by the six surveys included is sufficiently representative of 

recent debt and equity shares and interest rates.

71

 
9. Base-Case Efficiency Distribution

To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be affected by a 

standard at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s LCC analysis considered the projected 

distribution of product efficiencies that consumers purchase under the base case (i.e., the 

case without new energy efficiency standards). DOE refers to this distribution of product 

of efficiencies as a base-case efficiency distribution. 

To estimate the base-case efficiency distribution of standard residential 

dishwashers for 2019, DOE relied on data submitted by AHAM for the May 2012 direct 

final rule. These data provide shares of shipments by efficiency level for 2002–2005 and 

2008–2010. These data show a significant increase in the share of ENERGY STAR 

products in both periods. To predict the market shares for each efficiency level in 2019, 

DOE conducted efficiency distribution analysis based on the DOE’s Compliance 

Certification Database for standard residential dishwashers and considered the market 

trends present in the AHAM data, and assumed these trends would continue in a manner 

consistent with the decline in average energy use. This trend is described in chapter 10 of 

the NOPR TSD. DOE also conducted efficiency distribution analysis based on DOE’s 

Compliance Certification Database for compact residential dishwashers.

The estimated shares for the base-case efficiency distribution for residential

dishwashers are shown in Table IV.9. See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for further 

information on the derivation of the base-case efficiency distributions. For standard

residential dishwashers, DOE also considered an alternative base-case efficiency 

72
distribution that uses a different set of historical data. This distribution is described in 

appendix 8-F of the NOPR TSD.

Table IV.9 Residential Dishwasher Base-Case Efficiency Distribution by Product 

Class in 2013

Efficiency 

Level

Standard Compact 

Annual 

Energy Use

(kWh/year)

% of shipments Annual 

Energy Use

(kWh/year)

% of 

shipments

Baseline 307 12.1 222 48.1

1 295 43.9 203 14.8

2 234 3.2 141 37.0

3 180 0.4 -- --

10. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis

The payback period is the amount of time it takes the consumer to recover the 

additional installed cost of more efficient products, compared to baseline products, 

through energy cost savings. Payback periods are expressed in years. Payback periods 

that exceed the life of the product mean that the increased total installed cost is not 

recovered in reduced operating expenses.

The inputs to the PBP calculation for each efficiency level are the change in total 

installed cost of the product and the change in the first-year annual operating 

expenditures relative to the baseline. The PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the 

LCC analysis, except that discount rates are not needed. 

73
11. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Period

As noted above, EPCA, as amended, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a 

standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the 

consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level 

will be less than three times the value of the energy (and, as applicable, water) savings 

during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as 

calculated under the test procedure in place for that standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered efficiency level, DOE determined the value of the 

first year’s energy and water savings by calculating the quantity of those savings in 

accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure, and multiplying that amount by the 

average energy and water price forecast for the year in which compliance with the 

amended standard would be required. The results of the rebuttable payback period 

analysis are summarized in section V.B.1.c of this notice.

G. Shipments 

DOE uses forecasts of product shipments to calculate the national impacts of 

potential amended energy conservation standards on energy use, NPV, and future 

manufacturer cash flows. DOE develops shipment projections based on historical data 

and an analysis of key market drivers for residential dishwashers. In DOE’s shipments 

model, shipments of products are driven by new construction and stock replacements. 

The shipments model takes an accounting approach, tracking market shares of each 

product class and the vintage of units in the existing stock. Stock accounting uses product 

shipments as inputs to estimate the age distribution of in-service product stocks for all 

74
years. The age distribution of in-service product stocks is a key input to calculations of 

both the NES and NPV, because operating costs for any year depend on the age 

distribution of the stock. DOE also considers the impacts on shipments from changes in 

product purchase price and operating cost associated with higher energy efficiency levels. 

New housing forecasts and residential dishwasher saturation data comprised the 

two primary inputs for DOE’s estimates of new construction shipments. “New housing” 

includes newly-constructed single-family and multi-family units (referred to as “new 

housing completions”) and mobile home placements. For new housing completions and 

mobile home placements, DOE used AEO 2014 for forecasts of new housing, and 

adopted the projections from AEO 2014 for later years.

DOE calibrated the shipments model against historical residential dishwasher 

shipments. In general, DOE estimated replacements using a product retirement function 

developed from product lifetime. DOE based the retirement function on a probability 

distribution for the product lifetime that was developed in the LCC analysis. The 

shipments model assumes that no units are retired below a minimum product lifetime and 

that all units are retired before exceeding a maximum product lifetime.

DOE applied a price elasticity parameter to estimate the effect of standards on 

residential dishwasher shipments. DOE estimated the price elasticity parameter from a 

regression analysis that used purchase price and efficiency data specific to several 

residential appliances during 1980–2002. The estimated “relative price elasticity” 

75
incorporates the impacts from purchase price, operating cost, and household income. 

Based on evidence that the price elasticity of demand is significantly different over the 

short run and long run for other consumer goods (i.e., automobiles),44 DOE assumed that 

the relative price elasticity declines over time. DOE estimated shipments in each 

standards case using the relative price elasticity along with the change in the relative 

price between a standards case and the base case. For details on the shipments analysis, 

see chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD.

H. National Impact Analysis

The NIA assesses the national energy savings (NES) and the national net present 

value NPV of total consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result from new 

or amended standards at specific efficiency levels. (“Consumer” in this context refers to 

consumers of the product being regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and NPV based on 

projections of annual appliance shipments, along with the annual energy consumption 

and total installed cost data from the energy use and LCC analyses.45 For the present 

analysis, DOE forecasted the energy savings, operating cost savings, product costs, and 

NPV of consumer benefits over the lifetime of products sold from 2019 through 2048. 

DOE evaluates the impacts of new and amended standards by comparing basecase projections with standards-case projections. The base-case projections characterize 

energy use and consumer costs for each product class in the absence of new or amended 

44 S. Hymans. Consumer Durable Spending: Explanation and Prediction, Brookings Papers on Economic 

Activity, 1971. Vol. 1971, No. 1, pp. 234-239. 45 For the NIA, DOE adjusts the installed cost data from the LCC analysis to exclude sales tax, which is a 

transfer.

76

 
energy conservation standards. DOE compares these projections with projections 

characterizing the market for each product class if DOE adopted new or amended 

standards at specific energy efficiency levels (i.e., the TSLs or standards cases) for that 

class. For the base-case forecast, DOE considers historical trends in efficiency and 

various forces that are likely to affect the mix of efficiencies over time. For the standards 

cases, DOE also considers how a given standard would likely affect the market shares of 

efficiencies greater than the standard. 

DOE uses a spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and the national 

consumer costs and savings from each TSL. The TSD that DOE provides during the 

rulemaking help explain the models and how to use them, and interested parties can 

review DOE’s analyses by changing various input quantities within the spreadsheet. The 

NIA spreadsheet model uses typical values (as opposed to probability distributions) as 

inputs.

For the results presented in today’s notice, DOE used projections of energy prices 

and housing starts from the AEO 2014 Reference case. As part of the NIA, DOE 

analyzed scenarios that used inputs from the AEO 2014 Low Economic Growth and High 

Economic Growth cases. Those cases have higher and lower energy price trends 

compared to the Reference case, as well as higher and lower housing starts, which result 

in higher and lower appliance shipments to new homes. NIA results based on these cases 

are presented in appendix 10-C of the NOPR TSD. 

77
Table IV.10 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA analysis 

for the NOPR. Discussion of these inputs and methods follows the table. See chapter 10 

of the NOPR TSD for further details.

Table IV.10 Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact Analysis 

Inputs Method

Shipments Annual shipments from shipments model.

Compliance Date of Standard 2019

Base-Case Forecasted 

Efficiencies

Efficiency distributions are forecasted based on 

historical efficiency data.

Standards-Case Forecasted 

Efficiencies

Used a “roll-up” scenario. 

Annual Energy Consumption 

per Unit

Annual weighted-average values are a function of 

energy use at each CSL.

Total Installed Cost per Unit Annual weighted-average values are a function of 

cost at each CSL.

Incorporates forecast of future product prices based 

on historical data.

Annual Energy Cost per Unit Annual weighted-average values as a function of the 

annual energy consumption per unit and energy 

prices. 

Repair and Maintenance Cost 

per Unit

Annual values do not change with efficiency level.

Energy Prices AEO 2014 forecasts (to 2040) and extrapolation 

through 2048. 

Energy Site-to-Source 

Conversion Factor

Varies yearly and is generated by NEMS-BT. 

Discount Rate Three and seven percent real.

Present Year Future expenses discounted to 2014, when the NOPR 

will be published. 

1. National Energy and Water Savings

The national energy and water savings analysis involves a comparison of national 

energy and water consumption of the considered products in each potential standards case 

78
(TSL) with consumption in the base case with no new or amended energy and water 

conservation standards. DOE calculated the national energy consumption by multiplying 

the number of units (stock) of each product (by vintage or age) by the unit energy 

consumption (also by vintage). Vintage represents the age of the product. DOE calculated 

annual NES based on the difference in national energy consumption for the base case 

(without amended efficiency standards) and for each higher efficiency standard. DOE 

estimated energy consumption and savings based on site energy and converted the 

electricity consumption and savings to primary energy using annual conversion factors 

derived from the AEO 2014 version of NEMS. Cumulative energy savings are the sum of 

the NES for each year over the timeframe of the analysis.

DOE has historically presented NES in terms of primary energy savings. In the 

case of electricity use and savings, this quantity includes the energy consumed by power 

plants to generate delivered (site) electricity.

In response to the recommendations of a committee on “Point-of-Use and FullFuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy Efficiency Standards” appointed by the 

National Academy of Sciences, DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of 

energy use and greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses and 

emissions analyses included in future energy conservation standards rulemakings. 76 FR 

51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 

notice, DOE published a statement of amended policy in the Federal Register in which 

79
DOE explained its determination that NEMS is the most appropriate tool for its FFC 

analysis and its intention to use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).

a. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case and Standards Cases

A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency forecasted for the 

base case (without new or amended standards) and each of the standards cases. Section 

IV.F.9 of this notice describes how DOE developed a base-case energy efficiency 

distribution (which yields a shipment-weighted average efficiency) for each of the 

considered product classes for the first year of the forecast period. To project the trend in 

efficiency for standard residential dishwashers over the entire forecast period, DOE 

utilized the historical trend in shipment-weighted average efficiency from 2002 to 2010, 

as provided by AHAM, model-weighted data from the DOE’s Compliance Certification 

Database and considered the potential effect of programs such as ENERGY STAR. The 

historical trend demonstrates that the shipment-weighted average annual energy use 

decreased by almost 75 percent from 2002 to 2010, reaching 309 kWh/year. DOE fit an 

exponential function to the 2002 to 2010 data that indicated that the base-case shipmentweighted average annual energy use will asymptotically approach a value of 280 

kWh/year by 2048 and remain at that level. This trend is described in chapter 10 of the 

NOPR TSD.

DOE determined that a roll-up scenario is most appropriate to establish the 

distribution of efficiencies for the year that compliance with revised residential 

dishwasher standards would be required. Under the “roll-up” scenario, DOE assumes: (1) 

80
product efficiencies in the base case that do not meet the standard level under 

consideration would “roll-up” to meet the new standard level; and (2) product efficiencies 

above the standard level under consideration would not be affected. The details of DOE’s 

approach to forecast efficiency trends are described in chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD.

2. Net Present Value Analysis

The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits experienced by 

consumers of considered appliances are: (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total annual 

savings in operating costs, and (3) a discount factor. DOE calculates net savings each 

year as the difference between the base case and each standards case in total savings in 

operating costs and total increases in installed costs. DOE calculates operating cost 

savings over the life of each product shipped during the forecast period.

The operating cost savings are primarily energy cost savings. These are calculated 

using the estimated energy savings in each year and the projected price of the appropriate 

form of energy. To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the average 

regional energy prices discussed in the preceding section by the forecast of annual 

national-average residential energy price changes in the Reference case from AEO 2014, 

which has an end year of 2040. To estimate price trends after 2040, DOE used the 

average annual rate of change in prices from 2020 to 2040.

In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future years by a 

discount factor to determine their present value. For today’s NOPR, DOE estimated the 

81
NPV of consumer benefits using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE 

uses these discount rates in accordance with guidance provided by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory 

analysis.46 The discount rates for the determination of NPV are in contrast to the discount 

rates used in the LCC analysis, which are designed to reflect a consumer’s perspective. 

The 7-percent real value is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to private 

capital in the U.S. economy. The 3-percent real value represents the “social rate of time 

preference,” which is the rate at which society discounts future consumption flows to 

their present value.

a. Total Installed Cost per Unit

As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this notice, DOE developed a residential 

dishwasher price trend based on an experience rate for miscellaneous household 

appliances. It used this trend to forecast the prices of residential dishwashers sold in each 

year in the forecast period. DOE applied the same values to forecast prices for each 

product class at each considered efficiency level. By 2048, which is the end date of the 

forecast period, the price is forecasted to drop 37.4 percent relative to 2013. DOE’s 

projection of product prices for residential dishwashers is described in further detail in 

appendix 10-C of the NOPR TSD.

To evaluate the effect of uncertainty regarding the price trend estimates, DOE 

investigated the impact of different product price forecasts on the consumer NPV for the 

46 OMB Circular A-4 (Sept. 17, 2003), section E, “Identifying and Measuring Benefits and Costs. Available 

at: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03-21.html.

82

 
considered TSLs for residential dishwashers. In addition to the default price trend, DOE 

considered two product price sensitivity cases: (1) a high price decline case based on an 

exponential fit using PPI data for 1988 to 2013; (2) a low price decline case based on an 

experience rate derived using PPI and shipments data for 1991 to 2000. The derivation of 

these price trends and the results of these sensitivity cases are described in appendix 10-C

of the NOPR TSD. In the high price decline case, the NPV is significantly higher than in 

the default case. In the low price decline case, the NPV is slightly lower than in the 

default case. The rank order of the TSLs is the same in all of the cases.

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended standards on consumers, 

DOE evaluates the impact on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be 

disproportionately affected by a national standard. DOE evaluated impacts on particular 

subgroups of consumers by analyzing the LCC impacts and PBP for those particular 

consumers from alternative standard levels. For this rule, DOE analyzed the impacts of 

the considered standard levels on low-income households and senior-only households.

Chapter 11 in the NOPR TSD describes the consumer subgroup analysis.

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

The following sections address the various steps taken to analyze the impacts of 

the amended standards on manufacturers. 

83
1. Overview

In determining whether an amended energy conservation standard for residential 

dishwashers is economically justified, DOE is required to consider “the economic impact 

of the standard on the manufacturers and on the consumers of the products subject to 

such standard.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)) The statute also calls for an assessment of 

the impact of any lessening of competition that is likely to result from the adoption of a 

standard as determined by the Attorney General. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) DOE 

conducted the MIA to estimate the financial impact of amended energy conservation 

standards on manufacturers, and to assess the impacts of such standards on employment 

and manufacturing capacity.

The MIA involves both quantitative analysis and qualitative evaluation. The 

quantitative elements of the MIA rely on the Government Regulatory Impact Model 

(GRIM), an industry cash-flow model customized for this rulemaking. See section IV.J.2

of this notice for details on the GRIM. The qualitative parts of the MIA address factors 

such as product characteristics, characteristics of particular firms, and market trends. The 

complete MIA is discussed in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD. DOE conducted the MIA in 

the three phases described below.

a. Phase 1, Industry Profile

In Phase 1 of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of the residential dishwasher 

manufacturing industry based on the market and technology assessment prepared for this 

rulemaking. Before initiating the detailed impact studies, DOE collected information on 

84
the present and past market structure and characteristics of the industry, tracking trends in 

market share data, product attributes, product shipments, manufacturer markups, and the 

cost structure for various manufacturers.

The profile also included an analysis of manufacturers in the industry using 

Security and Exchange Commission 10–K filings,

47 Standard & Poor’s stock reports,48

and corporate annual reports released by both public and privately held companies. DOE 

used this and other publicly available information to derive preliminary financial inputs 

for the GRIM including industry revenues, cost of goods sold, and depreciation, as well 

as selling, general, and administrative (SG&A), and research and development (R&D) 

expenses. Based on its analysis, DOE used the same industry average financial 

parameters developed in support of the May 2012 direct final rule.

b. Phase 2, Industry Cash Flow Analysis

Phase 2 focused on the financial impacts of potential amended energy 

conservation standards on the industry as a whole. Amended energy conservation 

standards can affect manufacturer cash flows in three distinct ways: (1) by creating a 

need for increased investment, (2) by raising production costs per unit, and (3) by altering 

revenue due to higher per-unit prices and/or possible changes in sales volumes. DOE 

used the GRIM to model these effects in a cash-flow analysis of the residential 

dishwasher manufacturing industry. In performing this analysis, DOE used the financial 

parameters from the 2012 residential dishwasher energy conservation standards 

47 Available online at www.sec.gov. 48 Available online at www2.standardandpoors.com.

85

 
rulemaking, the cost-efficiency curves from the engineering analysis, and the shipment 

assumptions from the NIA.

c. Phase 3, Sub-Group Impact Analysis

Using average cost assumptions to develop an industry-cash-flow estimate may 

not adequately assess differential impacts of amended energy conservation standards 

among manufacturer subgroups. For example, small businesses, manufacturers of niche 

products, or companies exhibiting a cost structure that differs significantly from the 

industry average could be more negatively affected. While DOE did not identify any 

other subgroup of manufacturers of residential dishwashers that would warrant a separate 

analysis, DOE specifically investigated impacts on small business manufacturers. See 

section VI.B of this notice for more information.

The MIA also addresses the direct impact on employment tied to the

manufacturing of residential dishwashers. Using the GRIM, census data and information 

gained through manufacturer interviews conducted in support of the May 2012 direct 

final rule, DOE estimated the domestic labor expenditures and number of domestic 

production workers in the base case and at each TSL from 2014 to 2048.

2. GRIM

DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flow that alter industry 

value. The GRIM is a standard, discounted cash-flow model that incorporates 

manufacturer costs, markups, shipments, and industry financial information as inputs, and 

86
models changes in manufacturing costs, shipments, investments, and margins that may 

result from amended energy conservation standards. The GRIM uses these inputs to 

arrive at a series of annual cash flows, beginning with the base year of the analysis, 2014,

and continuing to 2048. DOE uses the industry-average weighted-average cost of capital 

(WACC) of 8.5 percent, as this represents the minimum rate of return necessary to cover 

the debt and equity obligations manufacturers use to finance operations.

DOE used the GRIM to compare INPV in the base case with INPV at various 

TSLs (the standards cases). The difference in INPV between the base and standards cases 

represents the financial impact of the amended standard on manufacturers. Additional 

details about the GRIM can be found in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.

a. GRIM Key Inputs

Manufacturer Production Costs

Changes in the MPCs of residential dishwashers can affect revenues, gross 

margins, and cash flow of the industry, making product cost data key inputs for DOE’s 

analysis. DOE estimated the MPCs for standard and compact product classes at the 

baseline and higher efficiency levels, as described in section IV.C of this notice. The cost 

model also disaggregated the MPCs into the cost of materials, labor, overhead, and 

depreciation. DOE used the MPCs and cost breakdowns as described in section IV.C of 

this notice, and further detailed in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD, for each efficiency level 

analyzed in the GRIM.

87
Base-Case Shipments Forecast

The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues in each year of the forecast based in 

part on total unit shipments and the distribution of these values by efficiency level and 

product class. Changes in the efficiency mix and total shipments at each standard level 

affect manufacturer finances. For this analysis, the GRIM uses the NIA shipments 

forecasts from 2013 to 2048, the end of the analysis period.

To calculate shipments, DOE developed a shipments model for each product class 

based on an analysis of key market drivers for residential dishwashers. For greater detail 

on the shipments analysis, see section IV.G of this notice and chapter 9 of the NOPR 

TSD.

Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

Amended energy conservation standards may cause manufacturers to incur 

conversion costs to bring their production facilities and product designs into compliance. 

For the MIA, DOE classified these costs into two major groups: (1) product conversion 

costs and (2) capital conversion costs. Product conversion costs are investments in 

research, development, testing, marketing, and other non-capitalized costs focused on 

making product designs comply with the amended energy conservation standard. Capital 

conversion costs are investments in property, plant, and equipment needed to adapt or 

change existing production facilities so that new product designs can be fabricated and 

assembled.

88
DOE’s estimates of the product and capital conversion costs for the residential 

dishwasher manufacturing industry can be found in section V.B.2 of this notice and in 

chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.

b. GRIM Scenarios

Standards-Case Shipments Forecasts

The MIA results presented in section V.B.2 of this notice all use shipments from 

the NIA in the GRIM. For standards case shipments, DOE assumed that base-case 

shipments of products that did not meet the new standard would roll up to meet the 

standard in the compliance year. These forecasts also include the impact of relative price 

elasticity on shipment volumes. In this regard the balance of first costs and operating 

costs factor into the total shipments in the standards case. See section IV.G of this notice 

for a description of the standards-case efficiency distributions. 

The NIA also used historical data to derive a price scaling index to forecast 

product costs. The MPCs and MSPs in the GRIM use the default price forecast for all 

scenarios. See section IV.F.1 of this notice for a discussion of DOE’s price forecasting 

methodology.

Capital Conversion Cost Scenarios

DOE developed two model scenarios for the capital conversion costs required to 

meet each TSL. One scenario is based on the capital conversion costs developed for the 

energy conservation standards from the May 2012 direct final rule, scaled to reflect the 

89
new efficiency levels for each product class considered in this NOPR. Additionally, DOE 

developed a separate capital conversion cost scenario using the engineering cost model. 

For this estimate, DOE identified the design pathways considered in the engineering 

analysis, estimated the cost of the changes in production equipment to implement each 

design option, and aggregated these costs to reflect the industry-wide investment using 

market information about the number of platform and product families currently on the 

market from each manufacturer.

Markup Scenarios

MSP is equal to MPC times a manufacturer markup. The MSP includes direct 

manufacturing production costs (i.e., labor, material, and overhead estimated in DOE’s 

MPCs) and all non-production costs (i.e., SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with profit. 

DOE used the baseline manufacturer markup, 1.24, developed for the May 2012 direct 

final rule for all products when modeling the base case in the GRIM.

For the standards case in the GRIM, DOE modeled two markup scenarios to 

represent the uncertainty regarding the potential impacts on prices and profitability for 

manufacturers following the implementation of amended energy conservation standards. 

For both GRIM markup scenarios, DOE placed no premium on higher efficiency 

products. This assumption is informed by a market structure in which 88 percent of 

product shipments currently adhere to ENERGY STAR standards, leaving little to no 

room for differentiation by efficiency level alone. The two standards-case markup 

scenarios are (1) a preservation of gross margin as a percentage of revenues markup 

90
scenario, and (2) a preservation of earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) markup 

scenario. Modifying these markups from the base case to the standards cases yields 

different sets of impacts on industry revenues and cash flow. 

The preservation of gross margin as a percentage of revenues markup scenario 

assumes that the baseline markup of 1.24 is maintained for all products in the standards 

case. This scenario represents the upper bound of industry profitability as manufacturers 

are able to fully pass through additional costs due to standards to their customers under 

this scenario.

The preservation of EBIT markup scenario is similar to the preservation of gross 

margin as a percentage of revenues markup scenario with the exception that in the 

standards case, minimally compliant products lose a fraction of the baseline markup. This 

scenario represents the lower bound profitability and a more substantial impact on the 

dishwasher industry as manufacturers accept a lower margin in an attempt to offer price 

competitive entry level products while maintaining the same level of EBIT they saw prior 

to amended standards.

3. Manufacturer Interviews

For this rulemaking, DOE relies on information gathered from manufacturer 

interviews conducted in support of the May 2012 direct final rule. For that rulemaking, 

DOE interviewed manufacturers representing more than 80 percent of residential 

dishwasher sales. These interviews were in addition to those DOE conducted as part of 

91
the engineering analysis for the May 2012 direct final rule. DOE used these interviews to 

tailor the GRIM for today’s rule to incorporate unique financial characteristics of the 

industry. All interviews provided information that DOE used to evaluate the impacts of 

potential amended energy conservation standards on manufacturer cash flows, 

manufacturing capacities, and employment levels. See appendix 12-A of the NOPR TSD 

for additional information on the previous MIA interviews. The following sections 

describe the most significant issues identified by manufacturers during the interviews 

conducted in support of the May 2012 direct final rule. 

a. Dishwasher Performance 

All manufacturers interviewed expressed concerns about the potential impacts of 

amended standards on product performance, citing several adverse consequences of 

standards above those agreed upon in the Joint Petition. For higher efficiency standards, 

the performance metrics manufacturers expected to be most severely impacted include 

wash performance, drying performance, cycle time, and the noise levels reached in 

operation. In considering these metrics, manufacturers anticipated negative reactions 

ranging from small but meaningful changes in consumer behavior to higher rates of 

service calls and returns. For efficiency standards well above those proposed in the Joint 

Petition, manufacturers expected blanket rejection of poorly performing products in the 

market. In considering impacts to wash performance, manufacturers cited an increase in 

unnecessary rinsing or washing of dishes prior to loading the dishwasher, switching to a 

more aggressive cycle, and running multiple cycles when dishes are not adequately 

cleaned in a single cycle as the most likely changes in consumer behavior. Manufacturers 

92
suggested that any of these changes would result in an increase in both energy and water 

consumption over that used by a dishwasher of satisfactory performance. To mitigate the 

impact of future standards on product performance, several manufacturers recommended 

the adoption of a performance metric into the test procedure and standard.

While all manufacturers suggested that the efficiency level specified in the Joint 

Petition would not likely have a substantial negative impact on wash performance, some 

manufacturers noted that standards above this level would result in a decrease in 

performance unless substantially higher-cost technology changes were implemented. The 

comments did not indicate the specific technology changes that would be required. Even 

without such technology changes, however, several manufacturers offer or have offered

products at efficiency levels above those specified by the Joint Petition, including the 

max-tech efficiency level identified in today’s proposed rule. Accordingly, DOE 

evaluated these higher efficiency levels as part of this rulemaking. 

DOE conducted investigative testing to assess cleaning performance in support of 

this NOPR according to the ENERGY STAR Test Method for Determining Dishwasher 

Cleaning Performance (Cleaning Performance Test Method).49 The testing included 

multiple units from different manufacturers at multiple efficiency levels. Based on this 

internal testing and the availability of products on the market, DOE determined that 

products from the baseline efficiency level to Efficiency Level 3 for standard residential 

dishwashers are able to maintain cleaning performance.

93

 
b. Test Procedures

During interviews conducted as part of the development of the May 2012 direct 

final rule for residential dishwashers, manufacturers raised concerns over the DOE 

dishwasher test procedure and the multitude of additional dishwasher test procedures in 

the field at that time. Several manufacturers suggested that the DOE test procedure did 

not accurately capture the energy used by dishwashers in the field. These manufacturers 

cited the single cycle specification and lack of performance metrics in the test procedure 

as providing an easy avenue for circumvention of the standards. In the scenario 

described, manufacturers could optimize a particular cycle to perform well on the DOE 

test procedure with the implicit understanding that this cycle will not meet customer 

expectations and thus will not be used in the field as customers opt for a different, more 

energy-intensive cycle.

In contrast, other manufacturers raised concerns over expanding the test 

procedure to cover multiple cycles, citing the additional testing burden this would 

generate. Similarly, some manufacturers raised concerns over how DOE would 

implement a performance test, noting that there already exist numerous performance tests 

in the industry including those developed by AHAM, IEC, and Consumer Reports and 

that each performance test procedure favors a different machine cycle algorithm.

As discussed in sections II.A and II.B.3 of this notice, the DOE test procedure for 

residential dishwashers is found at Title 10 of CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix C1

94
(proposed to be redesignated as appendix C in today’s rule). Although appendix C1 does 

not include provisions for measuring cleaning performance, the ENERGY STAR 

program recently finalized the Cleaning Performance Test Method. The Cleaning 

Performance Test Method harmonizes with the procedures in appendix C1, requiring 

manufacturers to test on the same cycles. Appendix C1 also requires that testing be 

conducted on the cycles recommended for completely washing a full load of normally 

soiled dishes.

c. Increased Competition 

During interviews conducted in support of the May 2012 direct final rule, 

manufacturers of both baseline and high efficiency products anticipated an increase in 

competition in industry stemming from amended standards. Manufacturers whose market 

share was largely attributed to baseline products expected to see either the removal of 

features from higher efficiency units as a means to cut costs to maintain a low-cost 

minimally-compliant product, or the disappearance of entry-level models as they are 

forced to add other features and cost in line with current higher efficiency products. If the 

latter approach prevails, manufacturers of higher efficiency products expected to see 

increased competition as manufacturers that previously focused on low efficiency 

products moved into their target segment of the market. As noted in section III.D.1.c of 

this notice, the Attorney General provides DOE with a determination and analysis of the 

impact of any lessening of competition that is likely to result from the imposition of the 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) 

95
d. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

During interviews conducted in support of the May 2012 direct final rule, several 

manufacturers noted that residential dishwashers are but one of a suite of appliances they 

produce and that the cumulative burden of research and development to meet standards, 

capital expenditures and retraining of staff to produce products at the new standards, and 

product testing to certify compliance of new products represent a significant burden when 

taken in combination across their various product lines. Manufacturers suggested that the 

ability to establish standards in a coordinated fashion by such vehicles as the Joint 

Petition and receiving adequate notice of DOE’s plans for amended standards are both 

necessary elements in mitigating the cumulative burden and aligning changes in 

efficiency regulations with the product development cycle. Cumulative regulatory burden 

is discussed further in section V.B.2.e of this notice and chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.

K. Emissions Analysis

In the emissions analysis, DOE estimates the reduction in power sector emissions 

of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and mercury (Hg) 

from potential energy conservation standards for residential dishwashers. In addition to 

estimating impacts of standards on power sector emissions, DOE estimates emissions 

impacts in production activities (extracting, processing, and transporting fuels) that provide 

the energy inputs to power plants. These are referred to as “upstream” emissions. 

Together, these emissions account for the FFC. In accordance with DOE’s FFC 

Statement of Policy (76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011) as amended at 77 FR 49701 (August 

96
17, 2012)), the FFC analysis also includes impacts on emissions of methane (CH4) and 

nitrous oxide (N2O), both of which are recognized as greenhouse gases. 

DOE primarily conducted the emissions analysis using emissions factors for CO2

and most of the other gases derived from data in AEO 2014. Combustion emissions of 

CH4 and N2O were estimated using emissions intensity factors published by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 

Factors Hub.50 DOE developed separate emissions factors for power sector emissions and 

upstream emissions. The method that DOE used to derive emissions factors is described 

in chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD.

For CH4 and N2O, DOE calculated emissions reduction in tons and also in terms 

of units of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq). Gases are converted to CO2eq by 

multiplying each ton of the greenhouse gas by the gas's global warming potential (GWP) 

over a 100-year time horizon. Based on the Fifth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,51 DOE used GWP values of 28 for CH4 and 

265 for N2O.

EIA prepares the AEO using NEMS. Each annual version of NEMS incorporates 

the projected impacts of existing air quality regulations on emissions. AEO 2014

50 See http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/guidance/ghg-emissions.html. 51 IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the 

Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. 

Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Chapter 8.

97

 
generally represents current legislation and environmental regulations, including recent 

government actions, for which implementing regulations were available as of October 31, 

2013.

SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units (EGUs) are subject to 

nationwide and regional emissions cap-and-trade programs. Title IV of the Clean Air Act 

sets an annual emissions cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous States and 

the District of Columbia (D.C.). SO2 emissions from 28 eastern States and D.C. were also 

limited under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR, 

which created an allowance-based trading program that operates along with the Title IV 

program, was remanded to the EPA by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit, but it remained in effect.52 In 2011, EPA issued a replacement for 

CAIR, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). On 

August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision to vacate CSAPR.53 The court 

ordered EPA to continue administering CAIR. The emissions factors used for today’s 

NOPR, which are based on AEO 2014, assume that CAIR remains a binding regulation 

through 2040.54

52 See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008); North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008).

53 See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 81 

U.S.L.W. 3567, 81 U.S.L.W. 3696, 81 U.S.L.W. 3702 (U.S. June 24, 2013) (No. 12-1182). 54 On April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the D.C. Circuit and remanded the 

case for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. The Supreme Court held in part 

that EPA's methodology for quantifying emissions that must be eliminated in certain states due to their 

impacts in other downwind states was based on a permissible, workable, and equitable interpretation of the 

Clean Air Act provision that provides statutory authority for CSAPR. See EPA v. EME Homer City

Generation, No 12-1182, slip op. at 32 (U.S. April 29, 2014). Because DOE is using emissions factors 

based on AEO 2014 for today's NOPR, the NOPR assumes that CAIR, not CSAPR, is the regulation in 

force. The difference between CAIR and CSAPR is not relevant for the purpose of DOE's analysis of SO2

emissions.

98

 
The attainment of emissions caps is typically flexible among EGUs and is 

enforced through the use of emissions allowances and tradable permits. Beginning in 

2016, however, SO2 emissions will decline significantly as a result of the Mercury and 

Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for power plants. 77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). In the final 

MATS rule, EPA established a standard for hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for acid gas 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP), and also established a standard for SO2 (a non-HAP acid 

gas) as an alternative equivalent surrogate standard for acid gas HAP. The same controls 

are used to reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; thus, SO2 emissions will be reduced as a 

result of the control technologies installed on coal-fired power plants to comply with the 

MATS requirements for acid gas. AEO 2014 assumes that, in order to continue operating, 

coal plants must have either flue gas desulfurization or dry sorbent injection systems 

installed by 2016. Both technologies, which are used to reduce acid gas emissions, also 

reduce SO2 emissions. Under the MATS, emissions will be far below the cap established 

by CAIR, so it is unlikely that excess SO2 emissions allowances resulting from the lower 

electricity demand would be needed or used to permit offsetting increases in SO2

emissions by any regulated EGU. Therefore, DOE believes that energy efficiency 

standards will reduce SO2 emissions in 2016 and beyond.

CAIR established a cap on NOX emissions in 28 eastern States and the District of 

Columbia.55 Energy conservation standards are expected to have little effect on NOX

55 CSAPR also applies to NOX, and it would supersede the regulation of NOX under CAIR. As stated 

previously, the current analysis assumes that CAIR, not CSAPR, is the regulation in force. The difference

between CAIR and CSAPR with regard to DOE’s analysis of NOX is slight.

99

 
emissions in those States covered by CAIR because excess NOX emissions allowances 

resulting from the lower electricity demand could be used to permit offsetting increases 

in NOX emissions. However, standards would be expected to reduce NOX emissions in 

the States not affected by the caps, so DOE estimated NOX emissions reductions from the 

standards considered in today’s NOPR for these States.

The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not include 

emissions caps. DOE estimated mercury emissions using emissions factors based on 

AEO 2014, which incorporates the MATS.

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

As part of the development of this proposed rule, DOE considered the estimated 

monetary benefits from the reduced emissions of CO2 and NOX that are expected to result 

from each of the TSLs considered. In order to make this calculation analogous to the 

calculation of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE considered the reduced emissions 

expected to result over the lifetime of equipment shipped in the forecast period for each 

TSL. This section summarizes the basis for the monetary values used for each of these 

emissions and presents the values considered in this NOPR.

For today’s NOPR, DOE relied on a set of values for the SCC that was developed 

by a Federal interagency process. The basis for these values is summarized below, and a 

more detailed description of the methodologies used is provided as an appendix to 

chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD.

100
1. Social Cost of Carbon

The SCC is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an incremental 

increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is intended to include (but is not limited 

to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from 

increased flood risk, and the value of ecosystem services. Estimates of the SCC are 

provided in dollars per metric ton of CO2. A domestic SCC value is meant to reflect the 

value of damages in the United States resulting from a unit change in CO2 emissions, 

while a global SCC value is meant to reflect the value of damages worldwide.

Under section 1(b) of Executive Order 12866, agencies must, to the extent 

permitted by law, “assess both the costs and the benefits of the intended regulation and, 

recognizing that some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 

justify its costs.” The purpose of the SCC estimates presented here is to allow agencies to 

incorporate the monetized social benefits of reducing CO2 emissions into cost-benefit 

analyses of regulatory actions. The estimates are presented with an acknowledgement of 

the many uncertainties involved and with a clear understanding that they should be 

updated over time to reflect increasing knowledge of the science and economics of 

climate impacts.

As part of the interagency process that developed these SCC estimates, technical 

experts from numerous agencies met on a regular basis to consider public comments, 

101
explore the technical literature in relevant fields, and discuss key model inputs and 

assumptions. The main objective of this process was to develop a range of SCC values 

using a defensible set of input assumptions grounded in the existing scientific and 

economic literatures. In this way, key uncertainties and model differences transparently 

and consistently inform the range of SCC estimates used in the rulemaking process.

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions

When attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of CO2 emissions, 

the analyst faces a number of challenges. A report from the National Research Council56

points out that any assessment will suffer from uncertainty, speculation, and lack of 

information about: (1) future emissions of GHGs; (2) the effects of past and future 

emissions on the climate system; (3) the impact of changes in climate on the physical and 

biological environment; and (4) the translation of these environmental impacts into 

economic damages. As a result, any effort to quantify and monetize the harms associated 

with climate change will raise questions of science, economics, and ethics and should be 

viewed as provisional. 

Despite the limits of both quantification and monetization, SCC estimates can be 

useful in estimating the social benefits of reducing CO2 emissions. The agency can 

estimate the benefits from reduced (or costs from increased) emissions in any future year 

by multiplying the change in emissions in that year by the SCC values appropriate for 

56 National Research Council. Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and 

Use (2009). National Academies Press: Washington, DC.

102

 
that year. The NPV of the benefits can then be calculated by multiplying each of these 

future benefits by an appropriate discount factor and summing across all affected years. 

It is important to emphasize that the interagency process is committed to updating 

these estimates as the science and economic understanding of climate change and its 

impacts on society improves over time. In the meantime, the interagency group will 

continue to explore the issues raised by this analysis and consider public comments as 

part of the ongoing interagency process.

b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon Values

In 2009, an interagency process was initiated to offer a preliminary assessment of 

how best to quantify the benefits from reducing carbon dioxide emissions. To ensure 

consistency in how benefits are evaluated across Federal agencies, the Administration 

sought to develop a transparent and defensible method, specifically designed for the 

rulemaking process, to quantify avoided climate change damages from reduced CO2

emissions. The interagency group did not undertake any original analysis. Instead, it 

combined SCC estimates from the existing literature to use as interim values until a more 

comprehensive analysis could be conducted. The outcome of the preliminary assessment 

by the interagency group was a set of five interim values: global SCC estimates for 2007 

(in 2006$) of $55, $33, $19, $10, and $5 per metric ton of CO2. These interim values 

represented the first sustained interagency effort within the U.S. government to develop 

an SCC for use in regulatory analysis. The results of this preliminary effort were 

presented in several proposed and final rules. 

103
c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions

After the release of the interim values, the interagency group reconvened on a 

regular basis to generate improved SCC estimates. Specially, the group considered public 

comments and further explored the technical literature in relevant fields. The interagency 

group relied on three integrated assessment models commonly used to estimate the SCC: 

the FUND, DICE, and PAGE models. These models are frequently cited in the peerreviewed literature and were used in the last assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change (IPCC). Each model was given equal weight in the SCC values that 

were developed. 

Each model takes a slightly different approach to model how changes in 

emissions result in changes in economic damages. A key objective of the interagency 

process was to enable a consistent exploration of the three models, while respecting the 

different approaches to quantifying damages taken by the key modelers in the field. An 

extensive review of the literature was conducted to select three sets of input parameters 

for these models: climate sensitivity, socio-economic and emissions trajectories, and 

discount rates. A probability distribution for climate sensitivity was specified as an input 

into all three models. In addition, the interagency group used a range of scenarios for the 

socio-economic parameters and a range of values for the discount rate. All other model 

features were left unchanged, relying on the model developers’ best estimates and 

judgments.

104
The interagency group selected four sets of SCC values for use in regulatory 

analyses. Three sets of values are based on the average SCC from the three integrated 

assessment models, at discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5 percent. The fourth set, which 

represents the 95th percentile SCC estimate across all three models at a 3-percent discount 

rate, was included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from temperature change 

further out in the tails of the SCC distribution. The values grow in real terms over time. 

Additionally, the interagency group determined that a range of values from 7 percent to 

23 percent should be used to adjust the global SCC to calculate domestic effects,57

although preference is given to consideration of the global benefits of reducing CO2

emissions. Table IV.11 presents the values in the 2010 interagency group report,58 which 

is reproduced in appendix 14-A of the NOPR TSD.

57 It is recognized that this calculation for domestic values is approximate, provisional, and highly 

speculative. There is no a priori reason why domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of net global 

damages over time.

58 Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency 

Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government (February 2010) (Available at: 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-for-RIA.pdf).

105

 
Table IV.11 Annual SCC Values from 2010 Interagency Report, 2010–2050 (2007$ 

per metric ton CO2)

Year

Discount Rate

5% 3% 2.5% 3%

Average Average Average 95th

percentile

2010 4.7 21.4 35.1 64.9

2015 5.7 23.8 38.4 72.8

2020 6.8 26.3 41.7 80.7

2025 8.2 29.6 45.9 90.4

2030 9.7 32.8 50.0 100.0

2035 11.2 36.0 54.2 109.7

2040 12.7 39.2 58.4 119.3

2045 14.2 42.1 61.7 127.8

2050 15.7 44.9 65.0 136.2

The SCC values used for today’s notice were generated using the most recent 

versions of the three integrated assessment models that have been published in the peerreviewed literature.59

Table IV.12 shows the updated sets of SCC estimates in 5-year increments from 

2010 to 2050. The full set of annual SCC estimates between 2010 and 2050 is reported in 

appendix 14-B of the NOPR TSD. The central value that emerges is the average SCC 

across models at the 3-percent discount rate. However, for purposes of capturing the 

uncertainties involved in regulatory impact analysis, the interagency group emphasizes 

the importance of including all four sets of SCC values.

59 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 

12866, Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government (May 2013; 

revised November 2013) (Available at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbonfor-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf).

106

 
Table IV.12 Annual SCC Values from 2013 Interagency Report, 2010–2050 (2007$ 

per metric ton CO2)

Year

Discount Rate

5% 3% 2.5% 3%

Average Average Average 95th

percentile

2010 11 32 51 89

2015 11 37 57 109

2020 12 43 64 128

2025 14 47 69 143

2030 16 52 75 159

2035 19 56 80 175

2040 21 61 86 191

2045 24 66 92 206

2050 26 71 97 220

It is important to recognize that a number of key uncertainties remain, and that 

current SCC estimates should be treated as provisional and revisable because they will 

evolve with improved scientific and economic understanding. The interagency group also 

recognizes that the existing models are imperfect and incomplete. The 2009 National 

Research Council report mentioned above points out that there is tension between the 

goal of producing quantified estimates of the economic damages from an incremental ton 

of carbon and the limits of existing efforts to model these effects. There are a number of 

analytical challenges that are being addressed by the research community, including 

research programs housed in many of the Federal agencies participating in the 

interagency process to estimate the SCC. The interagency group intends to periodically 

review and reconsider those estimates to reflect increasing knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts, as well as improvements in modeling.

107
In summary, in considering the potential global benefits resulting from reduced 

CO2 emissions, DOE used the values from the 2013 interagency report adjusted to 2013$ 

using the implicit price deflator for GDP from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. For 

each of the four sets of SCC values, the values for emissions in 2015 were $12.0, $40.5, 

$62.4, and $119 per metric ton avoided (values expressed in 2013$). DOE derived values 

after 2050 using the relevant growth rates for the 2040–2050 period in the interagency 

update.

DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions reduction estimated for each year by the SCC 

value for that year in each of the four cases. To calculate a present value of the stream of 

monetary values, DOE discounted the values in each of the four cases using the specific 

discount rate that had been used to obtain the SCC values in each case.

2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions

As noted above, DOE has taken into account how amended energy conservation 

standards would reduce site NOX emissions nationwide and increase power sector NOX

emissions in those 22 States not affected by the CAIR. DOE estimated the monetized 

value of net NOX emissions reductions resulting from each of the TSLs considered for 

today’s NOPR based on estimates found in the relevant scientific literature. Estimates of 

monetary value for reducing NOX from stationary sources range from $476 to $4,893 per 

ton in 2013$.60 DOE calculated monetary benefits using a medium value for NOX 

60 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 2006 Report to 

Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and 

108

 
emissions of $2,684 per short ton (in 2013$), and real discount rates of 3 percent and 7 

percent.

DOE is evaluating appropriate monetization of avoided SO2 and Hg emissions in 

energy conservation standards rulemakings. DOE has not included monetization of those 

emissions in the current analysis.

M. Utility Impact Analysis

The utility impact analysis estimates several effects on the power generation 

industry that would result from the adoption of new or amended energy conservation 

standards. In the utility impact analysis, DOE analyzes the changes in installed electrical 

capacity and generation that would result for each trial standard level. The utility impact 

analysis is based on published output from NEMS, which is a public domain, multisectored, partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector. Each year, NEMS is 

updated to produce the AEO reference case as well as a number of side cases that 

estimate the economy-wide impacts of changes to energy supply and demand. DOE uses 

those published side cases that incorporate efficiency-related policies to estimate the 

marginal impacts of reduced energy demand on the utility sector. The output of this 

analysis is a set of time-dependent coefficients that capture the change in electricity 

generation, primary fuel consumption, installed capacity and power sector emissions due 

to a unit reduction in demand for a given end use. These coefficients are multiplied by the 

stream of energy savings calculated in the NIA to provide estimates of selected utility 

Tribal Entities (2006) (Available at: 

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/2006_cb/2006_cb_final_report.pdf).

109

 
impacts of new or amended energy conservation standards. Chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD 

describes the utility impact analysis in further detail.

N. Employment Impact Analysis

DOE considers employment impacts in the domestic economy as one factor in 

selecting a proposed standard. Employment impacts include both direct and indirect 

impacts. Direct employment impacts are any changes in the number of employees of 

manufacturers of the products subject to standards, their suppliers, and related service 

firms. The MIA addresses those impacts. Indirect employment impacts from standards 

consist of the net jobs created or eliminated in the national economy, other than in the 

manufacturing sector being regulated, caused by: (1) reduced spending by end users on 

energy; (2) reduced spending on new energy supply by the utility industry; (3) increased 

spending on new products to which the new standards apply; and (4) the effects of those 

three factors throughout the economy. 

One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for labor of such 

shifts in economic activity is to compare sector employment statistics developed by the 

Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).61 The BLS regularly publishes its 

estimates of the number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in different 

sectors of the economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere in the economy by this 

same economic activity. Data from BLS indicate that expenditures in the utility sector 

61 Data on industry employment, hours, labor compensation, value of production, and the implicit price 

deflator for output for these industries are available upon request by calling the Division of Industry 

Productivity Studies (202-691-5618) or by sending a request by e-mail to dipsweb@bls.gov. Available at: 

www.bls.gov/news.release/prin1.nr0.htm.

110

 
generally create fewer jobs (both directly and indirectly) than expenditures in other 

sectors of the economy. 62 There are many reasons for these differences, including wage 

differences and the fact that the utility sector is more capital-intensive and less laborintensive than other sectors. Energy conservation standards have the effect of reducing 

consumer utility bills. Because reduced consumer expenditures for energy likely lead to 

increased expenditures in other sectors of the economy, the general effect of efficiency 

standards is to shift economic activity from a less labor-intensive sector (i.e., the utility 

sector) to more labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the retail and service sectors). Thus, based 

on the BLS data alone, DOE believes net national employment will increase due to shifts 

in economic activity resulting from amended standards for residential dishwashers.

For the amended standard levels considered in today’s NOPR, DOE estimated 

indirect national employment impacts using an input/output model of the U.S. economy 

called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies version 3.1.1 (ImSET).63 ImSET is a 

special-purpose version of the “U.S. Benchmark National Input-Output” (I–O) model, 

which was designed to estimate the national employment and income effects of energysaving technologies. The ImSET software includes a computer-based I–O model having 

structural coefficients that characterize economic flows among 187 sectors most relevant 

to industrial, commercial, and residential building energy use. 

62 See Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional InputOutput Modeling System (RIMS II). Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992. 63 J. M. Roop, M. J. Scott, and R. W. Schultz, ImSET 3.1: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies, PNNL18412, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 2009. Available at: 

www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-18412.pdf

111

 
DOE notes that ImSET is not a general equilibrium forecasting model, and 

understands the uncertainties involved in projecting employment impacts, especially 

changes in the later years of the analysis. Because ImSET does not incorporate price 

changes, the employment effects predicted by ImSET may over-estimate actual job 

impacts over the long run for this rule. Because ImSET predicts small job impacts 

resulting from this rule, regardless of these uncertainties, the actual job impacts are likely 

to be negligible in the overall economy. For more details on the employment impact 

analysis, see chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD.

V. Analytical Results

The following section addresses the results from DOE’s analyses with respect to 

potential energy conservation standards for residential dishwashers. for both product 

classes. It addresses the TSLs examined by DOE and the projected impacts of each of 

these levels if adopted as energy conservation standards for residential dishwashers. 

Additional details regarding DOE’s analyses are contained in the NOPR TSD supporting 

this notice.

A. Trial Standard Levels

DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of three TSLs for residential dishwashers. 

These TSLs were developed using combinations of efficiency levels for the standard and 

compact product classes analyzed by DOE. DOE presents the results for those TSLs in 

today’s rule. DOE presents the results for all efficiency levels that it analyzed in the 

NOPR TSD. Table V.1 presents the TSLs and the corresponding efficiency levels for 

Comment [A23]: Change recommended by 

OIRA

112
residential dishwashers. TSL 3 represents the maximum technologically feasible (“maxtech”) improvements in energy efficiency for both standard and compact residential 

dishwashers. TSL 2 consists of the next efficiency level below the max-tech level for 

both standard and compact residential dishwashers. TSL 1 consists of the first efficiency 

level considered above the baseline for standard residential dishwashers, and the baseline

level for compacts.

Table V.1 Trial Standard Levels for Residential Dishwashers

TSL

Standard Compact 

CSL

Annual Energy 

Use (kWh) CSL

Annual Energy 

Use (kWh)

1 1 295 Baseline 222

2 3 234 1 203

3 4 180 2 141

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers

DOE analyzed the economic impacts on residential dishwasher consumers by 

looking at the effects potential amended standards would have on the LCC and PBP.

DOE also examined the impacts of potential standards on consumer subgroups. These 

analyses are discussed below.

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

To evaluate the net economic impact of potential amended energy conservation 

standards on consumers of residential dishwashers, DOE conducted LCC and PBP 

analyses for each TSL. In general, higher-efficiency products would affect consumers in

two ways: (1) purchase price would increase, and (2) annual operating costs would 

113
decrease. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total installed costs (i.e., 

product price plus installation costs), and operating costs (i.e., annual energy savings, 

energy prices, energy price trends, repair costs, and maintenance costs). The LCC 

calculation also uses product lifetime and a discount rate.

Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD provides detailed information on the LCC and PBP 

analyses.

Table V.2 through Table V.5 show the LCC and PBP results for all efficiency 

levels considered for both standard and compact residential dishwashers. In the first of 

each pair of tables, the simple payback is measured relative to the baseline product. In the 

second tables, the LCC savings are measured relative to the base-case efficiency 

distribution in the compliance year (see section IV.F.9 of this notice). No impacts occur 

when the base-case efficiency for a specific consumer equals or exceeds the efficiency at 

a given TSL; a standard would have no effect because the product installed would be at 

or above that standard level without amended standards.

114
Table V.2 Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for Standard 

Residential Dishwashers

TSL Efficiency 

Level

Average Costs 

2013$ Simple 

Payback

years Installed Cost First Year’s 

Operating Cost

Lifetime 

Operating Cost LCC

-- 0 483 45 518 1,000 --

1 1 495 43 492 987 6.1

-- 2 531 40 462 993 10.8

2 3 582 34 387 970 9.0

3 4 582 26 296 879 5.3

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency 

level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.

Table V.3 Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base-Case Efficiency Distribution 

for Standard Residential Dishwashers

TSL Efficiency 

Level

Life-Cycle Cost Savings

% of Consumers that 

Experience Average Savings*

Net Cost 2013$

1 1 6 2

-- 2 39 -2

2 3 53 21

3 4 33 112

* The calculation includes households with zero LCC savings (no impact).

115
Table V.4 Average LCC and PBP Results by Efficiency Level for Compact

Residential Dishwashers

TSL Efficiency 

Level

Average Costs 

2013$ Simple 

Payback

years Installed Cost First Year’s 

Operating Cost

Lifetime 

Operating Cost LCC

1 0 456 26 302 758 --

2 1 467 24 274 741 4.5

3 2 485 16 188 673 2.9

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency 

level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.

Table V.5 Average LCC Savings Relative to the Base-Case Efficiency Distribution 

for Compact Residential Dishwashers

TSL Efficiency 

Level

Life-Cycle Cost Savings

% of Consumers that 

Experience Average Savings*

Net Cost 2013

1 0 -- --

2 1 9 8

3 2 6 51

Note: The calculation includes households with zero LCC savings (no impact).

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

As described in section IV.I of this notice, DOE determined the impact of the 

considered TSLs on low-income households and senior-only households.64 Table V.6

compares the average LCC savings at each efficiency level for the two consumer 

subgroups, along with the average LCC savings for the entire sample for each product 

class for residential dishwashers. The average LCC savings for low-income households 

and senior-only households at the considered efficiency levels are not substantially 

64 DOE did not analyze subgroup impacts for compact dishwashers because the saturation of these products 

is extremely small.

116

 
different from the average for all households. Chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD presents the 

complete LCC and PBP results for the two subgroups.

Table V.6 Standard Residential Dishwashers: Comparison of Average LCC Savings 

for Consumer Subgroups and All Households

Average Life-Cycle Cost Savings (2013$) Simple Payback Period (years)

TSL Lowincome 

households

Senior-only 

households

All 

Households

Lowincome 

households

Senior-only 

households

All 

Households

1 2 1 2 6.2 8.4 6.1

2 15 1 21 9.5 11.6 9.0

3 100 71 112 5.6 6.8 5.3

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback

As discussed above, EPCA provides a rebuttable presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically justified if the increased purchase cost for a 

product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first-year energy 

and water savings resulting from the standard. In calculating a rebuttable presumption 

payback period for the considered standard levels, DOE used discrete values rather than 

distributions for input values, and, as required by EPCA, based the energy and water use 

calculation on the DOE test procedures for residential dishwashers. As a result, DOE 

calculated a single rebuttable presumption payback value, and not a distribution of 

payback periods, for each efficiency level. Table V.7 presents the rebuttable-presumption 

payback periods for the considered TSLs. While DOE examined the rebuttablepresumption criterion, it considered whether the standard levels considered for today’s 

rule are economically justified through a more detailed analysis of the economic impacts 

of those levels pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of that analysis serve 

117
as the basis for DOE to evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard level 

(thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic 

justification).

Table V.7 Residential Dishwashers: Rebuttable PBPs

Product Class Trial Standard Level

1 2 3

Standard (years) 3.9 7.1 4.2

Compact (years) -- 3.1 2.0

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of amended energy conservation 

standards on manufacturers of residential dishwashers. The section below describes the 

expected impacts on manufacturers at each TSL. Chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD explains 

the analysis in further detail.

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results

DOE modeled two scenarios using different markup assumptions and two 

scenarios using different conversion cost assumptions for a total of four different 

scenarios. Each scenario results in a unique set of cash flows and corresponding industry 

value at each TSL. These assumptions correspond to the bounds of a range of market 

responses that DOE anticipates could occur in the standards case. The tables below depict 

the financial impacts on manufacturers (represented by changes in INPV) and the 

conversion costs DOE estimates manufacturers would incur at each TSL. The first two 

tables correspond to the scenarios using scaled estimates of the capital conversion costs 

118
from the May 2012 direct final rule with the preservation of gross margin markups and 

the preservation of EBIT markups respectively. The third and fourth tables correspond to 

the scenarios using estimates of the capital conversion from the current engineering cost 

model, again with the preservation of gross margin markups and the preservation of EBIT 

markups respectively. Those scenarios with the preservation of gross margin markups 

reflect the lower (less severe) bound of impacts whereas the scenarios with the 

preservation of EBIT markups reflect the upper (more severe) bound of impacts.

The INPV results refer to the difference in industry value between the base case 

and the standards case, which DOE calculated by summing the discounted industry cash 

flows from the base year (2014) through the end of the analysis period (2048). The 

discussion also notes the difference in cash flow between the base case and the standards 

case in the year before the compliance date of potential amended energy conservation 

standards. This figure provides an estimate of the required conversion costs relative to the 

cash flow generated by the industry in the base case.

119
Table V.8 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Residential Dishwashers – Scaled 

Capital Conversion Costs from the May 2012 Direct Final Rule with the 

Preservation of Gross Margin Markups Scenario

Units Base Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3

INPV (2013$ 

millions) 586.6 507.3 483.0 426.0 

Change in INPV

(2013$ 

millions) - (79.2) (103.6) (160.5)

(%) - -13.5% -17.7% -27.4%

Product 

Conversion Costs

(2013$ 

millions) - 38.3 61.7 80.2 

Capital 

Conversion Costs

(2013$ 

millions) - 79.2 172.0 236.7 

Total Conversion 

Costs

(2013$ 

millions) - 117.5 233.7 316.9 

Table V.9 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Residential Dishwashers –

Scaled Capital Conversion Costs from the May 2012 Direct Final Rule with the 

Preservation of EBIT Markups Scenario

Units Base Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3

INPV (2013$ 

millions) 586.6 506.1 404.2 346.8 

Change in INPV

(2013$ 

millions) - (80.5) (182.3) (239.8)

(%) - -13.7% -31.1% -40.9%

Product 

Conversion Costs

(2013$ 

millions) - 38.3 61.7 80.2 

Capital 

Conversion Costs

(2013$ 

millions) - 79.2 172.0 236.7 

Total Conversion 

Costs

(2013$ 

millions) - 117.5 233.7 316.9 

120
Table V.8 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Residential Dishwashers – Capital 

Conversion Costs from the 2014 Engineering Cost Model with the Preservation of 

Gross Margin Markups Scenario

Units Base Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3

INPV (2013$ 

millions) 586.6 543.1 465.2 445.5 

Change in INPV

(2013$ 

millions) - (43.5) (121.4) (141.1)

(%) - -7.4% -20.7% -24.0%

Product 

Conversion Costs

(2013$ 

millions) - 38.3 61.7 80.2 

Capital 

Conversion Costs

(2013$ 

millions) - 35.4 219.7 236.1 

Total Conversion 

Costs

(2013$ 

millions) - 73.7 281.4 316.3 

Table V.9 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Residential Dishwashers –

Capital Conversion Costs from the 2014 Engineering Cost Model with the 

Preservation of EBIT Markups Scenario

Units Base Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3

INPV (2013$ 

millions) 586.6 541.8 382.9 362.6 

Change in INPV

(2013$ 

millions) - (44.7) (203.7) (224.0)

(%) - -7.6% -34.7% -38.2%

Product 

Conversion Costs

(2013$ 

millions) - 38.3 61.7 80.2 

Capital 

Conversion Costs

(2013$ 

millions) - 35.4 219.7 236.1 

Total Conversion 

Costs

(2013$ 

millions) - 73.7 281.4 316.3 

Because standard residential dishwashers represent over 99 percent of shipments 

in the year leading up to amended standards, changes to this product class contribute the 

majority of impacts to INPV across all TSLs analyzed in this rulemaking.

At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range from -$43.5 million to -

$80.5 million, or a change in INPV of -7.4 percent to -13.7 percent. At this level, industry 

121
free cash flow is estimated to decrease by as much as 99.0 percent to $0.5 million, 

compared to the base-case value of $47.3 million in the year leading up to the amended 

energy conservation standards. As TSL 1 corresponds to the current ENERGY STAR 

criteria for standard residential dishwashers, and these products represent 88 percent of 

shipments in the year leading up to amended standards, only a small fraction of the 

market is affected at this efficiency level. In either markup scenario, the impact on INPV 

at TSL 1 stems largely from the conversion costs required to switch production lines from 

manufacturing baseline units to those meeting the standards set at Efficiency Level 1 for 

standard residential dishwashers.

As a large fraction of the energy used in dishwashing is associated with heating 

the wash water, the design options proposed to meet this efficiency level relate primarily 

to minimizing the amount of wash water through spray-arm optimization, filter 

improvements, and enabling greater control over the wash water temperature. Both of 

these practices are in common use in higher efficiency platforms across the industry and 

contribute to an MPC of $213.24 for standard dishwashers. Because the industry already 

produces a substantial number of products at this efficiency level, product and capital 

conversion costs are limited to $73.7 million based on the engineering cost model, or 

$117.5 million based on the scaled conversion costs taken from the May 2012 direct final 

rule.

At TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range from -$103.6 million to -

$203.7 million, or a change in INPV of -17.7 percent to -34.7 percent. At this level, 

122
industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by as much as 247.1 percent to -$69.6

million, compared to the base-case value of $47.3 million in the year leading up to the 

amended energy conservation standards. 

DOE expects manufacturers would make more extensive improvements to meet

TSL 2 compared to TSL 1. For standard dishwashers, these improvements include 

exchanging a heated drying system for a condensation drying system, further optimizing 

the hydraulic system (extending to a redesign of both the sump and water lines and 

further improvements to the filters), and incorporating a flow meter, temperature sensor, 

and soil sensor to finely tune water consumption, temperature, and the drying cycle. The 

component changes required to enable these improvements contribute to an MPC of 

$278.44 for standard dishwashers. For standard dishwashers, only 3.7 percent of 

shipments currently meet the standards specified at TSL 2. In contrast, 51.9 percent of 

shipments of compact dishwashers currently meet the standards specified at TSL 2. 

Because only a few standard residential dishwashers currently employ these energy and 

water saving measures, the product and capital conversion costs for standard dishwashers 

rise to $223.9 million based on the scaled conversion costs taken from the May 2012 

direct final rule, or $249.2 million based on the engineering cost model, as the production 

lines responsible for producing over 95 percent of standard product shipments would 

need retooling and upgrades. For manufacturers of compact dishwashers, these 

investments total $9.8 million based on the scaled conversion costs taken from the May 

2012 direct final rule, or $32.2 million based on the engineering cost model. Accordingly, 

123
the conversion costs required to design and produce compliant standard dishwashers 

contribute to the majority of impacts on INPV at TSL 2.

At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range from -$141.1 million to 

-$239.8 million, or a change in INPV of -24.0 percent to -40.9 percent. At this level, 

industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by as much as 274.7 percent to -$82.6

million, compared to the base-case value of $47.3 million in the year leading up to the 

amended energy conservation standards. The impact to INPV is most severe at TSL 3 as 

less than 1 percent of shipments in the year leading up to amended standards meet this 

efficiency level. Only 0.4 percent of standard dishwasher shipments and 37.0 percent of 

compact dishwasher shipments currently meet the standards specified at TSL 3. As such, 

standards at TSL 3 would affect nearly all platforms and will result in substantial capital 

conversion costs associated with improvements to nearly all production facilities. 

Because so few products exist at this level, nearly all manufacturers would face complete 

redesigns for products to meet this standard. Accordingly, the product conversion costs 

increase to reflect this substantial research effort. The capital and product conversion 

costs required to bring products into compliance rise to a total of $316.9 million based on 

the scaled conversion costs taken from the May 2012 direct final rule, or $316.3 million 

based on the engineering cost model. Production lines responsible for producing over 99 

percent of product shipments would need retooling and upgrades at TSL 3. The 

conversion costs at TSL 3 stem from both the research programs needed to develop such 

optimized products and the capital investment required to change over production lines 

responsible for producing over 99 percent of product shipments.

124
DOE expects manufacturers of standard residential dishwashers would 

incorporate similar design options at TSL 3 as at TSL 2, extended to include more highly 

optimized control strategies that would further reduce the wash and rinse water 

temperatures. Although the component changes required to enable these improvements 

contribute to the same MPC of $278.44 for standard dishwashers at TSL 3 as for TSL 2, 

the levels specified at TSL 3 significantly impact INPV because of the larger conversion 

costs associated with developing and producing these highly optimized products. For 

compact residential dishwashers, moving from TSL 2 to TSL 3 would require significant 

changes to the portion of the market that is not currently at the max- tech efficiency level. 

These changes would result in a range of INPV impacts for compact manufacturers 

ranging from -241 percent to -1,262 percent. Because these impacts are attributed to 

manufacturers of baseline compact residential dishwashers in the countertop 

configuration, DOE expects that manufacturers would exit the market for these products

at TSL 3.

b. Impacts on Employment

DOE used the GRIM to estimate the domestic labor expenditures and number of 

domestic production workers in the base case and at each TSL from 2014 to 2048. DOE 

used the labor content of each product and the MPCs from the engineering analysis to 

estimate the total annual labor expenditures associated with residential dishwashers sold 

in the United States. Using statistical data from the most recent U.S. Census Bureau’s 

125
2011 “Annual Survey of Manufactures” (ASM) and interviews with manufacturers from

the May 2012 direct final rule, DOE estimates that 95 percent of residential dishwashers 

sold in the United States are manufactured domestically and hence that portion of total 

labor expenditures is attributable to domestic labor. Labor expenditures for the 

manufacture of a product are a function of the labor intensity of the product, the sales 

volume, and an assumption that wages in real terms remain constant.

Using the GRIM, DOE forecasts the domestic labor expenditure for residential 

dishwasher production labor in 2019 will be approximately $290.7 million. Using the 

$27.17 hourly wage rate including fringe benefits and 2,042 production hours per year 

per employee found in the 2011 ASM, DOE estimates there will be approximately 5,240

domestic production workers involved in manufacturing residential dishwashers in 2019, 

the year in which any amended standards would go into effect. In addition, DOE 

estimates that 1,250 non-production employees in the United States will support 

residential dishwasher production. The employment spreadsheet of the residential 

dishwasher GRIM shows the annual domestic employment impacts in further detail.

The production worker estimates in this section cover workers only up to the linesupervisor level who are directly involved in fabricating and assembling dishwashers 

within an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) facility. Workers performing 

services that are closely associated with production operations, such as material handling 

with a forklift, are also included as production labor. Additionally, the employment 

126
impacts shown are independent of the employment impacts from the broader U.S. 

economy, which are documented in chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD.

Table V.10 depicts the potential levels of production employment that could result 

following amended energy conservation standards as calculated by the GRIM. The 

employment levels shown reflect the scenario in which manufacturers continue to 

produce the same scope of covered products in domestic facilities and domestic 

production is not shifted to lower-labor-cost countries. If all existing production were 

moved outside of the United States, the expected impact to domestic manufacturing 

employment would be a loss of 5,240 jobs, the equivalent of the total base-case domestic 

production employment. Because there is a risk of manufacturers evaluating sourcing 

decisions in response to amended energy conservation standards, the expected impact to 

domestic production employment falls between the potential increases as shown in Table 

V.10, and the levels of job loss associated with all domestic manufacturing of residential 

dishwashers moving outside of the United States. The discussion below includes a 

qualitative evaluation of the likelihood of negative domestic production employment 

impacts at the various TSLs.

Table V.10 Total Number of Domestic Residential Dishwasher Production Workers 

in 2019

Base Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3

Total Number of 

Domestic Production 

Workers in 2019 

(without changes in 

production locations)

5,240 5,252 5,426 5,485 

127
The design options specified at some higher ELs increase the labor content 

(measured in dollars) of standard residential dishwashers by as much as 17 percent. All 

examined TSLs show modest gains in domestic manufacturing employment levels 

provided manufacturers do not relocate production facilities outside of the United States. 

However, at higher TSLs, some of the design options analyzed greatly impact the ability 

of manufacturers to make product changes within existing platforms. Because of the 

higher labor content, the very large upfront capital costs, and the fact that so few existing 

units meet the standards proposed in this NOPR, some manufacturers may consider 

relocating some or all of their domestic production of residential dishwashers to lower 

labor cost countries. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

Less than 5 percent of shipments of residential dishwashers already comply with 

the amended energy conservation standards proposed in this rulemaking. Not every 

manufacturer that ships standard residential dishwashers offers products that meet these 

amended energy conservation standards. Because manufacturers would need to make 

substantial platform changes by the 2019 compliance date, many would have to run 

parallel production between the announcement of the final rule and the compliance date. 

This requirement may impact manufacturing capacity during this interim period. DOE 

seeks additional comment on the impact to manufacturing capacity between the issuance 

date and the compliance date of any amended energy conservation standards for 

residential dishwashers.

128
d. Impacts on Sub-Groups of Manufacturers

Using average cost assumptions to develop an industry cash-flow estimate may 

not be adequate for assessing differential impacts among manufacturer subgroups. Small 

manufacturers, niche equipment manufacturers, and manufacturers exhibiting a cost 

structure substantially different from the industry average could be affected 

disproportionately. DOE examined the potential for disproportionate impacts on small 

business manufacturers, as discussed in section VI.B of this notice. DOE did not identify 

any other manufacturer subgroups for this rulemaking.

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

While any one regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, 

the combined effects of several impending regulations may have serious consequences 

for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry. Assessing the 

impact of a single regulation may overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition 

to energy conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect 

manufacturers’ financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the same 

manufacturer can strain profits and can lead companies to abandon product lines or 

markets with lower expected future returns than competing products. For these reasons, 

DOE conducts an analysis of cumulative regulatory burden as part of its energy 

conservation standards rulemakings.

In interviews conducted in support of the May 2012 direct final rule, 

manufacturers provided comments on some of these regulations. DOE summarized and 

129
addressed these comments in section IV.J.3 of this notice. For the cumulative regulatory 

burden, DOE attempts to quantify or describe the impacts of other Federal regulations 

that have a compliance date within approximately 3 years of the compliance date of this 

rulemaking. Most of the major regulations identified by DOE that meet this criterion are 

other energy conservation standards for products and equipment also made by 

manufacturers of residential dishwashers. See chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD for the 

results of DOE’s analysis of the cumulative regulatory burden. 

3. National Impact Analysis

a. Significance of Energy Savings

To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential standards for residential 

dishwashers, DOE compared the energy consumption of those products under the base 

case to their anticipated energy consumption under each TSL. Table V.11 presents 

DOE’s projections of the national energy savings and national water savings for each 

TSL considered for residential dishwashers. The savings were calculated using the 

approach described in section IV.H.1 of this notice. 

Table V.11 Residential Dishwashers: (for Standard and Compact Product Classes):

Cumulative National Energy and Water Savings (2019–2048)

Savings Trial Standard Level

1 2 3

Source Energy Savings (quads) 0.00 1.00 2.39

FFC Energy Savings (quads) 0.01 1.06 2.53

Water Savings (trillion gallons) 0.03 0.24 0.99

Comment [A24]: Change recommended by 

OIRA

130
OMB Circular A-465 requires agencies to present analytical results, including 

separate schedules of the monetized benefits and costs that show the type and timing of 

benefits and costs. Circular A-4 also directs agencies to consider the variability of key 

elements underlying the estimates of benefits and costs. For this rulemaking, DOE 

undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9, rather than 30, years of product shipments. The 

choice of a 9-year period is a proxy for the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain 

energy conservation standards and potential revision of and compliance with such revised 

standards.66 The review timeframe established in EPCA is generally not synchronized 

with the product lifetime, product manufacturing cycles, or other factors specific to 

residential dishwashers. Thus, such results are presented for informational purposes only 

and are not indicative of any change in DOE’s analytical methodology. The NES 

sensitivity analysis results based on a 9-year analytical period are presented in Table 

V.12. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of residential dishwashers purchased in 

2019–2027.

65 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, “Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis” (Sept. 17, 2003) 

(Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/) 66 Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review its standards at least once every 6 years, and requires, 

for certain products, a 3-year period after any new standard is promulgated before compliance is required, 

except that in no case may any new standards be required within 6 years of the compliance date of the 

previous standards. While adding a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance period adds up to 9 years, DOE 

notes that it may undertake reviews at any time within the 6 year period and that the 3-year compliance date 

may yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year analysis period may not be appropriate given the variability that 

occurs in the timing of standards reviews and the fact that for some consumer products, the compliance 

period is 5 years rather than 3 years.

131

 
Table V.12 Residential Dishwashers: (for Standard and Compact Product Classes):

Cumulative National Energy and Water Savings for Products Shipped in 2019–2027

Savings Trial Standard Level

1 2 3

Source Energy Savings (quads) 0.00 0.27 0.68

FFC Energy Savings (quads) 0.00 0.28 0.72

Water (trillion gallons) 0.01 0.05 0.27

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV to the nation of the total costs and savings for 

consumers that would result from particular standard levels for residential dishwashers. 

In accordance with the OMB’s guidelines on regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A-4, 

section E, September 17, 2003), DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-

percent real discount rate. 

Table V.13 shows the consumer NPV results for each TSL DOE considered for 

residential dishwashers. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of products purchased 

in 2019–2048.

Table V.13 Residential Dishwashers: Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer 

Benefits for Products Shipped in 2019–2048

Discount rate

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3

Billion 2013$

3 percent 0.15 2.14 15.7

7 percent 0.05 0.23 5.56

The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical period are 

presented in Table V.14. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of products purchased 

Comment [A25]: Change recommended by 

OIRA

132
in 2019–2027. As mentioned previously, such results are presented for informational 

purposes only and is not indicative of any change in DOE’s analytical methodology or 

decision criteria.

Table V.14 Residential Dishwashers: Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer 

Benefits for Products Shipped in 2019–2027

Discount rate

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3

Billion 2013$

3 percent 0.06 0.13 4.96

7 percent 0.03 -0.14 2.43

The above results reflect the use of a default trend to estimate the change in price 

for residential dishwashers over the analysis period (see section IV.F.1 of this notice). 

DOE also conducted a sensitivity analysis that considered one scenario with a lower rate 

of price decline than the reference case and one scenario with a higher rate of price

decline than the reference case. The results of these alternative cases are presented in 

appendix 10-C of the NOPR TSD.

c. Impacts on Employment

DOE develops estimates of the indirect employment impacts of potential 

standards on the economy in general. As discussed above, DOE expects energy 

conservation standards for residential dishwashers to reduce energy bills for consumers 

of those products, and the resulting net savings to be redirected to other forms of 

economic activity. These expected shifts in spending and economic activity could affect 

the demand for labor. As described in section IV.N of this notice, DOE used an 

133
input/output model of the U.S. economy to estimate indirect employment impacts of the 

TSLs that DOE considered in this rulemaking. DOE understands that there are 

uncertainties involved in projecting employment impacts, especially changes in the later 

years of the analysis. Therefore, DOE generated results for near-term timeframes, where 

these uncertainties are reduced.

The results suggest that today’s standards are likely to have negligible impact on 

the net demand for labor in the economy. The net change in jobs is so small that it would 

be imperceptible in national labor statistics and might be offset by other, unanticipated 

effects on employment. Chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD presents detailed results.

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products

Based on testing conducted in support of this proposed rule, discussed in section 

IV.C.1.b, DOE concluded that the TSL proposed in this NOPR would not reduce the 

utility or performance of the residential dishwashers under consideration in this 

rulemaking. Manufacturers of these products currently offer units that meet or exceed 

today’s standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV))

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

DOE has also considered any lessening of competition that is likely to result from 

amended standards. The Attorney General determines the impact, if any, of any lessening 

of competition likely to result from a proposed standard, and transmits such 

134
determination to DOE, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of such impact. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii))

DOE will transmit a copy of today’s NOPR and the accompanying TSD to the 

Attorney General, requesting that the DOJ provide its determination on this issue. DOE 

will consider DOJ’s comments on the proposed rule in determining whether to proceed 

with the proposed energy conservation standards. DOE will also publish and respond to 

DOJ’s comments in the Federal Register in a separate notice.

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy

Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves the nation’s 

energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the environmental impacts or 

costs of energy production. Reduced electricity demand due to energy conservation 

standards is also likely to reduce the cost of maintaining the reliability of the electricity 

system, particularly during peak-load periods. As a measure of this reduced demand, 

chapter 15 in the NOPR TSD presents the estimated reduction in generating capacity for 

the TSLs that DOE considered in this rulemaking.

Energy savings from amended standards for residential dishwashers could also 

produce environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases associated with electricity production. Table V.15 provides DOE’s 

estimate of cumulative emissions reductions to result from the TSLs considered in this 

135
rulemaking. DOE reports annual CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions reductions for each TSL

in chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD.

Table V.15 Cumulative Emissions Reduction Estimated for Residential Dishwasher 

Trial Standard Levels for Products Shipped in 2019–2048

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3

Power Sector and Site Emissions

CO2 (million metric tons) 0.2 57.9 137.5

SO2 (thousand tons) -0.4 42.4 98.1

NOX (thousand tons) 2.3 68.9 171.0

Hg (tons) 0.0 0.1 0.3

N2O (thousand tons) 0.0 0.7 1.7

CH4 (thousand tons) 0.0 5.0 11.7

Upstream Emissions

CO2 (million metric tons) 0.1 4.0 9.7

SO2 (thousand tons) 0.0 0.5 1.2

NOX (thousand tons) 1.2 57.8 141.6

Hg (tons) 0.0 0.0 0.0

N2O (thousand tons) 0.0 0.0 0.1

CH4 (thousand tons) 7.1 340.1 834.5

Total FFC Emissions

CO2 (million metric tons) 0.3 61.9 147.2

SO2 (thousand tons) -0.4 42.9 99.4

NOX (thousand tons) 3.4 126.7 312.6

Hg (tons) 0.0 0.1 0.3

N2O (thousand tons) 0.0 0.7 1.7

N2O (thousand tons CO2eq)* -1.2 196.9 462.3

CH4 (thousand tons) 7.0 345.1 846.2

CH4 (thousand tons CO2eq)* 197.3 9,663.4 23,693.2

* CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP.

Negative values refer to an increase in emissions.

136
As part of the analysis for this proposed rule, DOE estimated monetary benefits 

likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO2 and NOX that DOE estimated for each 

of the TSLs considered for residential dishwashers. As discussed in section IV.L of this 

notice, for CO2, DOE used the most recent values for the SCC developed by an 

interagency process. The four sets of SCC values for CO2 emissions reductions in 2015 

resulting from that process (expressed in 2013$) are represented by $12.0/metric ton (the 

average value from a distribution that uses a 5-percent discount rate), $40.5/metric ton 

(the average value from a distribution that uses a 3-percent discount rate), $62.4/metric 

ton (the average value from a distribution that uses a 2.5-percent discount rate), and 

$119/metric ton (the 95th-percentile value from a distribution that uses a 3-percent 

discount rate). The values for later years are higher due to increasing damages 

(emissions-related costs) as the projected magnitude of climate change increases.

Table V.16 presents the global value of CO2 emissions reductions at each TSL. 

For each of the four cases, DOE calculated a present value of the stream of annual values 

using the same discount rate as was used in the studies upon which the dollar-per-ton 

values are based. DOE calculated domestic values as a range from 7 percent to 23 percent 

of the global values, and these results are presented in chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD.

137
Table V.16. Estimates of Global Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction for

Residential Dishwasher Trial Standard Levels

TSL

SCC Case*

5% discount 

rate, average

3% discount 

rate, average

2.5% discount 

rate, average

3% discount 

rate, 95th

percentile

Million 2013$

Site and Power Sector Emissions

1 1.7 7.7 12.1 23.9

2 400.3 1,849.1 2,936.9 5,724.7

3 901.5 4,245.7 6,772.6 13,138.4

Upstream Emissions

1 0.5 2.4 3.8 7.4

2 27.1 125.8 200.0 389.8

3 62.4 296.1 473.1 917.1

Total FFC Emissions

1 2.3 10.1 15.9 31.3

2 427.4 1,974.9 3,136.9 6,114.5

3 963.8 4,541.8 7,245.7 14,056.0

* For each of the four cases, the corresponding SCC value for emissions in 2015 is $12.0, 

$40.5, $62.4, and $119 per metric ton (2013$).

DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the contribution 

of CO2 and other GHG emissions to changes in the future global climate and the potential 

resulting damages to the world economy continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any value 

placed on reducing CO2 emissions in this rulemaking is subject to change. DOE, together 

with other Federal agencies, will continue to review various methodologies for estimating 

the monetary value of reductions in CO2 and other GHG emissions. This ongoing review 

will consider the comments on this subject that are part of the public record for this and 

other rulemakings, as well as other methodological assumptions and issues. However, 

consistent with DOE’s legal obligations, and taking into account the uncertainty involved 

138
with this particular issue, DOE has included in this proposed rule the most recent values 

and analyses resulting from the interagency process.

DOE also estimated the cumulative monetary value of the economic benefits 

associated with NOX emissions reductions anticipated to result from amended standards 

for residential dishwashers. The dollar-per-ton values that DOE used are discussed in 

section IV.L of this notice. Table V.17 presents the cumulative present values for each 

TSL calculated using 7-percent and 3-percent discount rates.

Table V.17. Estimates of Present Value of NOX Emissions Reduction under 

Residential Dishwashers Trial Standard Levels

TSL 3% discount rate 7% discount rate

Million 2013$*

Power Sector and Site Emissions

1 3.2 1.6

2 95.5 44.4

3 221.4 98.5

Upstream Emissions

1 1.7 0.8

2 77.9 34.8

3 178.9 76.9

Total FFC Emissions

1 4.9 2.4

2 173.3 79.2

3 400.3 175.4

* Negative values refer to an increase in emissions.

139
7. Summary of National Economic Impacts

The NPV of the monetized benefits associated with emissions reductions can be 

viewed as a complement to the NPV of the customer savings calculated for each TSL 

considered in this rulemaking. Table V.18 presents the NPV values that result from 

adding the estimates of the potential economic benefits resulting from reduced CO2 and 

NOX emissions in each of four valuation scenarios to the NPV of customer savings 

calculated for each TSL considered in this rulemaking, at both a 7-percent and 3-percent 

discount rate. The CO2 values used in the columns of each table correspond to the four 

sets of SCC values discussed above.

140
Table V.18. Net Present Value of Customer Savings Combined with Present Value 

of Monetized Benefits from CO2 and NOX Emissions Reductions 

TSL

Customer NPV at 3% Discount Rate added with:

SCC Case 

$12.0/metric ton 

CO2

* and 

Medium Value 

for NOX

SCC Case 

$40.5/metric ton 

CO2

* and 

Medium Value 

for NOX

SCC Case 

$62.4/metric ton 

CO2

* and 

Medium Value 

for NOX

SCC Case 

$119/metric ton 

CO2

* and Medium 

Value for NOX

Billion 2013$

1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

2 2.7 4.3 5.5 8.4

3 17.1 20.6 23.3 30.2

TSL

Customer NPV at 7% Discount Rate added with:

SCC Case 

$12.0/metric ton 

CO2

* and 

Medium Value 

for NOX

SCC Case 

$40.5/metric ton 

CO2

* and 

Medium Value 

for NOX

SCC Case 

$62.4/metric ton 

CO2

* and 

Medium Value 

for NOX

SCC Case 

$119/metric ton 

CO2

* and Medium 

Value for NOX

Billion 2013$

1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

2 0.7 2.3 3.4 6.4

3 6.7 10.3 13.0 19.8

* For each of the four cases, the corresponding SCC value for emissions in 2015 is $12.0, $40.5, $62.4, 

and $119 per metric ton (2013$).

Although adding the value of customer savings to the values of emission 

reductions provides a valuable perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the 

national operating cost savings are domestic U.S. customer monetary savings that occur 

as a result of market transactions, while the value of CO2 reductions is based on a global 

value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and the SCC are performed with 

different methods that use different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost 

savings is measured for the lifetime of equipment shipped in 2019 to 2048. The SCC 

values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of future climate-related impacts 

141
resulting from the emission of one metric ton of CO2 in each year. These impacts 

continue well beyond 2100.

8. Other Factors

The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is economically 

justified, may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) DOE did not consider any other factors for today’s NOPR.

C. Conclusion

When considering proposed standards, the new or amended energy conservation 

standard that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product must be designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is 

technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In 

determining whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must determine 

whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens, considering to the greatest extent 

practicable the seven statutory factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) 

The new or amended standard must also result in a significant conservation of energy. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

The Department considered the impacts of standards at each TSL, beginning with 

a maximum technologically feasible level, to determine whether that level was 

economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not justified, DOE then considered 

the next most efficient level and undertook the same evaluation until it reached the 

142
highest efficiency level that is both technologically feasible and economically justified 

and saves a significant amount of energy.

To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of each trial 

standard level, tables present a summary of the results of DOE’s quantitative analysis for 

each TSL. In addition to the quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also 

considers other burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. Those include the 

impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers, such as low-income households and 

seniors, who may be disproportionately affected by a national standard. Section IV.I of 

this notice presents the estimated impacts of each TSL for these subgroups.

DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-ranging discussion 

of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy savings in the absence of 

government intervention. Much of this literature attempts to explain why consumers 

appear to undervalue energy efficiency improvements. This undervaluation suggests that 

regulation that promotes energy efficiency can produce significant net private gains (as 

well as producing social gains by, for example, reducing pollution). There is evidence 

that consumers undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of information; 

(2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or aggregate benefits; (3) a lack of 

sufficient savings to warrant delaying or altering purchases (for example, an inefficient 

ventilation fan in a new building or the delayed replacement of a water pump); (4) 

excessive focus on the short term, in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy 

cost savings relative to available returns on other investments; (5) computational or other 

143
difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant tradeoffs; and (6) a divergence in 

incentives (that is, renter versus owner; builder versus purchaser). Other literature 

indicates that with less than perfect foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the 

future, consumers may trade off these types of investments at a higher than expected rate 

between current consumption and uncertain future energy cost savings. 

In DOE’s current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the benefits and costs 

of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase decisions are included in two ways: 

First, if consumers forego a purchase of a product in the standards case, this decreases 

sales for product manufacturers, and the impact on manufacturers attributed to lost 

revenue is included in the MIA. Second, DOE accounts for energy savings attributable 

only to products actually used by consumers in the standards case; if a regulatory option 

decreases the number of products used by consumers, this decreases the potential energy 

savings from an energy conservation standard. DOE provides detailed estimates of 

shipments and changes in the volume of product purchases in chapter 9 of the NOPR 

TSD. However, DOE’s current analysis does not explicitly control for heterogeneity in 

consumer preferences, preferences across subcategories of products or specific features, 

or consumer price sensitivity variation according to household income.

67

While DOE is not prepared at present to provide a fuller quantifiable framework 

for estimating the benefits and costs of changes in consumer purchase decisions due to an 

energy conservation standard, DOE is committed to developing a framework that can 

67 P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household Electricity Demand, Revisited. Review of Economic Studies

(2005) 72, 853–883.

144

 
support empirical quantitative tools for improved assessment of the consumer welfare 

impacts of appliance standards. DOE has posted a paper that discusses the issue of 

consumer welfare impacts of appliance energy efficiency standards, and potential 

enhancements to the methodology by which these impacts are defined and estimated in 

the regulatory process.68 DOE welcomes comments on how to more fully assess the 

potential impact of energy conservation standards on consumer choice and how to 

quantify this impact in its regulatory analysis in future rulemakings.

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Residential Dishwashers

Table V.19 and Table V.20 summarize the quantitative impacts estimated for each 

TSL for residential dishwashers. The efficiency levels contained in each TSL are 

described in section V.A of this notice.

68 Alan Sanstad, Notes on the Economics of Household Energy Consumption and Technology Choice. 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 2010. Available online at: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_theory.pdf

145

 
Table V.19 Summary of Results for Residential Dishwasher Trial Standard Levels: 

National Impacts

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3

Cumulative FFC Energy Savings quads

0.01 1.06 2.53

NPV of Customer Benefits 2013$ billion

3% discount rate 0.1 2.1 15.7

7% discount rate 0.1 0.2 5.6

Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction 

CO2 million metric 

tons

0.3 61.9 147.2

NOX thousand tons 3.4 126.7 312.6

Hg tons 0.0 0.1 0.3

N2O thousand tons 0.0 0.7 1.7

N2O thousand tons

CO2eq*

-1.2 196.9 462.3

CH4 thousand tons 7.0 345.1 846.2

CH4 thousand tons

CO2eq* 197.3 9,663.4 23,693

SO2 thousand tons -0.4 42.9 99.4

Value of Emissions Reduction 

CO2 2013$ million** 2.3 to 31.3 427.4 to 6,114.5 963.8 to 14,056

NOX – 3% discount 

rate 2013$ million 4.9 173.3 400.3

NOX – 7% discount 

rate 2013$ million 2.4 79.2 175.4

* CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP.

** Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced 

CO2 emissions.

146
Table V.20 Summary of Results for Residential Dishwasher Trial Standard Levels: 

Consumer and Manufacturer Impacts

Category TSL 1* TSL 2* TSL 3*

Manufacturer Impacts

Impact to Industry NPV 

(2013$ million, 8.5% 

discount rate)

(43.5) – (80.5) (103.6) – (203.7) (141.1) – (239.8)

Industry NPV (% change) (7.4) – (13.7) (17.7) – (34.7) (24.0) – (40.9)

Direct Employment Impacts

Potential Increase in 

Domestic Production 

Workers in 2018 

12 186 245

Consumer Average LCC Savings (2013$)

Standard Dishwasher 2 21 112

Compact Dishwasher n.a. 8 51

Consumer Simple PBP (years)

Standard Dishwasher 6.1 9.0 5.3

Compact Dishwasher n.a. 4.5 2.9

Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts

Standard Dishwasher

Net Cost (%) 6% 53% 33%

Compact Dishwasher

Net Cost (%) n.a. 9% 6%

* Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. The entry “n.a.” means not applicable because there is no 

change in the standard at certain TSLs.

DOE first considered TSL 3, which represents the max-tech efficiency levels. 

TSL 3 would save 2.53 quads of energy and 0.99 trillion gallons of water, amounts DOE 

considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $5.6 billion 

using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $15.7 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 147.2 Mt of CO2, 312.6

thousand tons of NOX, 99.4 thousand tons of SO2, 0.3 tons of Hg, 1.7 thousand tons of 

N2O, and 846.2 thousand tons of CH4. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 

emissions reductions at TSL 3 ranges from $963.8 million to $14,056 million. 

147
At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a savings of $112 for standard residential 

dishwashers and a savings of $51 for compact residential dishwashers. The simple 

payback period is 5.3 years for standard residential dishwashers and 2.9 years for 

compact residential dishwashers. The fraction of consumers experiencing either an LCC 

benefit net cost is 33 percent for standard residential dishwashers and 6 percent for 

compact residential dishwashers. 

Reducing energy and water use at TSL 3 could require a substantially longerDOE 

testing suggested that manufacturers may have to consider extending the cycle time in 

order to maintain cleaning performance. Therefore in dishwashers with reduced energy 

and water use at TSL 3. While DOE did not modify current dishwasher designs in order 

to assess how long the cycle may need to be extended in order to maintain current 

cleaning performance, DOE is concerned that current dishwasher designs with TSL 3 

energy and water use may result in a loss of consumer utility concerns.

At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $141.1 million 

to a decrease of $239.8 million, equivalent to 24.0 percent and 40.9 percent, respectively. 

Products that meet the efficiency standards specified by this TSL are forecast to represent 

less than 1 percent of shipments in the year leading up to amended standards. As such, 

manufacturers would have to redesign nearly all products by the expected 2019 

compliance date to meet demand. Redesigning all units to meet the current max-tech 

efficiency levels would require considerable capital and product conversion expenditures. 

At TSL 3, the capital conversion costs total as much as $236.7 million, 2.5 times the 

Comment [A26]: Change recommended by 

OIRA

148
industry annual capital expenditure in the year leading up to amended standards. DOE 

estimates that complete platform redesigns would cost the industry $80.2 million in 

product conversion costs. These conversion costs largely relate to the extensive research 

programs required to develop new products that meet the efficiency standards set forth by 

TSL 3. These costs are equivalent to 1.8 times the industry annual budget for research 

and development. As such, the conversion costs associated with the changes in products 

and manufacturing facilities required at TSL 3 would require significant use of 

manufacturers’ financial reserves (manufacturer capital pools), impacting other areas of 

business that compete for these resources and significantly reducing INPV. In addition, 

manufacturers could face a substantial impact on profitability at TSL 3. Because 

manufacturers are more likely to reduce their margins to maintain a price-competitive 

product at higher TSLs, DOE expects that TSL 3 would yield impacts closer to the high 

end of the range of INPV impacts. If the high end of the range of impacts is reached, as 

DOE expects, TSL 3 could result in a net loss to manufacturers of 40.9 percent of INPV.

DOE also notes that the significant impacts on the INPV of compact residential 

dishwasher manufacturers, as discussed in V.B.2.a, would likely result in the elimination 

of countertop products from the market. 

The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 3 for residential dishwashers, the 

benefits of energy savings, water savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission 

reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the economic burden on some consumers, the potential burden on all 

consumers from loss of product utility, and the impacts on manufacturers, including the 

149
conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a large reduction in INPV. 

Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 3 is not economically 

justified.

DOE then considered TSL 2. TSL 2 would save 1.06 quads of energy and 0.24 

trillion gallons of water, amounts DOE considers significant. Under TSL 2, the NPV of 

consumer benefit would be $0.2 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $2.1

billion using a discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 61.9 Mt of CO2, 126.7

thousand tons of NOX, 42.9 thousand tons of SO2, 0.1 ton of Hg, 0.7 thousand tons of 

N2O, and 345.1 thousand tons of CH4. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 

emissions reductions at TSL 2 ranges from $427.4 million to $6,114.5 million. 

At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is a savings of $21 for standard residential 

dishwashers and a savings of $8 for compact residential dishwashers. The simple 

payback period is 9.0 years for standard residential dishwashers and 4.5 years for 

compact residential dishwashers. The fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC net 

cost is 53 percent for standard residential dishwashers and 9 percent for compact 

residential dishwashers.

At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $103.6 million 

to a decrease of $203.7 million, decreases of 17.7 percent and 34.7 percent, respectively. 

150
Products that meet the efficiency standards specified by this TSL represent less than 5 

percent of shipments in the year leading up to amended standards. As such, 

manufacturers would have to overhaul a significant fraction of products by the 2019 

compliance date to meet demand, although DOE testing suggested that the design 

changes would not require extension of the cycle time in order to maintain cleaning 

performance in dishwashers at the energy and water use associated with TSL 2. 

Redesigning significant component systems or developing entirely new platforms to meet 

the efficiency levels specified by this TSL would require considerable capital and product 

conversion expenditures. At TSL 2, the estimated capital conversion costs total as much 

as $219.7 million, which is 2.3 times the industry annual capital expenditure in the year 

leading up to amended standards. DOE estimates that the redesigns necessary to meet 

these standards would cost the industry $61.7 million in product conversion costs. These 

conversion costs largely relate to the research programs required to develop products that 

meet the efficiency standards set forth by TSL 2, and are 1.4 times the industry annual 

budget for research and development in the year leading up to amended standards. As 

such, the conversion costs associated with the changes in products and manufacturing 

facilities required at TSL 2 would still require significant use of manufacturers’ financial 

reserves (manufacturer capital pools), impacting other areas of business that compete for 

these resources and significantly reducing INPV. Because manufacturers are more likely 

to reduce their margins to maintain a price-competitive product at higher TSLs, DOE 

expects that TSL 2 would yield impacts closer to the high end of the range of INPV 

impacts as indicated by the preservation of EBIT markup scenario. If the high end of the 

Comment [A27]: Change recommended by 

OIRA

151
range of impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 2 could result in a net loss of 34.7

percent in INPV to manufacturers of residential dishwashers.

The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 2 for residential dishwashers, the 

benefits of energy savings, water savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission 

reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions would 

outweigh the negative impacts on some consumers and on manufacturers, including the 

conversion costs that could result in a reduction in INPV for manufacturers.

After considering the analysis and the benefits and burdens of TSL 2, the 

Secretary tentatively concludes that this TSL will offer the maximum improvement in 

efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and will result in 

the significant conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE today proposes TSL 2 for 

residential dishwashers. The proposed amended energy conservation standards for 

residential dishwashers, which are a maximum allowable annual energy use and 

maximum allowable per-cycle water consumption, are shown in Table V.21.

152
Table V.21 Proposed Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Residential 

Dishwashers

Product Class

Compliance Date:

May 30, 2019

Maximum Annual 

Energy Use*

Maximum Per-Cycle 

Water Consumption

1. Standard (≥8 place settings 

plus 6 serving pieces) 234 kWh/year 3.1 gal/cycle

2. Compact (<8 place settings 

plus 6 serving pieces) 203 kWh/year 3.1 gal/cycle

*Annual energy use, expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, is calculated as: the sum of the annual 

standby electrical energy in kWh and the product of (1) the representative average dishwasher use cycles 

per year and (2) the sum of machine electrical energy consumption per cycle in kWh, the total water energy 

consumption per cycle in kWh, and, for dishwashers having a truncated normal cycle, the drying energy 

consumption divided by 2 in kWh. A truncated normal cycle is defined as the normal cycle interrupted to 

eliminate the power-dry feature after the termination of the last rinse option,

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Standards

The benefits and costs of today’s standards can also be expressed in terms of 

annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the annualized 

national economic value, expressed in 2013$, of the benefits from operating products that 

meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using 

less energy and water, minus increases in product purchase costs, which is another way of 

representing consumer NPV), and (2) the monetary value of the benefits of emission 

reductions, including CO2 emission reductions.69 The value of the CO2 reductions, 

69 To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 

2014, 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 

(2020, 2030, etc.), and then discounted the present value from each year to 2014. The calculation uses

discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO2 reductions, for which 

DOE used case-specific discount rates, as shown in Table V.22. 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.

153

 
otherwise known as the SCC, is calculated using a range of values per metric ton of CO2

developed by a recent interagency process. 

Although combining the values of operating savings and CO2 reductions provides 

a useful perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the national operating 

savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of market 

transactions, while the value of CO2 reductions is based on a global value. Second, the 

assessments of operating cost savings and SCC are performed with different methods that 

use quite different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost savings is 

measured for the lifetime of products shipped in 2019–2048. The SCC values, on the 

other hand, reflect the present value of all future climate-related impacts resulting from 

the emission of one ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts continue well 

beyond 2100.

Table V.22 shows the annualized values for residential dishwashers under TSL 2, 

expressed in 2013$. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-

percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than CO2 reductions, for which DOE 

used a 3-percent discount rate along with the SCC series corresponding to a value of 

$40.5/ton in 2015 (in 2013$), the cost of the standards for residential dishwashers in 

today’s rule is $413 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the annualized 

benefits are $437 million per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $113 million in 

CO2 reductions, and $8.37 million in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit 

amounts to $146 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and 

154
costs and the SCC series corresponding to a value of $40.5/ton in 2015 (in 2013$), the 

cost of the standards for residential dishwashers in today’s rule is $406 million per year 

in increased equipment costs, while the benefits are $529 million per year in reduced 

operating costs, $113 million in CO2 reductions, and $9.95 million in reduced NOX

emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $246 million per year.

155
Table V.22 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Amended Standards (TSL 2) 

for Residential Dishwashers Sold in 2019–2048

Discount Rate

Primary 

Estimate*

Low Net 

Benefits 

Estimate*

High Net 

Benefits 

Estimate*

Million 2013$/year

Benefits

Consumer Operating Cost 

Savings

7% 437 388 506

3% 529 462 624

CO2 Reduction at $12.0/t** 5% 34 30 39

CO2 Reduction at $40.5/t** 3% 113 100 131

CO2 Reduction at $62.4/t** 2.5% 165 146 191

CO2 Reduction at $119/t** 3% 351 311 406

NOX Reduction at $2,684/t

7% 8.37 7.53 9.49

3% 9.95 8.86 11.43

Total†

7% plus CO2 range 479 to 796 425 to 706 555 to 921

7% 558 496 647

3% plus CO2 range 572 to 890 501 to 782 674 to 1,041

3% 652 572 766

Costs

Consumer Incremental 

Product Costs

7% 413 468 371

3% 406 465 361

Total Net Benefits

Total†

7% plus CO2 range 66 to 383 -43 to 238 183 to 550

7% 146 28 275

3% plus CO2 range 167 to 484 36 to 317 313 to 680

3% 246 106 405

* The results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2048 from the dishwashers purchased from 

2019 through 2048. Costs incurred by manufacturers, some of which may be incurred prior to 2019 in 

preparation for the rule, are not directly included, but are indirectly included as part of incremental 

equipment costs. The extent of the costs and benefits will depend on the projected price trends of 

dishwashers, as the consumer demand for dishwashers is a function of dishwasher prices. The Primary, 

Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the 

AEO 2014 Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental 

product costs reflect a medium decline rate for projected product price trends in the Primary Estimate, a 

low decline rate in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate in the High Benefits Estimate. The 

methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.H.2.a of this notice.

156
** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2013$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2013 under 

several scenarios. The values of $12.0, $40.5, and $62.4 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions 

calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of $119 per ton represents the 

95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate.

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount 

rate, which is $40.5/ton in 2015 (in 2013$). In the rows labeled as “7% plus CO2 range” and “3% plus CO2

range,” the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values 

are added to the full range of CO2 values.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 

requires each agency to identify the problem that it intends to address, including, where 

applicable, the failures of private markets or public institutions that warrant new agency 

action, as well as to assess the significance of that problem. 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). 

The problems that today’s standards address are as follows. 

(1) There is a lack of consumer information and/or information processing capability 

about energy efficiency opportunities in the residential dishwasher market.

(2) There is asymmetric information (one party to a transaction has more and better 

information than the other) and/or high transactions costs (costs of gathering 

information and effecting exchanges of goods and services).

(3) There are external benefits resulting from improved energy efficiency of 

residential dishwashers that are not captured by the users of such equipment. 

These benefits include externalities related to environmental protection and 

energy security that are not reflected in energy prices, such as reduced emissions 

of greenhouse gases.

157
In addition, DOE has determined that today’s regulatory action is a “significant 

regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. DOE presented to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB for review the draft rule and 

other documents prepared for this rulemaking, including a regulatory impact analysis 

(RIA), and has included these documents in the rulemaking record. The assessments 

prepared pursuant to Executive Order 12866 can be found in the technical support 

document for this rulemaking.

DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued 

on January 18, 2011. 76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011). EO 13563 is supplemental to and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are 

required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a 

reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits 

and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on 

society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other 

things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net 

benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that 

regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, 

158
such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can 

be made by the public.

DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to use the 

best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance 

costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. 

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE believes that today’s NOPR is consistent 

with these principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, 

benefits justify costs and that net benefits are maximized. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires preparation of an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, 

unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) As 

required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency 

Rulemaking” 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on 

February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its 

procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel’s website 

(http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).

159
For manufacturers of residential dishwashers, the Small Business Administration 

(SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified as “small 

businesses” for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA’s small business size 

standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of 

the rule. 65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 53544 (Sept. 

5, 2000) and codified at 13 CFR part 121. The size standards are listed by North 

American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry description and are 

available at http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. 

Residential dishwasher manufacturing is classified under NAICS 335228, “Other Major 

Household Appliance Manufacturing.” The SBA sets a threshold of 500 employees or 

less for an entity to be considered as a small business for this category.

To estimate the number of small businesses which could be impacted by the 

amended energy conservation standards, DOE conducted a market survey using all 

available public information to identify potential small manufacturers. To identify small 

business manufacturers, DOE surveyed the May 2012 direct final rule for residential

dishwasher energy conservation standards, the AHAM membership directory, several 

product databases (DOE’s Compliance Certification Database, CEC, and ENERGY 

STAR databases) and individual company websites. DOE screened out companies that 

did not themselves manufacture products covered by this rulemaking, did not meet the 

definition of a “small business,” or are foreign owned and operated.

160
Approximately half of the total domestic market for residential dishwashers is 

manufactured in the United States by one corporation. Together, this manufacturer and 

three other manufacturers that do not meet the definition of a small business 

manufacturer and comprise 99 percent of the residential dishwasher market. The small 

portion of the remaining residential dishwasher market (approximately 69,000 units) is 

supplied by a combination of approximately 20 companies, all of which have small 

market shares. All of these companies are either foreign-owned and operated, re-brand 

dishwashers manufactured by other companies, or exceed the SBA’s employment 

threshold for consideration as a small business under the appropriate NAICS code. 

Therefore, DOE did not identify any domestic small business manufacturers of residential 

dishwashers.

Based on the discussion above, DOE certifies that the standards for residential 

dishwashers set forth in today’s rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory 

flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE will transmit this certification to the SBA as 

required by 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

Manufacturers of residential dishwashers must certify to DOE that their products 

comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their products according to the DOE test procedures for 

residential dishwashers, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. 

Comment [A28]: Change recommended by 

OIRA

161
DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for 

all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including residential 

dishwashers. 76 FR 12422 (Mar. 7, 2011). The collection-of-information requirement for 

the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by OMB under 

OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is 

estimated to average 20 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond 

to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of 

information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information 

displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, DOE has 

determined that the proposed rule fits within the category of actions included in 

Categorical Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise meets the requirements for application of 

a CX. See 10 CFR part 1021, appendix B, B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and appendix B, B(1)-

(5). The proposed rule fits within the category of actions because it is a rulemaking that 

establishes energy conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment, 

and for which none of the exceptions identified in CX B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has 

162
made a CX determination for this rulemaking, and DOE does not need to prepare an 

Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for this proposed rule.

DOE’s CX determination for this proposed rule is available at http://cxnepa.energy.gov/. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” imposes certain requirements on Federal 

agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999). The Executive Order 

requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any 

action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess 

the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an 

accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in 

the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 

2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation 

process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation 

for the products that are the subject of today’s proposed rule. States can petition DOE for 

exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. 

(42 U.S.C. 6297) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

163
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new 

regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” imposes on 

Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and 

promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, 

if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides 

a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; 

and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under 

any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 

requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in 

section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to 

meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, 

to the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each 

Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and 

164
Tribal governments and the private sector (Pub. L. 104-4, sec. 201, as codified at 2 

U.S.C. 1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause 

the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), 

section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that 

estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 

U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective

process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments 

on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for 

giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE’s policy statement is

also available at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.

Although today’s proposed rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate, it may require expenditures of $100 million or more on the private sector. 

Specifically, the proposed rule will likely result in a final rule that could require 

expenditures of $100 million or more. Such expenditures may include: (1) investment in 

research and development and in capital expenditures by residential dishwashers 

manufacturers in the years between the final rule and the compliance date for the new 

standards, and (2) incremental additional expenditures by consumers to purchase higher165
efficiency residential dishwashers, starting at the compliance date for the applicable 

standard.

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a Federal agency to respond to the content 

requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that accompanies the proposed 

rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)) The content requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to 

a private sector mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that 

apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The 

"SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION" section of this NOPR and the “Regulatory 

Impact Analysis” section of the TSD for this proposed rule respond to those 

requirements. 

Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify and consider 

a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule for which a 

written statement under section 202 is required. (2 U.S.C. 1535(a)) DOE is required to 

select from those alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the proposed rule unless DOE publishes an explanation for 

doing otherwise, or the selection of such an alternative is inconsistent with law. As 

required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(g) and (o), today’s proposed rule would establish energy 

conservation standards for residential dishwashers that are designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE has determined to be both 

technologically feasible and economically justified. A full discussion of the alternatives 

166
considered by DOE is presented in the “Regulatory Impact Analysis” section of the TSD 

for today’s proposed rule.

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

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

(Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment 

for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rule would not have any impact on 

the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 18, 

1988), that this regulation would not result in any takings that might require 

compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

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

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2001 

provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public 

under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) OMB’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 

2002), and DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has 

167
reviewed today’s NOPR under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” requires Federal agencies to prepare and 

submit to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant 

energy action. 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). A “significant energy action” is defined as 

any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final 

rule, and that: (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any 

successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 

significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must 

give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their 

expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. 

DOE has tentatively concluded that today’s regulatory action, which sets forth 

energy conservation standards for residential dishwashers, is not a significant energy 

action because the proposed standards are not likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by the 

Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy 

Effects on the proposed rule.

168
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy (OSTP), issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

(the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific 

information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by 

the Federal Government, including influential scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of 

the Government’s scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are “influential scientific information,” which the Bulletin 

defines as scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does 

have, a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector 

decisions. 70 FR 2667.

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress peer reviews 

of the energy conservation standards development process and analyses and has prepared 

a Peer Review Report pertaining to the energy conservation standards rulemaking 

analyses. Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented 

evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and independent reviewers to make a 

judgment as to the technical/scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, 

and the productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. The

“Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review Report” dated February 2007 

169
has been disseminated and is available at the following Web site: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/peer_review.html.

VII. Public Participation

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting

The time, date, and location of the public meeting are listed in the DATES and 

ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this notice. If you plan to attend the public 

meeting, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. As explained in the ADDRESSES section, foreign 

nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to advance security screening 

procedures.

In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar registration 

information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to 

webinar participants will be published on DOE’s website at: [INSERT LINK].

Participants are responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar 

software.

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements For Distribution

Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement may request 

that copies of his or her statement be made available at the public meeting. Such persons 

may submit requests, along with an advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF 

170
(preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to the 

appropriate address shown in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice. 

The request and advance copy of statements must be received at least one week before 

the public meeting and may be emailed, hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE prefers to 

receive requests and advance copies via email. Please include a telephone number to 

enable DOE staff to make follow-up contact, if needed.

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting

DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting and may also 

use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or 

evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 

of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6306) A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and 

prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of presentations and to 

establish the procedures governing the conduct of the public meeting. After the public 

meeting, interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings as well as on 

any aspect of the rulemaking until the end of the comment period.

The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE will 

present summaries of comments received before the public meeting, allow time for 

prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make 

a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the discussion of 

171
specific topics. DOE will allow, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly on 

any general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit participants to 

clarify their statements briefly and comment on statements made by others. Participants 

should be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants concerning 

these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other 

matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public meeting will 

accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or modification of the above 

procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting.

A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of this notice. In addition, any 

person may buy a copy of the transcript from the transcribing reporter.

D. Submission of Comments

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule 

before or after the public meeting, but no later than the date provided in the DATES 

section at the beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit comments, 

data, and other information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES 

section at the beginning of this notice.

172
Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The regulations.gov web page will 

require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will 

be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not 

be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly 

because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.

However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in 

the comment itself or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that 

you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in 

any document attached to your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see 

only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and 

any documents submitted with the comments. 

Do not submit to regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by 

statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter 

referred to as Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through 

regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the website will 

waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, 

see the Confidential Business Information section below.

173
DOE processes submissions made through regulations.gov before posting. 

Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if 

large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that 

regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly 

viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, 

provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, 

email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not 

be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments

Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery/courier, please 

provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No 

facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should 

be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) 

file format. Provide documents that are not secured, that are written in English, and that 

are free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any 

174
form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the 

author.

Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter 

with a list of supporters’ names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment 

processing and posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from 

public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two wellmarked copies: one copy of the document marked confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked nonconfidential with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these 

documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about 

the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why 

such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the 

information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning 

its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person 

175
which would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the 

information would be contrary to the public interest.

It is DOE’s policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the 

comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties concerning 

the following issues: 

1. DOE requests comment on the efficiency levels selected for its analysis. 

Specifically, DOE requests feedback on whether cleaning performance or any other 

consumer utility is affected at any of the analyzed efficiency levels. 

2. DOE requests comment on the estimated MPCs for each of the analyzed 

efficiency levels. DOE seeks input on what design options manufacturers are likely to 

incorporate into residential dishwashers at each of the analyzed efficiency levels, and 

their associated costs.

3. DOE requests comment on what impact, if any, the proposed energy 

conservation standards would have on domestic manufacturing facilities and their 

176
associated employment. DOE requests information on whether domestic 

manufacturers would move production overseas or source an increased number of 

products from foreign OEMs under the proposed standards.

4. DOE requests comment on the potential rebound effect from setting the 

proposed energy conservation standards for standard-size dishwashers and compact 

dishwashers. DOE requests comments on the potential technology options identified 

by DOE for improving the efficiency of residential dishwashers and its screening 

analysis used to select the most viable options for consideration in setting today’s 

proposed standards. (see sections IV.A and B of this notice.)

5. DOE requests comment on its estimate that standards do not impact a 

consumer’s decision to replace or repair a failed dishwasher. Specifically, DOE seeks 

any data that indicate how dishwasher replace versus repair decisions are impacted by 

increased total installed cost, increased repair cost, and energy cost savings.

6. DOE requests comment and information on the number of annual 

dishwasher cycles.

7. DOE requests comment on utility issues, if any, that consumers may face 

under the proposed energy conservation standards. Comment [A29]: Change recommended by 

OIRA

177
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today’s proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy 

conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, and Small businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on 

________________________________

David T. Danielson

Assistant Secretary

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 430 of 

chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, to read as set 

forth below: 

178
PART 430 - ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS

1. The authority citation for Part 430 continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 430.3 is amended by:

a. Removing paragraph (h)(2);

b. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(3) through (h)(7) as (h)(2) through (h)(6),

respectively; and

c. Removing “C1” from redesignated paragraph (h)(2) and adding “C” in its 

place.

Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 430—[Removed]

3. Appendix C to subpart B of part 430 is removed.

Appendix C1 to Subpart B of Part 430—[Redesignated as Appendix C]

4. Appendix C1 to subpart B of part 430 is amended by redesignating appendix C1 as 

appendix C.

5. In §430.32 revise paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§430.32 Energy and water conservation standards and their compliance dates.

* * *

179
(f) Dishwashers. 

* * *

(4) All dishwashers manufactured on or after [Date 3 years after the publication in the 

Federal Register of the final rule] shall meet the following standard—

(i) Standard size dishwashers shall not exceed 234 kwh/year and 3.1 gallons per cycle.

(ii) Compact size dishwashers shall not exceed 203 kwh/year and 3.1 gallons per cycle.

* * * * *

180