1

[6450 01-P]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

[Docket Number EERE–2011–BT–STD–0060]

RIN: 1904-AC64

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential 

Dishwashers

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

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain

commercial and industrial equipment, including residential 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 proposed rule, DOE proposes amended energy 

conservation standards for residential dishwashers identical to those set forth in a direct 

final rule published elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. If DOE receives adverse 

comment and determines that such comment may provide a reasonable basis for 
2

withdrawing the direct final rule, DOE will publish a notice withdrawing the final rule 

and will proceed with this proposed rule.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding the proposed 

standards no later than [INSERT DATE 110 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

ADDRESSES: See section III, “Public Participation,” for details. 

Any comments submitted must identify the proposed rule for Energy Conservation 

Standards for Residential Dishwashers, and provide docket number EERE-2011–BT–

STD–0060 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AC64. 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: DW-2011-STD-0060@ee.doe.gov. 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.
3

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. It is not necessary to include printed copies.

Docket: The docket is available for review at regulations.gov, including Federal 

Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials.

A link to the docket web page can be found at:

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2011-BT-STD-0060. 

For further information on how to submit or review public comments or view 

hard copies of the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Witkowski, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

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

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121, (202) 586-7463, e-mail: 

Stephen.Witkowski@ee.doe.gov.
4

Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, GC71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121, (202) 586-7796, email: Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction and Legal Authority

II. Proposed Standards

 A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Dishwashers

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

III. Public Participation

 A. Submission of Comments

 B. Public Meeting

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Introduction and Legal Authority

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

Act), Pub. L. 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309, as codified) established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles,1a program 

covering most major household appliances (collectively referred to as “covered 

products”), which includes the residential dishwashers that are the subject of this 

rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(6)) EPCA, as amended by the Energy Information and 

Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007; Pub. L. 110-140), prescribed the current energy 

conservation standards for residential dishwashers (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10), and directed 

DOE to publish a final rule no later than January 1, 2015, to determine whether to amend 

 

1

 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
5

the standards in effect for dishwashers manufactured on or after January 1, 2018. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)(B)(i))

EISA 2007 also amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE authority DOE to 

issue a final rule (hereinafter referred to as a “direct final rule”) establishing an energy 

conservation standard for a covered product on receipt of a statement submitted jointly by 

interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including 

representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates) as 

determined by the Secretary, that contains recommendations with respect to an energy 

conservation standard that are in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). 

EPCA also requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) that proposes an 

identical energy conservation standard be published simultaneously with the direct final 

rule, and DOE must provide a public comment period of at least 110 days. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)) Not later than 120 days after issuance of the direct final rule, if one or more 

adverse comments or an alternative joint recommendation are received relating to the 

direct final rule, the Secretary must determine whether the comments or alternative 

recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) 

or other applicable law. If the Secretary makes such a determination, DOE must 

withdraw the direct final rule and proceed with the simultaneously published NOPR. 

DOE must also publish in the Federal Register the reason why the direct final rule was 

withdrawn. Id.
6

On July 30, 2010, DOE received the “Agreement on Minimum Federal Efficiency 

Standards, Smart Appliances, Federal Incentives and Related Matters for Specified 

Appliances” (hereinafter, the “Joint Petition”)2, a comment submitted by groups 

representing manufacturers (the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 

(AHAM), Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool), General Electric Company (GE), 

Electrolux, LG Electronics, Inc. (LG), BSH Home Appliances (BSH), Alliance Laundry 

Systems (ALS), Viking Range, Sub-Zero Wolf, Friedrich A/C, U-Line, Samsung, Sharp 

Electronics, Miele, Heat Controller, AGA Marvel, Brown Stove, Haier, Fagor America, 

Airwell Group, Arcelik, Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman Ice, Indesit, Kuppersbusch, Kelon, 

and DeLonghi); energy and environmental advocates (American Council for an Energy 

Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), Alliance for Water 

Efficiency (AWE), Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC), and Northeast 

Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP)); and consumer groups (Consumer Federation of 

America (CFA) and the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC)) (collectively, the “Joint 

Petitioners”). The Joint Petitioners recommended specific energy conservation standards 

for residential dishwashers that they believed would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o). Earthjustice submitted a comment affirming its support for the Joint 

Petition.3

DOE has considered the recommended energy conservation standards and 

believes that they meet the EPCA requirements for issuance of a direct final rule. As a 

 

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

3 DOE Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0060, Comment 2.
7

result, DOE has published a direct final rule establishing energy conservation standards 

for dishwashers elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. If DOE receives adverse 

comments that may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal and withdraws the direct 

final rule, DOE will consider those comments and any other comments received in 

determining how to proceed with today’s proposed rule.

For further background information on these proposed standards and the 

supporting analyses, please see the direct final rule published elsewhere in today’s 

Federal Register. That document includes additional discussion on the EPCA 

requirements for promulgation of energy conservation standards, the current standards for 

residential dishwashers, and the history of the standards rulemakings establishing such 

standards, as well as information on the test procedures used to measure the energy 

efficiency of dishwashers. The document also contains an in-depth discussion of the 

analyses conducted in support of this rulemaking, the methodologies DOE used in 

conducting those analyses, and the analytical results.

II. Proposed Standards

When considering proposed standards, the new or amended energy conservation 

standard that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product shall be designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is 

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

determining whether a standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether 

the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens, considering to the greatest extent 

practicable the seven statutory factors set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) 
8

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 trial standard level 

(TSL) considered by DOE, beginning with maximum technologically feasible level, to 

determine whether that level was economically justified. Where the max-tech level was 

not economically justified, DOE then considered the next most efficient level and 

undertook the same evaluation until it reached the highest efficiency level that is both 

technologically feasible and economically justified and saves a significant amount of 

energy.

To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and burdens of each TSL, DOE 

has included tables that 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. These include the 

impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers, such as low-income households and 

seniors, who may be disproportionately affected by a national standard. Section V.B.1.b 

of the direct final rule published elsewhere in today’s Federal Register presents the 

estimated impacts of each TSL for these subgroups.

A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Dishwashers
9

Table II.1 and Table II.2 present a summary of the quantitative impacts estimated 

for each TSL for dishwashers. The efficiency levels contained in each TSL are described 

in section V.A of the direct final rule.

Table II.1 Summary of Results for Residential Dishwasher Trial Standard Levels: 

National Impacts

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4

National Energy Savings (quads) 0.02 0.07 0.94 1.59

National Water Savings (trillion gal.) 0.01 0.14 0.56 1.71

Net Present Value (2010$ billion)

3% discount rate 0.12 0.46 6.51 17.45

7% discount rate 0.03 0.08 1.96 5.88

Cumulative Emissions Reduction

CO2 (million metric tons) 1.15 4.06 65.02 98.62

NOX (thousand tons) 0.96 3.54 54.27 83.31

Hg (tons) 0.004 0.000 0.274 0.304

Value of Emissions Reduction

 CO2 (2010$ million)* 5 to 79 16 to 242 278 to 4515 427 to 

6951

 NOX – 3% discount rate (2010$ 

million)

0 to 3 1 to 10 14 to 148 22 to 230

 NOX – 7% discount rate (2010$ 

million)

0 to 1 0 to 5 6 to 59 9 to 91

Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. 

* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced 

CO2 emissions.

** Values are for 2047.
10

Table II.2 Summary of Results for Residential Dishwasher Trial Standard Levels: 

Consumer and Manufacturer Impacts

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4

Manufacturer Impacts

 Impact to Industry NPV 

(2010$ million, 8.5% 

discount rate)

(44.3) –

(45.3)

(73.9) –

(84.6)

(128.9) –

(174.4)

(145.6) –

(202.7)

 Industry NPV (% 

change)

(7.0) – 

(7.1) 

(11.6) –

(13.3)

(20.2) – 

(27.4)

(22.8) – 

(31.8)

Consumer Mean LCC Savings (2010$)

Standard Dishwasher 1 3 41 108

Compact Dishwasher 13 12 52 52

Consumer Median PBP (years)

Standard Dishwasher 5.9 11.8 6.6 4.5

Compact Dishwasher 0.3 0.3 2.1 2.1

Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts

Standard Dishwasher

 Net Cost (%) 1.9 18.7 29.7 22.9

 No Impact (%) 96.3 64.1 20.0 9.0

 Net Benefit (%) 1.7 17.2 50.4 68.1

Compact Dishwasher

 Net Cost (%) 6.4 6.5 5.4 5.4

 No Impact (%) 75.6 75.6 50.2 50.2

 Net Benefit (%) 18.0 17.9 44.4 44.4

Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. 

DOE first considered TSL 4, which represents the max-tech efficiency levels. 

TSL 4 would save 1.59 quads of energy and 1.71 trillion gallons of water, amounts DOE 

considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $5.88 billion, 

using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $17.45 billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 99 Mt of CO2, 83 thousand 

tons of NOX, and 0.304 tons of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions at TSL 4 ranges from $427 million to $6,951 million. Total generating 

capacity in 2047 is estimated to decrease by 0.800 GW under TSL 4.
11

At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is a savings of $108 for standard dishwashers 

and a savings of $52 for compact dishwashers. The median payback period is 4.5 years 

for standard dishwashers and 2.1 years for compact dishwashers. The fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 68.1 percent for standard dishwashers and 

44.4 percent for compact dishwashers. However, 22.9 percent of standard dishwasher 

consumers and 5.4 percent of compact dishwasher consumers experience an LCC net 

cost. In addition, DOE is concerned that reducing energy and water use at TSL 4 without 

implementing significantly higher-cost technologies could result in the loss of certain 

consumer utility. Specifically, a substantially longer cycle time could be required to 

maintain cleaning performance. Because it is uncertain how greatly consumers value 

short cycle times, DOE is concerned that TSL 4 may result in significant loss of 

consumer utility.

At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $145.6 million 

to a decrease of $202.7 million, equivalent to 22.8 percent and 31.8 percent, respectively. 

Current products that meet efficiency standards specified by this TSL represent less than 

9 percent of shipments in the year leading up to amended standards; thus, manufacturers 

would have to redesign nearly all products by the 2018 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 4, the capital 

conversion costs total $226.3 million, 2.23 times the industry annual capital expenditure 

in the year leading up to amended standards. DOE estimates that complete platform 

redesigns would cost the industry $76.7 million in product conversion costs. These 
12

conversion costs largely relate to the research programs required to develop products that 

meet the efficiency standards set forth by TSL 4, and represent 164.5 percent of 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 4 

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 4. Because manufacturers earn a premium for ENERGY STAR

products and additional profit for products that exceed the ENERGY STAR level, 

collapsing the market to one commodity product makes it unlikely that manufacturers 

could maintain their base-case profitability on these products after compliance with the 

standards is required. As a result, DOE expects that TSL 4 would yield impacts closer to 

the high end of the range of INPV impacts. If the high end of the range of impacts is 

reached, as DOE expects, TSL 4 could result in a net loss of 31.8 percent in INPV to

dishwasher manufacturers.

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 4 for residential dishwashers, the benefits of 

energy savings, water savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, generating capacity 

reductions, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on some consumers, the 

potential burden on all consumers from loss of product utility, and the impacts on 

manufacturers, including the conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result 
13

in a large reduction in INPV. Consequently, the Secretary has concluded that TSL 4 is 

not economically justified.

DOE then considered TSL 3. TSL 3 would save 0.94 quads of energy and 0.56 

trillion gallons of water, amounts DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of 

consumer benefit would be $1.96 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $6.51 

billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 65 Mt of CO2, 54 thousand 

tons of NOX, and 0.274 ton of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions at TSL 3 ranges from $278 million to $4,515 million. Total generating 

capacity in 2047 is estimated to decrease by 0.719 GW under TSL 3.

At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a savings of $41 for standard dishwashers 

and a savings of $52 for compact dishwashers. The median payback period is 6.6 years 

for standard dishwashers and 2.1 years for compact dishwashers. The fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 50.4 percent for standard dishwashers and 

44.4 percent for compact dishwashers. However, 29.7 percent of standard dishwasher 

consumers and 5.4 percent of compact dishwasher consumers experience an LCC net 

cost. In addition, DOE is concerned that reducing energy and water use at TSL 3 without 

implementing significantly higher-cost technologies could result in the loss of certain 

consumer utility. Specifically, a substantially longer cycle time could be required to 

maintain cleaning performance. Because it is uncertain how greatly consumers value 
14

short cycle times, DOE is concerned that TSL 3 may result in significant loss of 

consumer utility.

At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $128.9 million 

to a decrease of $174.4 million, decreases of 20.2 percent and 27.4 percent, respectively. 

Current products that meet efficiency standards specified by this TSL represent less than 

20 percent of shipments in the year leading up to amended standards; thus, manufacturers 

would have to overhaul a significant fraction of products by the 2018 compliance date to 

meet demand. Redesigning significant component systems or developing new platforms 

entirely to meet the efficiency levels specified by this TSL would require considerable 

capital and product conversion expenditures. At TSL 3, the estimated capital conversion 

costs total $195.4 million, which is 1.93 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 $66.5 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 3, and represent 142.6 

percent of 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 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 earn a premium for ENERGY STAR products and additional profit for 
15

products that exceed the ENERGY STAR level, collapsing the market to one commodity 

product makes it unlikely that manufacturers could maintain their base-case profitability 

on these products after compliance with the standards is required. As a result, DOE 

expects that TSL 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 of 27.4 percent in INPV to dishwasher manufacturers.

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 3 for residential dishwashers, the benefits of 

energy savings, water savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, generating capacity 

reductions, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on some consumers, the 

potential burden on all consumers from loss of product utility, and the impacts on 

manufacturers, including the conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result 

in a large reduction in INPV. Consequently, the Secretary has concluded that TSL 3 is 

not economically justified.

DOE then considered TSL 2. TSL 2 would save 0.07 quads of energy and 0.14 

trillion gallons of water, amounts DOE considers significant. Under TSL 2, the NPV of 

consumer benefit would be $0.08 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $0.46 

billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 4.06 Mt of CO2, 3.54 thousand 

tons of NOX, and 0.000 ton of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions 
16

reductions at TSL 2 ranges from $16 million to $242 million. Total generating capacity in 

2047 is estimated to decrease by 0.001 GW under TSL 2.

At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is a savings of $3 for standard dishwashers 

and a savings of $12 for compact dishwashers. The median payback period is 11.8 years 

for standard dishwashers and 0.3 years for compact dishwashers. While some consumers 

experience an LCC increase, this increase is very small in most cases.

At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $73.9 million 

to a decrease of $84.6 million, decreases of 11.6 percent and 13.3 percent, respectively. 

All dishwasher manufacturers currently produce products that meet the efficiency levels 

specified at TSL 2. As such, this level corresponds more to incremental product 

conversions rather than the platform redesigns expected for TSL 3 and TSL 4. Products at 

or above the efficiency levels of TSL 2 represent over 63 percent of shipments in the year 

leading up to amended standards. As such, DOE believes that the scope of the redesigns 

necessary to meet TSL 2 by the 2013 compliance date greatly mitigates concerns over 

manufacturers’ ability to redesign products and switch over the bulk of production in 

time to meet the amended standards by the compliance date (operational risk). DOE 

estimates that the improvements to manufacturing facilities necessary to meet these 

standards would cost the industry $59.1 million in capital conversion costs, over $130 

million less than those incurred at TSL 3, and only 55.7 percent of the industry budget for 

capital expenditure in the year leading up to amended standards. TSL 2 will require an 

estimated 34.9 million in product conversion costs primarily relating to the research and 
17

development programs needed to improve upon existing platforms to meet the specified 

efficiency levels. This represents 71.6 percent of the industry budget for research and 

development in the year leading up to amended standards. The substantial reduction in 

conversion costs over those incurred at higher TSLs, coupled with the fact that many 

products currently meet the efficiency standards set forth by TSL 2, greatly mitigate the 

operational risk and impact on INPV.

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 2 for residential dishwashers, the benefits of 

energy savings, water savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, generating capacity 

reductions, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions would outweigh the impacts on manufacturers, including the conversion costs 

that could result in a reduction in INPV for manufacturers.

In addition, the efficiency levels in TSL 2 correspond to the recommended levels 

in the Joint Petition, which DOE believes sets forth a statement by interested persons that 

are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of 

manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates) and contains 

recommendations with respect to an energy conservation standard that are in accordance 

with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Moreover, DOE has encouraged the submission of consensus 

agreements as a way for diverse interested parties to develop an independent and 

probative analysis useful in DOE standard setting and to expedite the rulemaking process. 

DOE also believes that the standard levels recommended in the consensus agreement may 

increase the likelihood for regulatory compliance, while decreasing the risk of litigation.
18

After considering the analysis and the benefits and burdens of TSL 2, the 

Secretary concludes that this TSL will offer the maximum improvement in efficiency that 

is technologically feasible and economically justified, and will result in the significant 

conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE proposes to adopt 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 II.3.

Table II.3 Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Dishwashers

Product Class

Compliance Date:

[INSERT DATE 1 YEAR AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

Maximum Annual 

Energy Use*

Maximum Per-Cycle 

Water Consumption

1. Standard (≥8 place settings 

plus 6 serving pieces) 307 kWh/year 5.0 gallons/cycle

2. Compact (<8 place settings 

plus 6 serving pieces) 222 kWh/year 3.5 gallons/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,

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

The benefits and costs of today’s standards can also be expressed in terms of 

annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the annualized 

national economic value, expressed in 2010$, of the benefits from operating products that 

meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using 

less energy and water, minus increases in product purchase costs, which is another way of 
19

representing consumer NPV), and (2) the monetary value of the benefits of emission 

reductions, including CO2 emission reductions.4The value of the CO2 reductions, 

otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), is calculated using a range of 

values per metric ton of CO2 developed by a recent interagency process.

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 2013–2047. 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 II.4 shows the annualized values for residential dishwashers under TSL 2, 

expressed in 2010$. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-

percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than CO2 reductions, for which DOE 

 

4 DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized 

values. First, DOE calculated a present value in 2011, the year used for discounting the NPV of total 

consumer costs and savings, for the time-series of costs and benefits using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent

for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO2 reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of 

discount rates, as shown in Table II.4. From the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual 

payment over a 30-year period that yields the same present value. The fixed annual payment is the 

annualized value. Although DOE calculated annualized values, this does not imply that the time-series of 

cost and benefits from which the annualized values were determined would be a steady stream of payments.
20

used a 3-percent discount rate along with the SCC series corresponding to a value of 

$22.3/ton in 2010 (in 2010$), the cost of the standards for dishwashers in today’s rule is 

$46 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the annualized benefits are $53 

million per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $3.9 million in CO2 reductions, 

and $0.24 million in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $11 

million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the SCC 

series corresponding to a value of $22.3/ton in 2010 (in 2010$), the cost of the standards 

for dishwashers in today’s rule is $44 million per year in increased equipment costs, 

while the benefits are $66 million per year in reduced operating costs, $3.9 million in 

CO2 reductions, and $0.26 million in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit 

amounts to $27 million per year.
21

Table II.4 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Amended Standards (TSL 2) for 

Residential Dishwashers Sold in 2013–2047

Discount Rate

Primary 

Estimate*

Low Net 

Benefits 

Estimate*

High Net 

Benefits 

Estimate*

Monetized (million 2010$/year)

Benefits

Operating Cost Savings

7% 53 48 59

3% 66 59 75

CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t** 5% 1.1 1.0 1.3

CO2 Reduction at $22.3/t** 3% 3.9 3.5 4.7

CO2 Reduction at $36.5/t** 2.5% 6.1 5.4 7.2

CO2 Reduction at $67.6/t** 3% 12.0 10.8 14.2

NOX Reduction at $2,537/t**

7% 0.24 0.23 0.27

3% 0.26 0.24 0.30

Total†

7% plus CO2 range 54 to 65 49 to 59 60 to 73

7% 57 52 64

3% plus CO2 range 68 to 78 60 to 70 76 to 89

3% 70 63 80

Costs

Incremental Product Costs

7% 46 44 43

3% 44 41 40

Total Net Benefits

Total†

7% plus CO2 range 8 to 19 6 to 16 17 to 30

7% 11 8 20

3% plus CO2 range 24 to 35 19 to 29 37 to 49

3% 27 22 40

* The results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2047 from the dishwashers purchased from 

2013 through 2047. Costs incurred by manufacturers, some of which may be incurred prior to 2013 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 

AEO2011 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 for projected product price trends in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate for projected 

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

explained in section IV.G.3 of the direct final rule.
22

** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2010$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under 

several scenarios. The values of $4.9, $22.3, and $36.5 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions 

calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.6 per ton represents the 

95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The value for NOX (in 2010$) is 

the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis.

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount 

rate, which is $22.3/ton in 2010 (in 2010$). In the rows labeled as “7% plus CO2 range” and “3% plus CO2

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

are added to the full range of CO2 values.

III. Public Participation

A. Submission of Comments

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule 

until 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.

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.
23

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.

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 
24

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. Email submissions are preferred. 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 

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.
25

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 

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).
26

B. Public Meeting

If DOE withdraws the direct final rule published elsewhere in today’s Federal

Register pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C), DOE will hold a public meeting to allow 

for additional comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish notice of any meeting in 

the Federal Register.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

The regulatory reviews conducted for this proposed rule are identical to those 

conducted for the direct final rule published elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. Please 

see the direct final rule for further details.
27

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today’s proposed rule.

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy 

conservation, Household appliances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small 

businesses.

10 CFR Part 430

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy 

conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, and Small 

businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 11, 2012.

________________________________

Dr. David Danielson

Assistant Secretary

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
28

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend parts 429 and 

430 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, to read as set forth below: 

PART 429 - CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR 

CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT

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

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317.

2. In § 429.19 revise paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:

§ 429.19 Dishwashers.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) Pursuant to §429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall include the following 

public product-specific information: The estimated annual energy use in kilowatt hours 

per year (kWh/yr) and the water consumption in gallons per cycle.

* * * * *

PART 430 - ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS

3. The authority citation for Part 430 continues to read as follows:
29

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

4. In §430.32 add paragraph (f)(3) to read as follows:

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

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(3) All dishwashers manufactured on or after [INSERT DATE 1 YEAR AFTER 

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], shall meet the 

following standard—

(i) Standard size dishwashers shall not exceed 307 kwh/year and 5.0 gallons per cycle.

(ii) Compact size dishwashers shall not exceed 222 kwh/year and 3.5 gallons per cycle.

* * * * *