AHAM Home Laundry Data Collection

DOE Rulemaking

Summer, 1997

Clothes Washer, Standard Capacity (1.6 cu.ft. or greater)

____ Product Characteristics _ Energy Use Water.

_________ Energy Estimated

Percent MEF Total Clothes Hot Machine Dryer Water Water Data 1997

Improvement Energy Container Water Energy Energy Use Use Source Annual

w/dryer _ Production

Volume

cu.ftkwh/cycle kwh/cycle cu.f. kwh/cycle kwh/cycle kwh/cyde galcyde galJcu.ft.

[1 [21 [31] 4] [5] [61 [7] [8[] [ 1 11]

,f. Baseline 0.885?

5% ----------

10% ______ ._-

15% .. . .' 3520% _ _----------

45% .__________

50% __________

7/22/97 Page 1

^ ' * - \ .. , . n -~
AHAM Home Laundry Data Collection

DOE Rulemaking

Summer, 1997

Clothes Washer, Standard Capacity (1.6 cu.ft. or greater)

Vanriable Costs Total Cost Uncertainty Range Product Conversion Costs Total Cost Uncertainty Range

Costs Per Unit Variable (+/- percentage) Total (millions of $) Fixed (+/- percentage)

Percent _ Costs Variable Costs ___ Costs of Fixed Costs

Improvement Materials Labor Overhead ($ per unit) Tooling Investment Research Marketing (millions $)

Maximum Minimum Costs & Devel. Maximum Minimum

12 1 [ 14] [15 [16]17] [18] [19] [20 [21] [22] .23] [24]

Baseline

10% _ _

15%

20%

35%

40%

45% ____ __

50%____ __

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7/22/97 · ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Page 2~

7/22/97 Page 2 .
AHAM Home Laundry Data Collection

DOE Rulemaking

Summer, 1997

Clothes Washer, Standard Capacity (1.6 cu.ft. or greater)

Percent -Comments Estimate

Improvement increase in

_~________ '~___________________________ -Retail Price

[25] 26]

,: Baseline

5%

10%_______

15%

20% ____

35%

40% 40% __________________________________________ ,. . *=

45%

50%

7/22/97 Page 3

7/22/97 Page3
Data Request C2: Efficiency-Level Approach Footnotes

This approach consists of letting the manufacturers supply cost and corresponding

efficiency data using any design options or design option combinations they choose.

·[1] Based on MEF (includes washer and dryer energy). Percent increase column

could be replaced by a MEF column.

Percent improvement = 1 - (baseline MEF / new MEF)) x 100

[2] Refer to Section 4.4, MEF, DOE Test Procedures'. Baseline MEF value to be

provided by AHAM.

[3] Sum of ErE and DE; where ErE is from Section 4.1.7 and DE is from4Section 4.3 of

DOE Test Procedures'.

[4] Refer to Section 3.1, C, DOE Test Procedures'.

[5] Refer to Section 4.1.3, HE,, DOE Test Procedures'. Includes only externally

applied hot water.

[6] Refer to Section 4.1.6, ME,' DOE Test Procedures'. Includes internal hot water.

[7] Refer to Section 4.3, DE, DOE Test Procedures'.

[8] Refer to Section 4.2.2, QT, DOE Test Procedures.

[9] Refer to Section 4.2.3, WCF, DOE Test Procedures'.

[10] Source for Energy Use data: test data (T), calculations (C), or estimation .(E).

[11] Assumes, a constant production volume at the level anticipated for the year the

new standard comes into effect (2003). For production of all models in product

class.

[12] Material costs.are those costs associated with the purchase of all materials

required in the manufacturer's production process. Accordingly, material costs

include not only the cost of the material in the finished component, but also that of

the material scrapped (because of material removed or scrapped components)

minus salvage price. Estimates of direct material costs account for all raw

materials and purchased finished supplier parts that are directly assignable to the

end product.

[13] Labor costs include all direct costs that are physically traceable to'the end product,

plus any overtime premium. Labor costs are determined as an average wage rate,

depending on worker classification, required to perform the tasks resulting in the

end product. Total labor cost per unit is a summation of costs taken over all tasks

or operations required in the production process.

[14] Overhead includes factory overhead excluding depreciation. Includes both direct

and indirect components.

Direct overhead costs are the estimated overhead charges that attempt to account

for all other expenses that are due to the production process, vary directly with the

production volume, and contribute to the cost of sales. Examples of such,

Clothes Washer Test Procedure titled "Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy

Consumption of Automatic and Semi-Automatic Clothes Washers." All are part of Appendix J1

to Subpart B of Part 430.

Draft CWASHER5.WPD July 22, 1997 C-9
expenses include, but are not limited to, expendable tools, material handling

support, fuel and power requirements, set up costs, freight in and out, costs of

direct supervision, and clerical costs. (The estimated total of all expenses that

vary with the production quantity is based on the volume of common or near

common components to be produced. The sum of these expenses is then

apportioned to each component on some logical scheme.)

Indirect overhead are comprised of, but not limited to, property taxes, insurance

costs, etc.

The manufacturers could either provide the direct and indirect overhead costs

separately, or provide the total overhead costs and a percentage value indicating

the direct vs. indirect split.

[15] ' Total of columns numbered [12] through [14].

[16] Show the range of expected variable costs expressed as maximum value (% over

column [15]).

[17] Show the range of expected variable costs expressed as minimum value (% below

column [15]).

[18] Tooling cost is the total cost of special tooling to manufacture a component over

the entire life production volume of that component. Tooling costs will be

amortized over a period of 5 years2.

[19] Investment costs are those costs associated with the purchase of property, plant

and equipment required for the manufacturer's production process. Investment

costs will be amortized over a period of 5 years2.

[20] R&D costs are costs incurred for the purpose of designing and developing new

and improved products, or processes. R&D costs will be treated as an expense.

[21] Marketing costs are the expensable costs for new product advertisements,

literature'and catalogs, and various related marketing expenses. Marketing costs

include market research, advertising, point-of-sale promotions, and salespersons'

compensations and travel costs. Marketing costs will be treated as an expense.

[22] Total of columns numbered [18], [19], [20] & [21].

[23] Show the range of expected variable costs expressed as maximum value (% over

column [22]).

[24] Show the range of expected variable costs expressed as minimum value (% below

column [22]).

2 The Department will perform sensitivity analysis on this variable as appropriate on the

suggestion of stakeholders.

Draft CWASHER5.WPD July 22, 1997 C-10

*Y R
Explanation of Relationship Between Percent Improvement and MEF

Definitions and Equations

(1) MEF = cu.ft. capacity /kWh energy used

We see that MEF is inversely proportional to the energy use.

(2) Percent energy savings = [(reduction in kWh's used) /(original amount of kWh 's used)] x 100%

Therefore,

(3) Percent energy savings = ([(l/MEF,orig.) - (1/MEF,new)] /(1/MEF,orig.)l x 100%

An assumption is made that the capacities of the different design options are constant. Equation (3) is the

mathematical equivalent of:

(4) Percent energy savings = {(MEF,new - MEF,orig.)/MEF,new) x 100% Or,

(5) Percent energy savings = (I - (baseline MEF/new MEF)} x 100%

Baseline and orig. (Original) are used interchangeably here.

To calculate a New MEF, given a Percent Decrease in Energy Consumption

(6) MEF,new= (MEF,baseline)/[l - (% energy savings)/ 100]

Example:

Baseline energy consumption = 3.306 kWh/cycle

Baseline MEF = 0.885

Horz. Axis, recirc., 40% RMC energy consumption = 1.685 kWh/cycle

Steps for calculation of MEFfor the Horz. Axis, recirc., 40% RMC:

Percent energy savings = (3.306 - 1.685)/(3.306) = 49.0% [Use Equation (2)]

MEF,new = 0.885/ [- (49.0/100)] = 1.736 [Use Equation (6)]

Summary

Design Option kWh/cycle MEF

Baseline 3.306 0.885

Horz. Axis, recirc., 40% RMC 1.685 1.736

(=> 49% energy savings)

Note: The percent efficiency can be based on either a) the actual kWh/cycle or b) the MEF. The difference being

that the MEF normalizes for washer basket volume. This is illustrated in Equation 1 and Equation 6. Since DOE

does not have the capacity data at this point the percentage improvement is expressed as MEF values.
EF, MEF, and Conversions

Background

At the start of the current clothes washer rulemaking process, AHAM submitted efficiency data based on two test

procedures: a) the test procedure in effect at that time (using EF) and b) a proposed AHAM test procedure (using MEF).

The proposed AHAM test procedure was modified by DOE and AHAM and is now known as the Appendix J1 test

procedure. This test procedure was sent to stakeholders on July 18", 1997.

Based on the current test procedure the AHAM submitted a shipment weighted average (SWA) baseline EF of

1.198. The baseline in the Draft Preliminary Engineering Analysis has an shipment weighted average MEF of

0.885 fit/kWh. (This value is intended to correspond to a EF of 1.198). The minimum required standard is an

EFof 1.18 ft 3

/kWh.

Adjusting MEF to Modified Test Procedure

As the AHAM proposed test procedure was modified, the energy use values, including MEF values were adjusted by

LBNL. These adjustments required that certain assumptions be made. Further detail on adjustments to the MEF are

detailed in the Draft Report on the Preliminary Engineering Analysis presented at the November 1996 Workshop. Also,

further detail on adjustments are discussed in supplements made available after the 1996 Workshop. For example, in

my corrections I always assumed a washer with HC, WC, and CC temperature selections. Had I made different

assumptions, the correction factors used would have been different.

Converting EF to MEF

* There is no direct way to convert the old EF values to the new MEF values without making assumptions or

having raw data to input into the new test procedure.

* . In determining the MEF, manufacturers had to make assumptions on the type of clothes washer used and what

kind of temperature selections were available. The new Appendix Jl. test procedure also has several raw data

inputs that weren't required under current test procedure.

* A shipment weighted average MEF value of 0.923 was used in the Clothes Washer Rulemaking Framework,

Appendix A. This value was arrived at by using the current shipment weighted average energy factor (EF =

1.23 as described in the AHAM fact book) and subtracting 25% (1.23 less 25% = 9.23 ft/kWh). The 25%

reduction was based on 1.18 (the current minimum EF) less 25% = 0.885 (the baseline MEF). However, the

0.885 MEF should have been compared to the shipment weighted average baseline EF supplied by AHAM,

which is 1.198. If a rough approximate conversion is wanted. then a conversion factor of 26.1% should have

been used (1.198 less 26.1% = 0.885).

MEF based on actual testing has not been required by the FTC or the DOE and therefore, there is no database

on this metric. To get actual MEF values, raw data should be inputted into the Appendix J1 test procedure.

Ted Pope, Andrew DeLaskey (CEE) and others have converted from MEF data in my analysis to an EF they

could use as a basis for their market pull programs. Assumptions had to be made to make these conversion as

well.

Discussion

* The minimum standard should be the baseline for the life-cycle cost.

* For national energy savings the shipment weighted average efficiency should be used as a baseline.

Future Work

As a check on future data submitted by manufacturers, a parametric analysis could be done, where temperature and

water consumption values are entered into test procedure equations. The test procedure calculations can be set up in a

spreadsheet.