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 ofletting the manufacturers supplycost and corresponding efficiency datausing 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 ofErE and DE; where ErE is from Section 4.1.7 and DE 

### is from 4

### Section 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 forthe 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 ofthe material in the finished component, but also that of the material scrapped (because ofmaterial removed or scrapped components) minus salvage price. Estimates ofdirect 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 ofcosts 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 ofsales. Examples ofsuch,

Clothes Washer Test Procedure titled "Uniform TestMethod for Measuring the Energy Consumption ofAutomatic and Semi-Automatic ClothesWashers." All are part ofAppendix J1 to Subpart B ofPart 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 ofall expenses that vary with the production quantity is based on the volume ofcommon or near common components to be produced. The sum ofthese 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 thetotal overhead costs and a percentage value indicating the direct vs. indirect split. [15] ' 

### Total ofcolumns numbered [12] through [14]. [16] Show the range ofexpected variable costs expressed as maximum value (% over column [15]). [17] Show the range ofexpected variable costs expressed as minimum value (% below column [15]). [18] Tooling cost is the total cost ofspecial tooling to manufacture a component over the entire life production volume ofthat component. Tooling costs will be amortized over a period of5 years2



### . [19] Investment costs are those costs associated with the purchase ofproperty, plant and equipment required forthe 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 ofdesigning and developing new and improved products, or processes. R&D costs will be treated as an expense. [21] Marketing costs are theexpensable 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 ofcolumns numbered [18], [19], [20] & [21]. [23] Show the range ofexpected variable costs expressed as maximum value (% over column [22]). [24] Show the range ofexpected variable costs expressed as minimum value (% below column [22]).

2

### The Department will perform sensitivity analysis onthis variable as appropriate on the

suggestion ofstakeholders. 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 thatMEF isinversely proportional to the energy use. (2) Percentenergysavings= [(reductionin kWh's used)/(original amountof kWh 's used)]x 100% Therefore, (3) Percentenergysavings = ([(l/MEF,orig.)

- (1/MEF,new)]/(1/MEF,orig.)l x 100% An assumption is made that the capacities ofthe different design options are constant. Equation (3)is the mathematical equivalent of: (4) Percentenergysavings = {(MEF,new - MEF,orig.)/MEF,new) x 100% Or, (5) Percentenergysavings = (I - (baselineMEF/newMEF)} x 100% Baseline and orig. (Original) are used interchangeably here. To calculate a New MEF, given aPercent Decrease in Energy Consumption (6) MEF,new=(MEF,baseline)/[l- (% energysavings)/ 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 forcalculationof MEFforthe Horz.Axis, recirc.,40%RMC: Percentenergysavings = (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 orb) the MEF. Thedifference being that the MEF normalizes for washer basket volume. This is illustrated inEquation 1and Equation 6. Since DOE does not have the capacity data at this pointthe percentage improvement is expressed as MEF values.

### EF,MEF, and Conversions Background At the start ofthe current clothes washer rulemaking process, AHAM submitted efficiency data based on twotest procedures: a) the test procedure in effect atthat time (using EF) and b) a proposed AHAM testprocedure (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 onJuly 18", 1997. Based on the current test procedure the AHAM submitted a shipment weighted average (SWA) baseline EF of 1.198. The baseline inthe DraftPreliminary Engineering Analysishas an shipment weighted average MEF of 0.885 fit/kWh. (This value is intended tocorrespond to a EF of 1.198). Theminimum required standard is an EFof 1.18 ft3 /kWh. Adjusting MEF to Modified Test Procedure Asthe AHAM proposed test procedure was modified, the energy use values, includingMEF values were adjusted by LBNL. These adjustments required that certain assumptions bemade. Further detail on adjustments to the MEF are detailed inthe Draft Report on the Preliminary Engineering Analysis presented attheNovember 1996 Workshop. Also, furtherdetail on adjustments are discussed in supplements made available afterthe 1996Workshop. Forexample, in my corrections Ialways assumed awasher withHC, WC, and CC temperature selections. HadI made different assumptions, the correction factors used wouldhave been different. Converting EF to MEF * There is no direct way to convert the old EF values to the newMEF values without making assumptions or having raw datato input intothe newtest procedure. *

. In determining the MEF, manufacturers had to make assumptions on thetype ofclothes washer used and what kindoftemperature selections were available. Thenew Appendix Jl.testprocedure also has several raw data inputs that weren't required under current test procedure. * A shipment weighted average MEF value of0.923 was used in the Clothes WasherRulemakingFramework, Appendix A. This value was arrived at by usingthe 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 wasbased on 1.18 (the current minimum EF) less 25% =0.885 (thebaseline MEF). However, the 0.885 MEF should have been compared to the shipment weighted average baseline EF supplied by AHAM, which is 1.198. Ifa rough approximate conversion is wanted.then aconversion factor of26.1% should have been used (1.198 less 26.1% = 0.885). MEF based on actual testing has not been required bythe FTC or the DOE and therefore, there is nodatabase on this metric. To get actual MEF values, raw data should be inputted into the Appendix J1 test procedure. TedPope, Andrew DeLaskey (CEE) and others have converted fromMEF data in my analysis to an EF they could use as a basis for theirmarket pull programs. Assumptions had to be made to make these conversion as well. Discussion * The minimum standard should be thebaseline for the life-cycle cost. * Fornational energy savings the shipment weighted average efficiency should be used as a baseline. FutureWork As a check onfuture data submitted by manufacturers, aparametric 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.