# CcwQgrea of tde Zanmteb /tates WaFington, MC 20515 Dear Colleague: ~-,e«~ 

### m. EE-RM/STD-98-440- '

### 7 

# -Fo--

Department ofEnergy proposed mandates for clothes washers will increasingly be the topic ofconstituent correspondence. Please note below a sample I received. Constituents' two crucial problems with the washer mandates are: 

### 1. The American people (over 81 million households) would be forced against their will to pay hundreds ofdollars more per washing machine; 2. Insufficient input has been allowed from the American people. Constituents cite additional problems:
o Consumer acceptance is being trampled; * Special interest lobbyists cooked up the regulations in abackroom deal behind closed doors; • The Department ofEnergy has merely rubber-stamped the backroom-deal-come-regulation; Adding soap and clothes as desired is not possible with front-loading models; Only the absolute minimum 60 days (beginning October 5th, 2000) for comment is allowed; Over 81 million households with washers will be directly affected; Substantially increased maintenance costs are feared; New, different detergent would be needed; More time will be taken (approximately 10 minutes per load) to do the wash; * The American people have demonstrated a refusal to purchase such washing machines; * Special interests know the people's will and thus try to thwart free will through prohibiting its exercise. 

### Please join me in allowing consumers-the American people-reasonable input into this rule. Call my staff (Aloysius Hogan, Joe Green, or Megan Barnhart) at 5-5802 to support reasonable consumer input.
October 19, 2000 

### The Honorable William Richardson EE-RMaSSecretary-Department ofEnergy EE-RM/STD-98-440

- - 

### r0 ' 1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

### Washington, DC 20585AA Dear Secretary Richardson: Subject: Abandonment ofTop-loading Wash Machines I understand you are vigorously supporting requiring front-loading wash machines, replacing the existing top-loading machines without the input ofthe consumer. This is unfair and unethical to leave the consumer no choice but to purchase a more expensive washer, and also pay $200 to $300 on each service call to repair. As a concerned mother and housewife, I have owned two top-loading machines since 1966, with minimum repairs. With my top loading machine, I can add and delete clothes and soap as needed. The front loader; however, cannot be opened without flooding the floor. Also, with the front loading machine,' the supporting mechanism ofthe drum has to be vertically mounted instead ofhorizontally mounted as itis in the top loading machines. This creates additional wear and tear on the supporting mechanism. Before you force the housewives and mothers to use something against their wishes, I would request you to talk to us one to one to get our input. We all know what happened with the toilet issue

- leading the American consumer to believe a savings of2 gallons ofwater per flush; but in reality, flushing twice -- using additional 2 gallons (8gallons total). Please do not support this. Sincerely, t--._ Dear Colleague:

# }~**EE-RM/STD-98-440-t1J.--7~** ·F?-£' 

# t

# WasherMandate

.**De~artment** 

### ofEnergy proposed mandates for clothes washers will increasingly be the tOPIC ofconstItuent correspondence. Please note below a sample I received. Constituents' two crucial**proble~~** with the washer mandates are: 

### 1. TheAmerican people (over 81 million households) would be forced against their will 

### to pay hundreds ofdollars more perwashing machine; 2. 

### Insufficient input has been allowed from the American people. Constituents cite additional problems:
o Consumer acceptance is being trampled; e Special interest lobbyists cooked up the regulations in a backroom deal behind closed doors'

.. The ?epartment ofEnergy has merely rubber-stamped the backroom-deal-come-regulation;' • Addmg soap and clothes as desired is notpossible with front-loading models; • Only the absolute minimum 60 days (beginning October 5th, 2000) for comment is allowed; • Over 81 million households with washers will be directly affected; • .Substantially increasedmaintenance costs are feared; • New, different detergent would be needed; • More time will be taken (approximately 10 minutes per load) to do the wash; • The American people have demonstrated a refusal to purchase such washing machines; a Special interests know the people's will and thus try to thwart free will through prohibiting its exercise. 

### Pleasejoin me in allowing consumers-the American people--reasonable input into this rule. Call 

### my

### st~ff (Aloysius Hogan, Joe Green, orMegan

### Barnhart) at 

### 5-5802 to support reasonable consumer mput. .



### The Honorable

### William Richardson Secretary-Department ofEnergy 

### 1000 IndependenceAvenue, 

### SW :Washington, DC 

### 20585AA Dear Secretary Richardson: October 19, 

### 2000
EE-RM/STD-98-440-lf

# ~**~**

# rr ...t

Subject: Abandonment ofTop-loading WashMachines 

### I understand

### you are vigorously supporting 

### requiring front-loading 

### wash machinel;l, replacing the 

### existing top-loading machines 

### without the 

### input of

### the consumer. This is 

### unfair and unethical to 

### leave the consumerno choice

### but to purchase 

### amore expensive washer, and also pay 

### $200 to 

### $300 oneach service 

### call to repair. As a concerned 

### mother and housewife,l 

### have ownedtwo top-loading machines since 1966, with minimumrepairs. With mytop 

### loading machine, I can add and delete clothes and soap as 

### needed. The 

### front loader; 

### however, cannot be openedwithout 

### flooding the floor. Also, 

### with the front loading machine,'the supporting mechanism ofthe drum has tobevertically mounted ' 

### instead ofhorizontally mounted as 

### it is in the 

### top loading machines. This 

### creates additional wear 

### and tear onthe supporting 

### mechanism. Before you force the housewives and mothers 

### to use something against

### theirWishes, 

### I would 

### request you to talk 

### to us one 

### to one to 

### get our

### input. We all know what happened with

### the toilet issue 

### -leading

### the American 

### consumer to believe a sayings 

### of2 gallons 

### ofwaterper

### flush; bllt 

### in reality, flushing twice

-- using additional 2 gallons (8 gallons total). Please do 

### not support 

### this. Sincerely.

# ~~ n ......__ ....__........... Dear Colleague:

# }~**EE-RM/STD-98-440-t1J.--7~** ·F?-£' 

# t

# WasherMandate

.**De~artment** 

### ofEnergy proposed mandates for clothes washers will increasingly be the tOPIC ofconstItuent correspondence. Please note below a sample I received. Constituents' two crucial**proble~~** with the washer mandates are: 

### 1. TheAmerican people (over 81 million households) would be forced against their will 

### to pay hundreds ofdollars more perwashing machine; 2. 

### Insufficient input has been allowed from the American people. Constituents cite additional problems:
o Consumer acceptance is being trampled; e Special interest lobbyists cooked up the regulations in a backroom deal behind closed doors'

.. The ?epartment ofEnergy has merely rubber-stamped the backroom-deal-come-regulation;' • Addmg soap and clothes as desired is notpossible with front-loading models; • Only the absolute minimum 60 days (beginning October 5th, 2000) for comment is allowed; • Over 81 million households with washers will be directly affected; • .Substantially increasedmaintenance costs are feared; • New, different detergent would be needed; • More time will be taken (approximately 10 minutes per load) to do the wash; • The American people have demonstrated a refusal to purchase such washing machines; a Special interests know the people's will and thus try to thwart free will through prohibiting its exercise. 

### Pleasejoin me in allowing consumers-the American people--reasonable input into this rule. Call 

### my

### st~ff (Aloysius Hogan, Joe Green, orMegan

### Barnhart) at 

### 5-5802 to support reasonable consumer mput. .



### The Honorable

### William Richardson Secretary-Department ofEnergy 

### 1000 IndependenceAvenue, 

### SW :Washington, DC 

### 20585AA Dear Secretary Richardson: October 19, 

### 2000
EE-RM/STD-98-440-lf

# ~**~**

# rr ...t

Subject: Abandonment ofTop-loading WashMachines 

### I understand

### you are vigorously supporting 

### requiring front-loading 

### wash machinel;l, replacing the 

### existing top-loading machines 

### without the 

### input of

### the consumer. This is 

### unfair and unethical to 

### leave the consumerno choice

### but to purchase 

### amore expensive washer, and also pay 

### $200 to 

### $300 oneach service 

### call to repair. As a concerned 

### mother and housewife,l 

### have ownedtwo top-loading machines since 1966, with minimumrepairs. With mytop 

### loading machine, I can add and delete clothes and soap as 

### needed. The 

### front loader; 

### however, cannot be openedwithout 

### flooding the floor. Also, 

### with the front loading machine,'the supporting mechanism ofthe drum has tobevertically mounted ' 

### instead ofhorizontally mounted as 

### it is in the 

### top loading machines. This 

### creates additional wear 

### and tear onthe supporting 

### mechanism. Before you force the housewives and mothers 

### to use something against

### theirWishes, 

### I would 

### request you to talk 

### to us one 

### to one to 

### get our

### input. We all know what happened with

### the toilet issue 

### -leading

### the American 

### consumer to believe a sayings 

### of2 gallons 

### ofwaterper

### flush; bllt 

### in reality, flushing twice

-- using additional 2 gallons (8 gallons total). Please do 

### not support 

### this. Sincerely.

# ~~ n ......__ ....__...........