CcwQgrea of tde Zanmteb /tates

WaFington, MC 20515

Dear Colleague:

~-,e«~ m. EE-RM/STD-98-440- '7 -Fo--

Department of Energy proposed mandates for clothes washers will increasingly be the

topic of constituent 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 of dollars 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 a backroom deal behind closed doors;

• The Department of Energy 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-RMa SSecretary-Department of Energy EE-RM/STD-98-440 - - r0 ' 1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585AA

Dear Secretary Richardson:

Subject: Abandonment of Top-loading Wash Machines

I understand you are vigorously supporting requiring front-loading wash machines, replacing the

existing top-loading machines without the input of the 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 of the drum has to be vertically mounted

instead of horizontally mounted as it is 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 of 2 gallons of water per flush; but in

reality, flushing twice -- using additional 2 gallons (8 gallons total). Please do not support this.

Sincerely,

t--._

EE-RM-STD-98-440 COMMENT 73FFE

Dear Colleague: }~ EE-RM/STD-98-440-t1J.--7~ ·F?-£' 

t Washer Mandate . De~artment of Energy proposed mandates for clothes washers will increasingly be the 

tOPIC of constItuent correspondence. Please note below a sample I received. 

Constituents' two crucial proble~~ with the washer mandates are: 

1. The American people (over 81 million households) would be forced against their will 

to pay hundreds of dollars more per washing 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 of Energy has merely rubber-stamped the backroom-deal-come-regulation;' 

• Addmg 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; 

a 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 st~ff (Aloysius Hogan, Joe Green, or Megan Barnhart) at 5-5802 to support reasonable 

consumer mput. . 

The Honorable William Richardson 

Secretary-Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

:Washington, DC 20585AA 

Dear Secretary Richardson: 

October 19, 2000 

EE-RM/STD-98-440-lf ~ ~ rr ... t 

Subject: Abandonment of Top-loading Wash Machines 

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 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,l 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 of the drum has to be vertically mounted ' 

instead of horizontally mounted as it is 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 sayings of2 gallons of water per 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 Washer Mandate . De~artment of Energy proposed mandates for clothes washers will increasingly be the 

tOPIC of constItuent correspondence. Please note below a sample I received. 

Constituents' two crucial proble~~ with the washer mandates are: 

1. The American people (over 81 million households) would be forced against their will 

to pay hundreds of dollars more per washing 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 of Energy has merely rubber-stamped the backroom-deal-come-regulation;' 

• Addmg 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; 

a 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 st~ff (Aloysius Hogan, Joe Green, or Megan Barnhart) at 5-5802 to support reasonable 

consumer mput. . 

The Honorable William Richardson 

Secretary-Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

:Washington, DC 20585AA 

Dear Secretary Richardson: 

October 19, 2000 

EE-RM/STD-98-440-lf ~ ~ rr ... t 

Subject: Abandonment of Top-loading Wash Machines 

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 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,l 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 of the drum has to be vertically mounted ' 

instead of horizontally mounted as it is 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 sayings of2 gallons of water per flush; bllt in 

reality, flushing twice -- using additional 2 gallons (8 gallons total). Please do not support this. 

Sincerely. 

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