## Monday April 1, 1985.



## a

FA 

# Part VI



# Department ofEnergy.

Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; Energy Efficiency Standards for Dishwashers, Television Sets

, Clothes Washers, and Humidifiers and Dehumidifiers; Notice of Proposed • . Rulemaking and Public Hearing 

# -

-- ':'



# - - - - 

# -,

.. 

# -

- := 

# = =55 

# ==



# ___ --=



# -- =- 

# = E 

### 5. 

# E .=



# =" 

# - = .=

.... Monday"" April 1, 1985



# Part VI 

# Department of. Energy,

" 

## Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy



## 10 CFR Part 

## 430 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; Energy Efficiency Standards for Dishwashers, Television Sets, Clothes Washers, and Humidifiers and Dehumidifiers; Notice of 'Proposed"

, Rulemaklng and Public Hearing

### Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 / Proposed Rules

Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430 (Docket No

. CAS-RM

-79-1131
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; Proposed Rulemaking and Public Hearing Regarding Energy Efficiency Standards for Dishwashers, Television Sets, Clothes Washers, and Humidifiers and Dehumidifiers

AGENCY: Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy, DOE. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and publlic hearing.

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, as a general matter requires that the Department of Energy prescribe an energy efficiency standard for each of certain major household appliances, unless it determines, by rule, that a standard will not result in significant conservation of energy, is not technologically feasible, or is not conomicaliy justified. The Department of Energy is roposing to determine that an energy efficiency standard for dishwashers, television sets, clothes washers, and humidifiers and dehumidifiers would not result in a significant conservation of energy or be economically justified. Therefore, the Department is today proposing to amend Title 30, Part 430 of the Code of Federal Regulations to include a determination of no standard for the above-mentioned covered products. The purpose of this notice of proposed rulemaking is to provide interested persons an opportunity to comment on the proposed rule and to invite interested persons to participate In 'the rulemaking process. DATES: Written comments in response to this notice must be received by July 1, 1985; requests to speak at the public hearing must be received by May 8. 1985; speakers will be notified by Maya. 1985; statements must be submitted by May 10,1955; the public hearing will be held on May 15, 1985, at 9:30 a.m. ADDRESSES : Written comments, requests to speak at the public hearing, and copies of statements of each speaker are to be submitted to: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy, Office of Hearings and Dockets, Appliances (Docket No. CAS-RM-79-113), Room 6B-025, Forrestal Building, 3000 Independence Avenue, SW.. Washington, D.C.20585. (202) 252

-9319. The public hearing will be held at Room 1E-245

, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.. Washington, D.C. 20585. Copies of the transcript of thepublic' hearing, the Technical Support Document, and the public comments received may be obtained from the DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room, Room IE-190,1000 Independence Avenue SW„ Washington, D.C.20585. (202) 252

-6020.9:00 am-4:00 pm. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT; Michael J. McCabe, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building, Mail Station CE-112

.1, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 252- 9127 ' Eugene Margolis

, Esq., U

.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel,Forrestal Building, Mail Station GC12, 1000 Independence Avenue SW„ Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 252- 9513 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy. Office of Hearings and Dockets,. Forrestal Building

, Room 65

-025,1000 independence Avenue SW.. Washington, D.C. 20585 , (202) 252- 9319.
SUPPLEMENTARY : NFORMATION2 I.Introduction. a. Authority. b. Background. II. General Discussion. a. Test Procedures. b. Technological Feasibility. - c. Energy Savings. 1. Significance of Savings. 2. Determination of Savings. A. SUP Model. 'B. Model Validation. C. Sensitivity Analyses. d. Economic Justification. - .. 1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers. '2. Life Cycle Costs. 8. Energy Savings. 4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Prodactis 5. Impact of Lessening Competition. 8. Need of the Nation to Conserve

7. Other Factors. 8. Weighing of Factors. III. Product

-Specific Discussion. a. Dishwashers. b. Television Sets. _ c. Clothes-Washers. d. Humidifiers and Dehumidifier,. N. Preemption of State Regulations. V. Environmental

. Regulatory Impact, and Regulatory Flexibility Reviews.. - . a. Environmental Review. b. Regulatory Impact Review. c. Regulatory Flexibility Review.' "VI. Public Comment Procedures. a. Participation in Rulemaking. b. Written Comment Procedures. a. Public Hearings. 

### I. Introduction a. Authority '

Part B of Title Ill of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (Pub. L 94-163). as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA) (Pub. L 95-619),' created the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. The consumer products subject to this program (referred to hereafter as "covered products") are: refrigerators and refrigerator

-freezers; ' freezers; dishwashers; clothes dryers; water heaters ; room air conditioners; home heating equipment

, not including furnaces; television sets; kitchen ranges and ovens; clothes washers ; humidifiers and dehumidifiers; central air -conditioners; and furnaces

, as well as any other consumer product classified by the Secretary of Energy, if the product uses a specified minimum amount of energy

. See section 322. The Secretary has not so classified any additional products. Under the Act

, the program consists essentially of three parts : testing, labeling

, and energy efficiency standards

. The Department of Energy, in consultation with the National Bureau of Standards

, is required to establish test procedures for each of the covered ` products. See section 323(a)(2). The purpose of the test procedures is to provide for test results that reflect the energy efficiency

, energy use, or estimated annual operating costs of each of the covered products. See section 323(b)(1). All test procedures were required to be adopted not later than May 1

, 1978

. See section 323(a) (4) and (6). A test procedure was not required if DOE determined by rule that one could not be developed

. See section 323(a )(6)(B). Beginning 180 days after a test procedure for a product is adopted, no manufacturer may represent the' energy consumption of or the cost of energy consumed by the product except .as reflected in tests conducted according to the DOE procedure

. See section 323(c). Test procedures have been prescribed relating to all products, but on the basis of continuing review, certain classes of products do not have currently applicable test procedures. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is required by the Act to prescribe rules

'Part B of Title m of EPCP,, as amended by the 1YECFA, is often referred to in this notice as the -ace." 

### 12966 Federal Register 

# I Vol. 50. 

### No. 62 

# I Monday, April 1. 1985 

# I Proposed Rules

ENT OF ENERGY

of Conservation and Renewable Energy



### 10 CFR Part 430 [Docket No. CA5-RM-79-113) Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; Proposed Rulemaking and Public Hearlng Regarding Energy Efficiency

. Standards for Dishwashers, Television Sets, Clothes Washers, and Humidifiers and Dehumidifiers

AGENCY: Office ofConservation and Renewable Energy. DOE.
ACTION: Notice ofproposed rulemaking and p)Jbllic hearing.

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act. as a general matter requires that the Department ofEnergy prescribe an energy efficiency standard for each of certain major household appliances. unless 

### it determines. by rule. that a standard will not result in significanf conservation ofenergy. is not technologically feasible. or is not 

# Iconomicall

### Y justified. The Department ofEnergy is roposing to determine that an energy efficiency standard for dishwashers. television sets. clothes washers. and humidifiers and dehumidifiers would not result in a significant conservation.of energy or be economicallyjustified. Therefore. the Department is today proposing to amend Title 10. Part 430 of the Code ofFederal Regulations to include a determination ofno standard for the above-mentioned covered products.

Thepurpose ofthis notice ofproposed rulemaking is to provide interested

. , persons an opportunity to comment 

### on**~** the proposed rule.and to invite interested persons to participate in·the rulemaking proceiB.

. DATES: WriUen comments in response 10 this notice must be received by

### July 1. 1985; requests to speak at the public hearing must 

### be received 

### byMay 

### 8. 1985; speakers wm be notified by

### MayB. 1985; statements must be submitted 

### by May 10. 198'5; the public hearing will be held on May 15. 1985. at 9:30 a.m. ADDRESSES: Written comments. requests to speak at the public hearing. and copies of statements of each speaker are to be submitted to: U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Conservation and 'Renewable Energy. Office ofHearings and Dockets. Appliances (Docket No. CAS-RM-79-113). Room 6B-025. Forrestal Building. 1000 Independence .

### Av~nue. SW .• Washington. D.C. 20585. (202) 252-9319. ;

. .

The public hearing will be held at Room lE-245. ForrestaI Building. 1000 Independence Avenue SW

.. Washington, D.C

.. 20585.

.. . .

Copies ofthe transcript ofthe**.puhli~** .

. hearing. the Technical Support

Document. and the public comments received may be obtained from the DOE Freedom ofInformation ReadingRoom. Room lE-190. 1000 Independence Avenue SW.• Washington. D.C.20585. (202) 252-6020. 9:00 am-4:00 pm. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTAC't; Michael

## J. McCabe. U.S. Department of

Energy. Office ofConservation and Renewable Energy. Forrestal Building. Mail Station CE-112.1. 1000 Independerice Avenue SW •• Washington. D.C. 20565. (202) 252- 9127' " . Eugene Margolis. Esq.• 

### U.S. Department

ofEnergy. Office ofGeneral Counsel, Forrestal Building. Mail Station GC12.1000Independence Avenue SW

.. Washington. D.C. 20585. (202) 252- 9513

. U.S. Department ofEnergy. 

### Office of

Conservation and Renewable Energy. Office ofHearings and Dockets•. Forrestal Building. Room 68-025. 1000 lndependence Avenue SW •• Washington. D.C. 20585. (202) 252- 9319.
SUPPLEMENTARY :NFORMATlO":' I ..Introduction.

a. Aulhority. b. Background. 

## n. General Diacullllion.

...Test Procedures. b. Technological Feasibility.
1:. Energy Savings.

1. Significance ofSavings. 2. Determination ofSavings.

A. EUP Model. '8.ModelValidation. C. Semitivity Analyses. d. Economic Justification. '.-



### i Economic Impact 

### on Manufacturers and Consumers. '%. Life Cycle Costs. .8. Energy SBvings.

. 4. Lessening ofUtility or Perfonnance of :Product.. 5.lmpact

## DrLessening Competition. 8. Need ofthe Nation to Conserve Energy. 7. OtherFactors. 8. Weighing ofFactors. 

## m. Product-Specific Discussion.

a. Dishwashers. b. Television Sets.

e. Clothes'Washers. d. Humidifiers and Dehurnidifiel'l. IV. Preemption of State RegulatioDll. V. Environmental. Regulatory Impact.

# ana Regulatory Flexibility ReviewL

... a. Environmental Review.

. .' b. Regulatory ImpactReview.

.

e. Regulatory Flexibility Review.•.. VL Public Comment Procedures.
a. Participation in Rulemaking. ·b. Written Comment Procedures.


### c. Public Hearings.. 

### I. Introduction

.



### . o. Authority

Part B ofTitle III ofthe Energy Polic}, and Conservation Act [EPCA) 

### [Pub. L. 94-163). as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA) 

### (Pub. L. 95-619).' created the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products OtherThan Automobiles. The consumer products subject to this program (referred to hereafter as "covered products") are: refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers; freezers; dishwashers; clothes dryers; water heaters; room air conditioners; home heating equipment. not including furnaces; television sets; kitchen ranges and ovens; clothes washers; humidifiers .and dehumidifiers; central air

. ·conditioners; and furnaces. as well as any other consumerproduct classified by the Secretary ofEnergy. ifthe product uses a specified minimum amount ofenergy. See section 322. The Secretary has not so classified any additional products.

Underthe Act. the program consists essentially of three parts: testing. 1abeling. and energy efficiency standards. The Department ofEnergy. in consultation with the National Bureau of Standards. is required to establish test procedures for each of the covered J products. See section 323(a)(2). The purpose of the test procedures is to provide for test results that reflect the energy efficiency. energy use. or estimated annual operating costs of each of the covered products. See section 323(b)(1). All test procedures

were required to be adopted not later than May 1. 1978. 

### See section 323[a) (4) .and (6). A test procedure was not .required if DOE determined by rule that

one could not be developed. 

### See section S23(a)(6)(B). Beginning 180 days after a 1est procequre for 

### a product is adopted.

no manufacturer mayrepresent the'**~nergy** consumption ofor the cost of energy consumed by the product except

.as reflected in tests conducted according to the DOE procedure. 

### See section 323(c). Test procedures have been prescribed relating to 

### all products. but

on the basis ofcontinuing review. certain classes ofproducts do not have (;t1[Tently applicable test procedures.

The Federal Trade Commission [FTC) is.required by the Act to prescribe rules

•Part B ofTitle

## m ofEPCA. as emended by the NECPA. i. often referred to in this notice as the -.Act,-

### Federal Register /. Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 / Proposed Rules

governing the labeling of the covered . products

. See section 324(q). These rules are to require that each particular model of a covered product bear a label that indicates its estimated annual operating cost and the range of estimated annual operating costs for other

. models of that product

. See section 324(c)(1). A rule is not required under section 324 if the Secretary of Energy determines that disclosure of estimated annual operating costs on a label is not technologically feasible or if the FTC determines that such disclosure is not likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions or is not economically or technically feasible

. See section 324(c). No labeling rule can be made with respect to a product for which there is no DOE test procedure

. See section 324(b)(3). At the present time
, there is an FTC rule requiring labels under the Act for the following products: room air conditioners

, furnaces
, clothes washers, dishwashers

, water heaters
, freezers,and refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers.2 The FTC has proposed a rule that requires labels for central air . conditioners.3 For each of the covered products, DOE is required to establish mandatory energy efficiency standards that are designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. See tie.n`625 (a)(1) and [c). The Act provides. however

, that no standard for a product is to be established if there is no test procedure for the product
, or if DOE determines by rule either that a - .standard would not result in significant conservation of energy or that a standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. See section 325(b). In determining whether a standard is economically justified, the Department is directed to determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by weighing six specific factors, as well as any other factors DOE considers relevant. See section 325 (d). The factors are: . (1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and on the consumers of the product subject to such standard; 

### (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or class), compared to any increase in the price of , or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses
, of the covered products which are likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

_ 44 FR 88475 (November It I"). 45 FR 53340 (August 11. 1980).. 

### (3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard; (4) Any lessening of the utility or the ,performance of the covered products likely to result from the imposition of the. standard; . (5) The impact of any lessening of---- competition determined in writing by the Attorney General that is likely to result from the imposition of the - standards; and .. - - - ..... (6) The need of the Nation to conserve energy. - A rule establishing an energy efficiency standard for a product may set different levels of efficiencies for different classes ' of that product if they use a different kind of energy or have different capacity or performance related features that justify different levels of efficiencies

. See section 325(f). When a standard has been established, DOE may exempt a manufacturer from the effect of the standard for up to two years, if a manufacturer's gross - revenues in the preceding year did not exceed $8 million and, after obtaining the views of the Attorney General, DOE determines that failure to grant the exemption would likely result in a lessening of competition

. See section 325(e). a,.!, The Act speaffies the priorities and procedures to be followed in adopting efficiency standards

. Nine of the 13 covered products are given priority under the Act. See section 325(g). These nine products are: refrigerators and refrigerator

-freezers; freezers; clothes dryers; water heaters; room air conditioners; home heating equipment. not including furnaces; kitchen ranges and ovens; central air conditioners; and furnaces

. The remaining four covered products assigned a lesser priority are dishwashers

, television sets

, clothes washers, and humidifiers and dehumidifiers

. The latter four products are the subject of this rulemaking. The procedures to be followed in adopting an efficiency standard - included a requirement for an advance notice of proposed rulemaking upon which interested persons may make written comments

. See section 325(i)(1). Thereafter

, there is to be a notice of proposed rulemaking, upon which interested persons may make written and oral comments

, including an opportunity to question those who make such comments with respect to disputed issues of material fact

. See section 325(i)(3) and section 336(a)(1).

'Each covered

.product type may be made up of several classes 

### 12967

Section 327 of the Act addresses the effect of Federal rules concerning testing, labeling, and standards on State laws or regulations concerning such matters. Generally, all such State laws or regulations are superseded by the Federal rule. See section 327(a). A rule by DOE that an efficiency standard is not technologically feasible, economically justified, or likely to save significant amounts of energy is a rule that supersedes any State standard. See section 325(b). If, because there is no Federal rule, a State efficiency standard is not superseded, persons subject to it may petition DOE to have it superseded on the basis that there is no significant State or local interest sufficient to justify the regulation and such regulation unduly burdens interstate commerce. See section 327(b)(1). A State whose energy efficiency standard is superseded may petition the Department for a rule that it not be superseded, on the basis that there is a significant State or local interest to justify the standard and the State standard is a stricter standard. However. DOE cannot issue the requested rule if the State standard would unduly burden interstate

commerce. See section 327(b)(3). 

### b. Background.
On December 13,1979, the DOE published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to section 325(i)(1) for dishwashers, television sets, clothes washers, and humidifiers and dehumidifiers (44 FR 72276). (Hereafter referred to as the December 1979 advance notice.) The advance notice was designed to present a full discussion of the Department's views concerning the standards program and the process for its implementation. DOE also set forth its views concerning the criteria for selecting classes in each product type and the maximum technologically feasible energy efficiency level for each class of product. DOE specifically requested comments on all matters presented in the advance notice. Meetings were held on January 15 and 17, 1980 to solicit the views of all concerned parties.,


### II. General Discussion

As indicated in the Authority section above, the Act prohibits DOE from promulgating a standard for a product if (1) there is no test procedure for the product, (2) a standard is not technologically feasible, (3) DOE finds a standard would not result in a . significant conservation of energy, or (4) DOE finds a standard would not be economically justified. DOE analyzed 

### Federal Register 

## I. Vol. SO. 

### No. 62

, Monday. April 1, 1985

, Proposed Rules 

### 12967 

# -.
governing the labeling ofthe covered

. products. See 

### section**324(~J:.:r'hese** 

### rules

are to require that each particular model ofa covered produc;t bear a label that indicates its e::!ti!)1.ated annual operating cost and the rauge ofestimated annual operating costs for olllei:. models ofthat product. See 

### section 324(c)(1). 

### A rule is not required under section 324 ifthe

. Secretary ofEnergy determines that disclosure ofestimated annual operating costs on a label is not technologically feasible or if the FTC determines that such disclosure is not likely to assist

. consumers in 

### making purchasing decisions or is not economically or technically feasible. See 

### section 324(c). 

### No labeling rule can be made with respect to a product for which there is

no DOE test procedure. See 

### section

. 324(b)(3). At the present time. there is an FTC rule requiring labels under the Act for the following products: room air conditioners. furnaces, clothes washers. dishwashers. water heaters. freezers, and refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers. 2 

### The FTC has proposed a rule that requires labels for central air

. 

### conditioners.a

.

For each ofthe covered products, DOE is required to establish mandatory energy efficiency standards that are designed to a'chieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is 

### technologically feasible and economically justified.**See.~ti~i25** (a)(l) 

### and (c). The Actprovides.·

. however. that no standard for a product is to be established if there is no test procedure for tlie product, or ifDOE determines by rule either that a .

.standard would not result in significant conservation ofenergy or that a standard is not technologically feasible

or economicallyjustified. 

### See section 325(b}.ln determining whether a standard is economically justified. the Department is directed to determine whether the benefits ofthe standard exceed its burdens by weighing six specific factors. as well as any other factors DOE considers relevant. See section 3Z5(d). The factors are:.

.

(1) The economic impact ofthe standard on the manufacturers and on the consumers ofthe product subject to such standard; . - ..

(2) The savings in operating costs tl!roughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or class). compared to any increase in 

### the price of. or in 

### the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses. ofthe covered products which are likely to result from the imposition**~f** 

### the**standa~;**

J 44 FR 66475 (November 19. 1m).**~ ~**  ... -- ."

.**~45**

### FR .53340 (August 11. 1980)." . . - 

### (3) The lotal projected amount of energy savings. likely to result directly from the imposition ofthe standard;

(4) Any lessening offue**~tility** 

### or the 'performance ofthe covered products likely to result from the imposition ofthe

_ standard;

(5) The impact ofany lessening of---- competitil;ln determined in 

### writing by the Attorti"ey General that is likely to

. result from the imposition ofthe standards; and

(6) The need ofthe Nation to conserve energy.

A rule establishing an energy efficiency standard for a product may set different levels ofefficiencies for different classes 4 

### ofthai product if they

use a different kind ofenergy or have different capacity or performance related features that justify'different levels ofefficienciell. See 

### section 325(f). When a standard has been established. DOE may exempt a manufacturer from the effect ofthe standard for up to two years. ifa manufacturer's gross
revenues in the preceding yeardid not exceed $8 

### million and. after obtaining the views ofthe Attorney General, DOE determines that failure to grant the exemption would likely result in a lessening ofcompetition. 

### See section 325(e). ",' t



### 'The Act speCifies the priorities and· procedures to be followed in adopting efficiency standards. Nine ofthe 13 covered products are given priority

. under the Act. See 

### section 325(g). These nine products are: refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers; freezers; clothes dryers; water heaters; room air conditioners; horne heating equipment. not including furnaces; kitchen ranges and ovens; central air conditioners; and furnaces. The remaining four covered products assigned a lesserpriority are

. dishwashers, television sets. clothes washers, and humidifiers and dehumidifiers. The latter four products

are the subject ofthis rulemaking.

The procedures to be followed in 

### adopting an efficiency standard included a requirement for an advance notice ofproposed rulemaking upon which interested persons may make written comments. See 

### section 325(i)(1): Thereafter. there is to be a notice of proposed rulemaking, upon which interested persons may make written and oral**~omments.** 

### including an

. opportunity to question those who make such comments with respect to disputed issues ofmaterial fact. 

### See section

_ _ 325(i)(3} and section 336(a)(1).

".Each

### coveredp~uct**~~y**

## be**mad~**

# up of .everaJ c1uses.., '.'

,... ,. .:,; '.

.. . 

### Section 327 ofthe Act addresses the effect ofFederal rules concerning

. testing. labeling, and standards on State laws orregulations concerning such matters. Generally, all such State laws

or regulations are superseded by the

. Federal rule. See 

### section 327(a}. A rule by DOE that an efficiency standard is not technologically feasible.

. economicallyjustified. or likely to save significant amounts ofenergy is a rule that supersedes any State standard. See 

### section 325(b). If. 

### because there is no Federal rule. a Stale efficiency standard is not superseded. persons subject to it may petition DOE to have it superseded

on the basis that there is no significant State or local interest sufficient to justify the regulation and such regulation unduly burdens interstate commerce. See 

### section 327{b)(1). A State whose energy efficiency standard is superseded may petition the Depaitrnimt for a rule that it 

### not be superseded, on the basis that there is a significant State

or local interest 10 

### justify the standard and the State standard is a stricter standard. However, DOE cannot issue the requested rule if the State standard would unduly burden interstate

commerce. 

### See section 327(b)(3). 

### b.1J.ackground

On December 13. 1979. the DOE published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to section 325(i)(1} for dishwashers. television sets, clothes washers. and humidifiers and dehumidifiers (44 FR 72276)_ (Hereafter referred to as the December 1979 • advance notice.) The advance notice

was designed to present a full**discus~ion** 

### ofthe Department'sviews concerning the standards program and the process for its implementation. DOE also set forth its views concerning the criteri"a for selecting classes in each product type and the maximum technologically' feasible energy efficiency level for each class of product. DOE specifically requested comments on all matters presented in the advance notice. Meetings were held

on January 15 and 17. 1980 to solicit the views of,all**~oncerned** 

### parties.:



# . n. General Discussion
As indicated in the

### Authority section above. the Act prohibits DOE from promulgating a standard for a product if (1) there is no test procedure for the product. (2) a standard is not technologically feasible. (3) DOE finds 

# a standard would not result in 

### a .' significant conservation ofenergy, or (4) DOE finds a standard would not be economicallyjustified. DOE analyzed

..

### 12968 Federal Register / Vol, 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 / Proposed Rules'

feet of standards for each product ss of product.'

a. Test Procedures 

### Test procedures have'been prescribed for each of the four product types subject to today's proposal. Test procedures for clothes washers were published on September 28,1977 (42 FR 49802); for television sets on September 14, 1977 (42 FR 46171); for humidifiers on October 18, 1977 (42 FR 55599); for dehumidifiers on October 18, 1977 (42 FR 55608); and for dishwashers on August 8, 1977 (42 FR 39964). On May 19. 1981, - DOE amended the test procedures for clothes washers to clarify sections concerning automatic termination controls, test cloths, and dryer preconditioning, and to include technical revisions 146 FR 27324). On June 17.1982, DOE proposed amendments to the test procedures for dishwashers to include water heating dishwashers (47 FR 26143). On March 3,1983, a final rule amending the dishwasher test procedure was published (48 FR 9202). On June 4, 1984, DOE proposed amendments to the test procedures for dishwashers to revise the definition of water heating dishwashers (49 FR 23142). On November 27, 1984

, the test procedures r dishwashers were amended to revise definition of water heating hwashers (49 FR 46533). The Act specifically prohibits standards for a product (or class of products) if there is no applicable test procedure for it.'All classes of products addressed in today's proposed rule have applicable test procedures. 

### b. Technological Feasibility The maximum technologically feasible energy efficiencies for each product class are shown in Table 1. Preliminary maximum technologically feasible energy efficiencies for the four products were published in the December 1979 advance notice

. These levels were 

### based on design options commercially

'As used in this preamble. "product" refers to the generic product of each type tiled in section 322(5) of EPCA (e.g., dishwasher or television set). "Class" means a product subset which has the same primary energy source (e.g.. gas, oil or electricity) and the same capacity or performance

-related features which effects the energy efficiency of the unit (e

.g.. color television set and monochrome television set, 'For example

, for dishwashers
, DOE did not consider basing the standard levels on a certain European design in which the dishwasher is no longer eonnected to the hot water suppty line. The European dishwasher directly beats incoming cold water, which is assumed to be 55 'F Currently applicable test procedures for dishwashers cover coming water which is et either 120'F of i t0 'P. refore DOE didnot considerthese European dishwashers for-the standard levels beceusethe feel procedures do not cover dishwashers which use cold water. available in 1978. These design options are reported in the product specific discussions in today's proposed rule. -

TABLE 1.-PRODUCT CLASSES AND MAat
'TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE ENERGY fFIOIENCIES

Product class j asibte e erorpy . efficiency

Dishwasher stsndwd. '0.41 eyelas/kWh•

convect. 0.50. Water Heating

...___ 0.455. Television Sets- cowr____._ _ 200 perceet 176 . clothes Washers._. Top Leading. 1.302 n'lkWh.

Front Loa6vV- 1 2& Hu,id t iers n. 98.6 percent

Room 93. Oetxsnld'rfiws (No separate 290 pi-W&

"The maximum tsabnologically feasible energy efficiencyltwels proposed today by DOE for the four products are those levels which are currently commercially available .' For compact dishwashers. monochrome television sets, front loading clothes washers, room humidifiers

, and dehumidifiers, the levels proposed today are indenticai to the levels in the Decem ber,1979 notice. DOE received no information for these products at that time stating that the proposed levels were rmt appropriate for the maximum technologically feasible energy efficiency

. The maximum technologically feasible energy efficiency levels for standard size dishwashers

, color television sets and central system humidifiers are being revised today to reflect product developments which are currently available in the marketplace. These products were not available when the December 1979 advance notice was published

. Since then

, DOE established the dishwasher class called water heating dishwashers (48 FR 9202, March 3, 3983) and the maximum technologically feasible energy efficiency for this product class is also based on design options currently available in the marketplace

. For top loading clothes washers, the level proposed today is based on comments from the Association of Nome Appliance Manufacturers (ARAM) in response to the December 1979 advance notice requesting each private labeler, importer ar manufacturer of a consumer product covered by the notice to 

### complete two survey forms.

'The one exception is the Level 2 standard for top loading clothes washers in which the maximum technologically feasible energy efficlency' level'is based-on the highest level expected to be commercially available January 1. 195 . DOE is interested in receiving data, commentsand

-statements concerning whether the'evels proposed today are the maximum improvement in energy efficiency which is technologically feasible for each of covered products. c. Energy Savings 1. Significance of Savings. Under section 325(b) of EPCA, as amended. DOE is prohibited from adopting a standard for a product if that standard would not result in "significant" energy savings. The statute, however, does not define the term "significant." Such a term is not readily susceptible to precise definitions, and DOE believes that Congress used such a term with the intent that DOE would, in the exercise of its informed judgment

, determine what level of savings is significant and under what circumstances.. - In the December 1982 final rule, DOE adopted three tests to determine whether the savings attributable to a standard would result in a significant conservation of energy under section 325(b)(1). If the savings attribtstarbJe to that standard would meet any one of the three tests
, then the savings attributable to that standard would be deemed significant. The three tests weregenerally described as: whether savirtgrof oil or gas are large enough to decrease meaningfully this Nation's reliance on foreign sources of energy; whether savings of electricity are large enough either to reduce significantly new generation requirements or to affect significantly the environment; and, whether a standard would result in a product using 16.67 percent less energy than it would absent a standard. Specifically, the first test would deem significant the savings attributable to a standard if the standard would result in the savings of 10

,000 bpd of oil, or the savings of natural gas equivalent to 10,000 bpd of oil (56,530 mcf/day) over the period of the average life of the product in question beginning with the year 1987.' The second test would deem significant the savings attributable to a standard if the standard would result in the savings of one percent of national electricity use over the period of the average life of the product in question beginning with the year 1987. The third test would deem savings significant if, the annual energy savings attributable to a standard for a product were equal to 16

.67,percent of a standard measured over the one-year period following the period of the average life of the product

156.530 mcf of natural gas contain the same 8TTls as 10,000 barrels of oil. 

### 12968 Federal Register 

# I .Vol. '50. 

### No. 62 

# I Monday. 

### April 1. 

### 1985 jProposed Rules 

# e rect of standards for each product

ss ofproduct." "

D. 

### TestProcedures

.



### Test procedures have'been prescribed for each of the four product types

. subject to today's proposal. Test procedures for clothes washers were published on September 28.1977 

### (42 FR 

### 49802): for television sets on September 14. 1977 

### (42 FR 

### 46171): for humidifiers OD 

### October 18. 1977 (42 

### FR 55599); 

### for dehumidifiers on October 18. 1977 (42 FR 55808): 

### and for dishwashers on August B. 

### 1977 (42 FR 39964). 

### OnMay 19. 1981•. DOE amended the test procedures for clothes washers to c1arify 

### sections concerning automatic termination ' controls. test cloths. and dryer preconditioning. and 10 

### include .teduUcaJ revisions (46 FR 27324). OnJune 17. 19BZ. DOE proposed amendments to the test procedures for dishwashers to include waterheating dishwashers [47 

### FR 26143). On March 3. 1963. a final rule amending the dishwasher test procedure

was published (48 FR 9202). OnJune 4. 1984. DOE propos.ed amendments to the test procedures for dishwashers**t~** 

### revise the definition ofwalerheating dishwashers (49 

### FR 23142). On ' 

### November 27., 1984. 

### the test procedures 

# I dishwashers were ,amen.ded to revise definition ofwaterheating

. hwashers (49 

### FR 46533). '. The Act specifically prohibits standards for a product (or class of products) ifthere isno applicable test procedure for it. 5 

### All classes ofproducts addressed in today'. proposed rule have applicable test procedure•. b. TechnologicalFeasibility



### The maximum technologically feasible energy efficiencies for each**pro~u~t** 

### class are shown in Table 1. Prehmmary maximum technologically feasible ' energy efficiencies for the four products

were published in the December 1979 advance notice. These levels were based on design options commercially

•As used In thiB preamble

,

### ~~..

### rere~ to the generic product ofeach type lised m !e.clion 322(a) ofEPCA {e.g., dishwasher orteleVIsIon lII!tJ. "Clsss" means a product sublet v.:hich hal**~~** tame primary energy &olll"(;e (e., .• 

## sa

.. all or**electri~lJ')** and the ••me capacity or perionnance:-relateil features which affects the energy efficrene;)' ofthe unit**(e.g~** color lelevision &eland monochrome television aet.!.

4For**examp~** for dishwasben, DOE did no! consider basing the

..tandard levels on 8 a:rtam European delign in which the dishwasher**~**no longer eonnected 10 the hot water IUpPIy B:'e. The European dishwasher directly heats mcooung cold water, which is assumed to be 55 T.Currently applicable lest procedures for dishwashers cover**~~ming** wale: which is a\ either 120 OF or140 -p.**~rerore.** 00£ did.JIol conaiderthese European dishwashen; for ,the standard levels because1be leal procedures do no! .:over dishwashers which**~** , cold water. 

### available in 1978. These design options

are reported in the product specific discussions in today's proposed**~e.**

TABLE 1.-PROD1JCT Ct.ASSES AND MAlQMIM

'TECHNOLOGICA1J.V FEASIBLE ENERGt l:f'FI.
ClENClES



# . I.Ia>i!ruII PmducI type PtoducI class 

# == ; .' efficiency
0;-.-

__**~-** '0.41 cycIe$I1<WII.**~.-** 0.50. Waler Heating_ 0.455. Television s.ta_ CoIor

___**200~** 178.**~WasNws_.** Top Loading._ 1.302t1>f1<Wb. FronI Loading 1.25- Hurniditiera

__**c..ntraf~- '8.6~**  , Room 13. 0ehumi<Iir_ (No aoparaIe 2JIO pin1SII<WII.

; 

# '--: cIas5a apecified).



### "The maximum teamologicalJy feasible energy efficiencyle.els proposed today by 

### DOE for the four products are those. levels which are currently commercially available.'For compact dishwashers. monochrome television sets. front loadiflg clothes washers. room humidifiers. and dehumidifiers. the levels proposed today.re indentical to the levels in the December. 1979 notice. DOE received no information for the'&e products at that time stating that the proposed levels were mA 

### appropriate for the maximum technologically feasible energy efficiency. The maximum technologically feasible energy efficiency levels for standard size dishwashers. color television sets and central system humidifiers are being revised today to reflecl product developments which are currently available in 

### the marketplace. These products were not available when the

,December 1979 advance notice was published. Since then. DOE established the dishwasher class called water heating dishwashers (48 FR 9202. March 3. 1983) and the maximum ' 

### technologicallyfeasible energy , efficiency for 'this product class is 

### also based on design options currently available in 

### the marketplace. For top loading clothes washers. the level proposed today is 

### based on commentB from 

### the Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) 

### in 

### response to the December 1979 advance notice requesting eachprivate labeler, importer-ormanufacturer of 8 

### consumer product covered by the notice to 

### complete two survey forma. '

'Theone exception is the Level % l1andillrd for top loadill8 clothe5 washen in which the maximum technologically fe8lible energy effiCiency levella lutsed,on the highesllevel expected to be commercially available January 1.1988. 

### DOE is

### irit~rested in receiving data. comments.and.statements concerning whether**the~vels** 

### proposed today are the maximum improvement in energy efficiency which is 

### technologically

, feasible for each ,of covered products.

·:··c. EnergySavingsl

1. Significance of Savings. 

### Under

, section 325(b) 

### ofEPCA. 

### as amended.

DOE is 

### prohibited from adopting a standard for a product if that standard would not result in "Significant" energy savings. The statute. however. does not define the term "significant." Such a term is not readily susceptible to precise definitions. and DOE believes that ' Congress used such a term with the intent that DOE would. in 

### the exercise ofits informed judgment. determine what level of savings is Significant and under what&ircumstances.

In 

### the December 1982 final rule. DOE adopted three tests to determine whether the savings attributable to a standard would result in a significant conservation of energy under section 325(b}(1). If the savings**attrib~** 

### to that standard would meet anyone ofthe three tests. then the swings attributable to that standard would be deemed significant. The three tests were , generally described as: whether saviIlSil" ofoil orgas are large enough to ' deC1'eDemMningfully this Nation'. reliance on foreign sources ofenergy; whether savings ofelectricity are large enough either to reduce significantly

new generation requirements or to affect significantly the environment; and. whether a standard would result in 

### a product using 16.67 percent less energy than it would absent a standard. Specifically. the firat test would deem significant the savings 'attributable to a standard ifthe standard would result in 

### the savings of 10.000 bpd ofoil. or the savings ornatural gas equiva1entto 10.000 bpd ofoil (56.530 md/day) over the period ofthe average life oJ the product in 

### question beginning with the year 1987.·The second test would deem significant the savings attributable to a standard 

### if the standard would result in the savings ofone percent ofnational electricity use over the period ofthe average life ofthe product in question beginning with the year 1987. The third test would deem sBvirigs**signific~nt** 

### if

, the annual energy savings attributable to a standard for a product were equal to l6.57

### ,percent ofa standardmeasured

over the one-yearperiod following the period ofthe average ljfe of the product

°56.530 

### ma oFn.aturalg8s contain the sameB1V.

B8 10,000barrels ofoil '

### Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 / Proposed Rules

purchased in the last year before the standard could be imposed. During the eight products rulemakings, commenters contended that the three tests were not appropriate because one or more products were technically incapable of meeting one or more of the significance tests. If the savings attributable to a standard for a product cannot meet a particular test for significance because the technologically. feasible improvements are insufficient to produce a large amount of savings, this is not by itself evidence of a fault of the significance test. Congress, in. specifying certain products concerning which DOE would be required to conduct standards rulemakings, did not prejudge or determine that a standard for any or all of these products could in fact result in a significant conservation of energy. Rather, the specific products named were included because of the amount of energy they used. Whether a standard was appropriate, i.e., among other things whether it would result in a significant conservation of energy, was to be determined by DOE. For example, DOE proposed no standard for electric furnaces because improvements would not save energy. Similarly improvements to efficiency in other products may save only small amounts of energy. It is clear, however, that the fact that the potential savings are too small to meet one or more of the significance tests does not constitute a fault with the test. Moreover, the fact that a particular product does not use enough energy to be able to meet the oil or gas and electricity tests does not indicate the inappropriateness of those tests. DOE acknowledges that the oil or gas and electricity savings tests had a naharal bias toward products that use a large amount of energy. That is, a relatively small improvement in energy efficiency attributable to a standard for a product that uses a large amount of energy might meet the oil or gas or electricity savings tests, but for certain products that use relatively little energy, those tests might be impossible to meet. Accordingly, DOE proposed the third test which would be neutral as to the amount of energy used by the product, by measuring the savings as a percent of the use by that product. Consequently, DOE concludes that the three tests are appropriate, even if a particular product . might not be able to meet one or more tests. 2. Deternrinadon of Savings. Energy savings attributable to standards for the four products were forecasted by the Energy Use Projection Model (EUP Model), which was developed by DOE especially for the four products standards analysis

. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory Residential Energy End Use Model (ORNL Model), which was used by DOE for the eight products standards rulemakings

, was not used for today's proposed rule for the four products
, as discussed belowDOE decided against using the ORNL Model because it does not treat the four products separately. The ORNL Model determines the energy use for ten categories of appliances

- the nine priority products and lighting

. A single miscellaneous category is used for all other residential appliances. The ORNL Model does 'not specifically identify the appliances that are included in the miscellaneous category; however, it is certain that it includes appliances in addition to the four products; for . example

, household fans

, automatic coffeemakers

, stereos and power tools. DOE believes that it would be difficult to determine the portion that each of the four products contribute to the miscellaneous category in the ORNL Model

. Therefore

, DOE determined it preferable that the four products standards rulemaking proceed using the EUP Model in lieu of the ORNL Model. A. EUP Model. The EUP Model is the analytical tool developed for forecasting savings due to energy efficiency standards for dishwashers

, television sets
, clothes washers

, and humidifiers and dehumidifiers

. It is an interactive BASIC computer program

. The EUP Model forecasts the residential energy use for each of the four products each year from 2988 to 2006 for two separate scenarios

, a market

-based scenario [one without standards) and a standards scenario

. The market

-based scenario projects the year

-by-year energy use ofa product by using a forecast of marketbased efficiency improvements similar to the forecast of market-based efficiency improvements for the eight products

. The standards scenario estimates the year

-by-year energy use of a product by using the forecast of market-based efficiency improvements as the sales

-weighted efficiency level for all products purchased before 1988, the year that standards would be implemented. After 1988

, the standards level is used as the efficiency level for the products

. Savings due to standards is the difference in energy use between the two scenarios

. The EUP Model uses the dominant product class in a product type for determining energy savings. See the product specific discussions in today's proposal for the product classes chosen to represent the product type in the EUP Model 

### Oil savings are expressed in barrels of oil per day (bpd). The EUP Model .. 12969

expressed natural gas savings in barrels of oil per day equivalent (bpde). Natural gas savings have been converted to thousand cubic feet of gas (mcf) per day in today's proposed rule so that these savings are consistent with the eight products rulemakings. Electricity savings are expressed in either trillion Btu's or percent savings of national electricity use over the average life of the product.The EUP Model uses the salesweighted energy efficiency (SWEF) in 1972 and 1978 of each product, the standard level for each product, the annual amount of product use, the market saturation of each product in households, the total population of households, the average capacity (television sets , clothes washers, humidifiers and dehumidifiers only) and the average product lifetime- Energy efficiency and the total population of households were assumed to change over time. Two prominent features in the EUP Model were developed from the ORNL Model. First, the total population of households used in the EUP Model were forecasted by the ORNL Model. Second, the trend in energy efficiency in the market-based scenario in the EUP Model is based upon forecasts made by ORNL Model for the eight products. TheORNL Model predicts that the salesweighted energy efficiency for products shipped in 2005 would range from 75.9 percent of the standards level for central air conditioners to 100 percent of the 'standards level for oil furnaces. The average for the eight products was 91.2 percent of the standards leveL See Table 2. . Due to the lack of information concerning the trend in energy efficiency in the market

-based scenario for the four products

. DOE decided to pattern the future trend in energy efficiency for the four products after the average of the trends forecasted by the ORNL Model for the eight products. That is, theEUP Model assumes that the salesweighted energy efficiency in 2006 for each of the four products will be 912 percent of the standards Ievel9 DOE. is

• An exception to this rule is when the 1978 SWEF is greater than 91.2 percent of standards level. For example , the 1878 SWEF for humidifiers is 90 percent

. The standard level is 93 percent so that 91.2 percent of the standards level would be 65 percent. The Eli? Model assumes that energy efficiency cannot decrease aver time . Therefore, the energy efficiency for humidifiers remains constant at the 1978 SWEF of 90peercent daring the no standards scenario. . 

## , Federal Register 

## I Vol. 50. No. 

### 62 

## I Monday. 

### April 1. 1985 

## I Proposed Rules 

### 12969

___ 'liZ:;

.. purchased in the'last year before 

### the standard could

### be imposed.

During the eight products rulemakings. commenters contended that the three tests were not appropriate becanse one '

or more products were technically

, incapable ofmeeting one ormore ofthe significance tests. 

### If the saviJJ.gs

, attributable to a standard for a product cannot meet a particular lest 

### for significance because the technologically. feasible improvements are insufficient to produce a large 'amount of savilJ.gs, this is not by itself evidence ofa fault of the significance test. Congress. in, ' specifying certain products concerning which DOE would be required to conduct standards ruJemakings, did not prejudge or determine that a standard for any or all of these products could in fact result in a significant conservation ofenergy. Rather. the specific products named were included because ofthe amount ofenergy they used. Whether 8 standard was appropriate. i.e.• among other things whether it would result in a significant conservation ofenergy, was to be determined by DOE. For example. DOE proposed no standard for electric • furnaces because improvements would not save energy. Similarly impro,,-ements to efficiency in other products may save only small amounts ofenergy. It is clear. however. that the**f~ct** that the potential savings are too small to meet one or
more ofthe significance tests does not constitute a fault wUh the test.

Moreover. the fact thet a p1Irticular product does not use enough energy ttl be abfe to meet the oil or gas 

### .nd electricity tests does not indicate the inappropriateness of those tests. DOE acknowledges that the oil org89 lind electricity savings testsl!ad a na.h1ral bias toward products that use a large amount ofenergy. That ii. a relatively small improvement in energy efficiency attributable to a standard for a product that uses a large amount ofenergy might meet the oil O!' gas or electricity aavings tests. but for certain prodncbl that lISe relatively little energy. those tests might be impossible to meet. ACcordingly. DOE proposed the third test 

### which wouk! be neutralu to the araount of energy used by the product, 

### by

, measuring the savings 8S a percenl 

### of the use by that product. Collsequently. DOE concludes that the three tests are al>propriate, even 

### ifa particular**p~t** . might notbe able to meet 

### a.ne CIf.m.ore 

### te5ta..

. "

2. 

### Determination 

## of Savings. Energy savings attributable to standards for 

### the four products were forecasted by the Energy Use Projection Model (EUP

, Model). which was developed by DOE especially for the four ploducl&

.. standards analysis. The OakRidge

, National Laboratory Residential Energy End Use Model (ORNL Model). which

was used byDOE for 

### the eight pi'oducts standards rulemakings, was nolused for today's proposed rule for the four products. as discussed belDw_

DOE decided against using the ORNL Model because it does not treat the four products separately. The ORNL Model determines the energy use for ten categories of appliances-the nine priority products and lighting. A single miscellaneous category is used for all other residential appliances. The ORNL Model does·not specifically identify the appliances that are included in the miscellaneous category; however. it is certain that it includes appliances in addition to the four products; for, example. household fans, automatic coffeemakers. stereos and power tools. DOE believes that it would 

### be difficult 10 determine the portion that each ofthe four products contribute to the

. miscellaneous**cate~ry** in the ORNL Model. Therefore. DOE delennined it preferable that the four prodU'Ctl ' standards rulemaking proceed using the EUP Model in liel:! ofthe ORNL Model.

A. 

### EUPModeJ. The EUP Model is the analytical tool developed for forecasting savings due to energy effICiency standards for dishwashers. television Bets. clothes washers, and humidifiers and dehwnidifiers. It is an interactive BASIC computer program. The EUP Model forecasts the residential energy
use for each ofthe four products each year from 1988 to 2006 for two separate scenarios. a market-based scenario [one withont standards) and a standards scenario. The marIcet-based scenario projects the yeal'-by-year energy lISe of
, a product 

### byusing a forecast 

### ofmarketbased efficiency improvements similar to the forecast ofmarket-based efficiency improvements for the eight products. The standards scenario estimates the year-by-year energyuse 

### cif

8 product by using the furecast of market-based efficiency imprOvements

as the sales-weighted efficiency level for all products purchased before 1988. the year that standarw would be implemented. After 1988. the standards level is used 81 the efficiency level for the products. Savings due to standards is the difference in energyuse between 

### the two scenarios. The ElJP Model uses the dominant product classin a product type for determining energy savings. See the product specific discunion, 

### in today's proposal 

### fOr 

### the product classes chosen to represelJt the produ.ct type in the EUP Model

Oil savings are expressed 

### inbarrels 

### of oUper 

### day (bpd). 

### rbe EUP Model

. expressed natural gas savings in barrels of oil per day equivalent (bpde). Natural gas savings have been converted \0 ¢ousand cubic feet ofgas (mef) per day 

### iii today's proposed 

### rule so that these savings are consistent 

### with the eight, products rulemakings. Electricity savings are expressed in either trillion Btu', or percent savings ofnational electricity use over the average life of the product. ' " '

The EUP Model uses the salesweighted energy efficiency (SWEF) in 1972 and 1978 of each product. the standard level for each product. 

### the annual amount ofproduct use. the market saturation of each product in households. the total population 

### of households. the average caplilcity (television sets. clothes washers, humidifiers and dehumidifiers Only) and the average product lifetime_ Energy efficiency and the total population of households were assumed to change

over time.

Two prominent features in the EUP Model were developed from the ORNL Model. First. the total population of households used in the EUP Model were forecasted by the ORNL Model. Second. the trend in energy efficiency in the market-based scenario in the EUP Model is based upon forecasts made by ORNL Model for the eight products. The ORNL Model predicts that 

### the salesweighted energy efficiency for proaucts shipped in 2005 would range from 75.9 ' 'percent of the standards level for central air conditioners to 100 percent of the 'standards level for oil furnaces. The average [or the eight products was 91.2 percent of the standards leveL 

### See Table 2. Due to 

### the lack ofinformation cOllCerning the trend in energy efficiency in the market·based 

### scenario for the



### .fOw' products. DOE decided to pattern the future trend 

### in energy efi1ciency for the 

### four products sIter the average 

### of the trends Forecasted 

### by the ORNL Model for the eightproducts. That is. the EUP Modelassumes that 

## the salesweighted energy efficiency in 2006 for each of the four products 

### wilt be 

## 91..z percent ofthe 

### standards leveLl' DOE**~**

• An e&eptiolllo !h;' rule is when tJH, 1978 SWEF is grea\er than 91.2 percent of ataRdards ieweL For example. the 1978 SWEF for humidif\er1l is 90 percent. Thaltandard revel is 93 percent so that 91.2 percent"rthe standards level would be 8S percent The EUP Model assumes thaI ern!T"gy effiGiency cannot deereaae over,IiRlt!. Therefore. the energy efficiency for Iwmidifiets remains coMtsn! at lire 19711 SWEF Df SID.percent dJuing the DO standards lcenaria.

### 12970 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 /' Proposed Rules

ted in receiving data, comments atements concerning the - appropriateness of basing the future trend in energy efficiency for the four products on the average of the trends forecasted by the ORNL Model for the eight products. -

TABLE 2.-APPLIANCE ENERGY EFFICIENCIES IN
2005

Appliance, ^ S Wds Ratio el llev level

Gas furnace.----. 88.0 882 0.998 Oil furnace 93 .6 93.6 1.000 Room ac conddfoner 7.57 9.13 0.829 Central air conditioner....- 7.93 10-45 0.759 Eleclric'water heater._ 88.1 92.1 0.957 Gas water heater 60.6 61.1 0.992 Reingerator-freezer-...._ 7.64 8.5o 0.899

Freezer 14.0 162 0.864

Average 0.912

Source: Table 3

- 12- Supplement To., March t982 Consumer Products Eftiency Standards Engineering Analysis and Economic Documenrr DOE/CE

-0045

. July 1983.

The EUP Model calculates the energy use in the base year (1978). The energy use in each succeeding year to the year 2006 is calculated by a three-step process. First, the energy use for the units in the base year population still in service is calculated by assuming that ese units are replaced by new units at tirement rate that depends on the duct lifetime. Second, the energy use new units added in each year since 1978 due to the retirement of base year units and the growth in total households is calculated. Lastly, the EUP Model checks to see if any of the new units, added after 1978, are retired in order to calculate the energy use for new units which replaced units added after 1978. For example

. the energy use in the year 1988 is the sum of the following: the energy use of the base year units still in service in the year 1988; the energy use of the new units added since 1978 and still in service in the year 1968; and the energy use for new units which replaced those units added since 1978. See ' . Technical Support Document
, pages 9 through 13 and 106 and 107. B. Model Validation. Results from both the EUP and ORNL Models should be reasonably close

. To demonstrate that results between the two models are close, the EUP Model was modified to forecast the

. savings realized by standards for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. The modifications included adding data for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers into the EUP" Model. The data included the 1917 per mit annual energy consumption, the 78 sales-weighted energy efficiency. e number of refrigerators per household, and the standards level. See Technical support Document, Chapter VIII. The estimated savings were then compared to the ORNL Model savings. The product type, refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, was selected for comparison because the EUP Model does not consider fuel switching, such as replacing an oil furnace with a gas furnace

. DOE is interested in "comments and statements concerning whether the EUP Model is a valid analytical tool for forecasting energy savings due to standards for the four products. Results from the refrigerator-freezer version of the EUP Model were compared to the ORNL Model results. The difference in energy efficiency between the two models is within 2 percent. See Table 3. For the ORNL "Model, refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers are forecasted to use about 1.19 Quads in 1990 and about 1.07 Quads in 2000. For the EUP Model, refrigerators and refrigerator

-freezers are forecasted to use about 1.17 Quads in 1990 (for a 1.9 percent difference) and about 1.07 Quads in 2000 (no difference). For refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, the ORNL Model estimated that they will use about 21.20 Quads from 1987 to 2005 while the EUP Model forecasted use of about 20.95 Quads from 1988 to 2006. The difference between the two forecasts is 1.2 percent. In the August 1983 final rule, using the ORNL Model, it was estimated that Level 4 standards for refrigerator-freezers would save 1.7 Quads over the 1987-2005 time frame. See Table 5-1 in Supplement to March Consumer Products Efficiency Standards Engineering Analysis and Economic Analysis Document, DOE/ CE-0045, July 1983. The EUP Model forecasts energy savings of 1.77 Quads which is about a 4 percent difference. See Technical Support Document, Table 39. Some of t he differences between the two models occur because the EUP Model uses a different retirement function and a different equation for projecting future shipments.

TABLE 3.-REFRIGERATORS AND REFRIGERATOR

-FREEZERS ENERGY EFFICIENCY

fFlatirwl/eycb7

Yew ORNL

Whom EUP

model ^nt

,rice

1890 6.79 6

.815 0.4 1995 7

.07 7.196 1.8 2000

- 7.35 7-496 2.0 2005 7.64 7

.752 1.5

-For Level 4 standards for refrigeratorfreezers, the ORNL Model predicts that the electricity savings to the national electricity use over the appliance lifetime is 0.22 percent

. based on the energy savings of 1.65 Quads. For the EUP Model, the electricity savings to the national electricity use over the appliance lifetime are about 0.23 percent, based on the energy savings of 

### 1.70 Quads. Also, the savings in the year, 2006, which is the year following the period of the average life of a refrigerator-freezer purchased in the last year before standards would be imposed
, is forecasted to be about 14.59 percent for the ORNL Model and about 14.64 percent for the EUP Model. For the ORNL Model, the residential sales for refrigerator

-freezers were forecasted to be about 6.308 million in 1990 and about 6.476 million in 2005. For the EUP Model, residential sales for - refrigerator

-freezers were forecasted to be about 5

.685 million in 1990 (for a 9.9 difference) and about 6.994 million in 2005 (for a 0.3 percent difference). Differences in residential sales between the two models are due to differences-in both the retirement function and in the equation for projecting residential sales. Comparisons in annual shipments were shown only for two years, because data for 1990 and 2005 were readily available for refrigerator

-freezers

. Even though differences in any particular year may be large, the overall number of refrigerator-freezers sold from 1987 to 2005 for the EUP Model is expected to be close to the number for the ORNL Model. In summary, DOE believes the results from the EUP Model were reasonably .close to projections that could have been expected from the ORNL Model. In . most cases
, the differences between the two models were within 2 percent. Two exceptions were the 4 percent difference in total energy savings over the lifetime of an appliance and the 9.9 percent difference in residential sales in 1990. C. Sensitivity Analyses. In the EUP Model, the future trend in energy efficiency during the market-based scenario is represented as assigned percentages of the particular standards level in question

. The assigned percentages increase to 91

.2 percent of the standards level in 2006

, the last year of the analysis

. Assigned percentages were used because the future trend in energy efficiency for the four products is not well known. Accordingly, sensitivity analyses were conducted that used different assumptions about trends in energy efficiency during the market-based scenario

. Four sensitivity analyses were conducted about the Level I standards. One sensitivity analysis was conducted about the Level 2 standards. The five sensitivity analyses are the constant efficiency analysis, the conservative -analysis, the historical-analysis (Case 1). 

### -12970 Federal Register " Vol. 50. No. 62

, Monday. April 1. 1985 

# r Proposed Rules

in receiving data. comments •

'd**'t:UlIt:ll'~** 

### concerning the'

. ofbasing the future energy efficiency for the four products on the average of the trends forecasted by 

### the ORNL Model for the eight products.·

TABLE 2.-APf>lIANCE ENERGY EFFICIENCIES IN 2005

Base Stand- Appliance

.. cis Ratio



## ......

# , level

Gas Iumace.

____ 88-0 1182 0.998 Oil furnace 93.6 93.6 1.000 Room ail condilio"",

_ 7.57 11.13 0-829 Central air conditioner_ 7.93 10.45 0.759 Electric'wate, heal8f.

__ 118.1 82.1 0.957 Gas wat"' heat

.. _ 60.6 61.1 0.992 Retngerator-tree:zer

__ 7.64 8.50 0.899 H-eezOl 14.0 162 0.864 """,.ge 0.912

Source: Table 3-12. Supplf>menl To: U.fCh 1982 Ctxtsumer PrDt:luC/S EffICiency Sl8ndl1rrfs EngirrtJ6fir>gAna/ysi$ .nd Economic {)(Jcumenrs. 00E/CE-0045.Juty 1983.



### The EUP Model calculates the energy'

use in the base year (1978). The energy
use in each succeeding year to the year 2006 

### is calculated by a three-step process. First. the energy use for the

. units in the base year population still in service is**calcul~ted** 

### by assuming that 

# I se units are replaced by new units at Urement rate that depends on the. duct lifetime. Second. the energy use
new units added in each year since 1978 

### due to the retir.ement ofbase year

. units and the growth in "total households is .calculated. Lastly. the EUP Model checks 10 

### see if

### any of the new units.'

. added after 1978. are retired in order to calculate the energy use for new units

... which replaced units added after 1978. For example. the energy use in the year 1988 

### is the su'm ofthe following: the

..**energ~'** 

### use of the base year units still in

. service in the year 1988; 

### the energy use ' of the new units added since 1978 

### and still in service in the year 1988: 

### and the energy use for new units which replaced those units added since 1978. See '. 

### Technical Support Document. pages 9 '

.. through 13 

### and 106 and 107.



### B. 

### Model Validation. Results from ' both the EUP and ORNL Models should be reasonably close. To demonstrate that results between the two models are close. the EUP Model was modified to forecast thQ.savings realized by standards

# ror refrigerators and ;,' refrigerator-freezers. The modifications included adding data for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers into the EUP' Model. The data included the 19'7

### per**nit** 

### annual energy consumption. the

78 sales-weighted energy efficiency.

e number ofrefrigerators per household. and the standards level. 

### See Technical support Document. Chapter

. VIII. The estimated savings were then compared to the ORNL Model savings.

The product type. refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. was selected for comparison because the EUP Model does not i:onsider fuel switching. such

as replacing an oil fuinace with a gas furnace. DOE is interested in 'cammen-Is and statements concerning whether the EUP Model is a valid analytical tool for forecasting energy savings due to standards for the four products.

Results from the refrigerator-freezer**v~rsion** 

### of the EUP Model were

. compared to the ORNL Model results. The difference in energy efficiency between the two models is within 2 percent. 

### See Table 3. For the ORNL

. Model. refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers are forecasted 10 

### use about 1.19 Quads in 1990 

### and about 1.07 

### Quads in 2000. For the EUP Model. refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers are forecasted to use about 1.17 

### Quads in 1990 

### (for a 1.9 

### percent difference) and about 1.07 

### Quads in 2000 (no difference). For refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. the ORNL Model estimated that they will use about 21.20 

### Quads from 196710 2005 

### while the EUP Model forecasted

use ofabout 20.95 Quads from 1988 

### to 2006. 

### The difference between the two forecasts is 1.2

### percent. In the August

. 1983 

### final rule. using the ORNL Model. it



### was estimated that Level 4 

### standards for refrigerator-freezers would save 1.7 

### Quads over the 1987-2005 

### time frame.



### . S.ee Table 5-1 in 

### Supplement to March

Consumer Products Efficiency Standards Engineering Analysis and

. Economic Analysis Document. DOE!

CE-0045. July 1983. 

### The EUP Model' forecasts energy savings of 1.77 

### Quads which is about a 4 percent difference.

. 

### See Technical Support Document, Table 39. 

### Some of the differences between the two models occur because the EUP '. Model uses a different retirement function and a different equation for projecting future shipments.

.
TABLE 3.-REFRIGERATORS AND' REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS ENERGY EFFICIENCY

, 

### .

ORNL EUP Percent Y- model model dilfGf·



### .. ence

1990 &.79 6.815 0 .• 1895 7.07 7.186 1.8 2000_ 7.35 7.496 2.0 '2\lOS 7.64 7.752 1.5



### ·For Level 4 standards for refrigeratorfreezers. the ORNL Model predicts that ' the electricity savings to the national electricity use over the appliance li.fetime is 0.22 percent. based on the • energy savings of 1.65 

### Quads. For the EUP Model. the electricity savings to the national.electricity use over the appliance lifetime are about 0.28" percent. based on the energy savings of 1.70 Quads. Also. the savings in the year' 2006. which is the year following the

. period ofthe average life ofa refrigerator-freezer purchased in the last year before standards would be imposed, is forecasted to be about 14.59 

### 'percent for the ORNL Model and about 14.64 

### percent for the EUP Model.

For the ORNL Model. the residential sales for refrigerator-freezers were forecasted to be about 6.308 million in 1990 

### and about 6.476 million in 2005. 

### For the EUP Model. residential sales for

. refrigerator-freezers were forecasted 

## to be about 5.685 million in 1990 (for a 9.9 difference) and about 6,494 million in 2005 

### (for a 0.3 percent difference). Differences in 

### residential sales between the two models are due to differences·in both the retirement function and in

# the equation for projecting residential sales. Comparisons in annual shipments were shown only for two years. because data for 1990 

### and 2005 

### were readily available (or refrigerator-freezers. Evein though differences in any particular year may be large. the overall number of refrigerator-freezers sold from 1987 to 2005 for the EUP Model is expected to be close to the number for the ORNL Model.

. .

In 

### summary, DOE believes the results

.

. from the EUP Model were reasonably

.

.close to projections that could have

. been expected from the ORNL Model. In 

### most cases. the differences between the two models were**wi~in** 

### 2 percent. Two '. exceptions were 'the 4 percent difference in total energy sa\iJlgs over the lifetime ofan appliance and the 9.9 percent difference in residential salea in 1990.



### C. 

### SensitivityAnalyses. In the EUP Model. the future trend in energy efficiency during the market-based scenario is represented as assigned percentages ofthe particular standards level in question. The assigned percentages increase to 91.2 percent of the standards level in 

### 2006, the last year of the analysis. Assigned percentages

were used because the future trend in energy efficiency for the four products is not well known. "

.

### Acc~rdingly.**sensiti~ty** analyses

were conducted that used different assumptions,about trends 

### In energy efficiency during the market-based scenario. Four sensitivity analyses were conducted about the Levell standards. One sensitivity analysis was conducted about the Level 2 standards. The five sensitivity analyses are the constant efficiency analysis. the conservative .analysis. the historical.?nalysis (Case 1)•.Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday. April 1, 19835 / Proposed Rules . . 12971

the historical analysis (Case 2), and the have due to a more pessimistic trend inLevel Z sensitivity analysis. - energy efficiency during the marketFor the constant efficiency analysis, based scenario than was used in the the future trend in energy efficiency Level 2 standards analysis. DOE is during the market

-based scenario

- interested in receiving comments aitd remains constant at the 1978 SWEF

.. statements concerning the sensitivity There is no improvement in energy analyses conducted for the four efficiency over the 1978-2006 period

. products. The standards scenario is based on the d Economicjustif ^catioa Level 1 standards. This scenario was selected to show the maximum effect Section 325(b) prohibits an appliance that Level 1 standards could have in efficiency standard for a product if that saving energy. - standard is not economically justified. For the conservative improvement in Section 325(d ) states that a standard can efficiency analysis, the future trendin be economically justified only if DOE energy efficiency is taken to be the determines that the benefits of the lowest trend in energy efficiency standard exceed its burdens. In other forecasted by the ORNL Model for the words, even if a standard saved eight products. This was for central air "significant" amounts of energy, if the conditioners for which the energy benefits of that standard did not efficiency in 2005 was projected to be outweigh
, its burdens

, the standard 75.9 percent of the standards level. The would not be economically justified. In standards scenario is based on Level 1 determining whether a particular standards

. This sensitivity analysis was standard's benefits exceed the burdens, undertaken to show the effect that Level to the greatest extent practicable, DOE I standards would have were there to be is to weigh six specific factors as well as a less optimistic trend in increased any other factors DOE deems energy efficiency (a trend culminating in appropriate. See section 325(d) (1) -(7).. 75.9 percent of the standards level) than These factors are separately addressed used during the standards analysis, below. where the SWEF for the year 2006 Certain of these factors can be reached 91.2 percent of the standard quantified, albeit through projections level. and computer models ; others are not Two historical analyses were quantifiable. Congress recognized this conducted which provided estimates of and indicated that greater weight should the upper and lower limits of energy not be given to a factor merely because savings assuming that improvements in it was quantifiable. See H.A. Rep. No. energy efficiency are expected to 95-1751, 95th Cong., 2d Sess.118 (1978). continue. For each the future trend in 1. Economic Impact on manufacturers energy efficiency without standards is and Consumers (Sec. 325(d)(1). For expected to increase

, initially

, at the consumers

, one measure of economic historical rate. The historical rate was impact is the first cost of theproduct. based on the improvement in energy Increased first costs to consumers efficiency from 1972 to 1978. The rate is resulting from standards can affect then assumed to decrease over time and different consumers in different ways. approach an efficiency limit, which for For lower income consumers, increases Case I is the Level I standards and for in first costs for a particular product can Case 2 is the Level 2 standards. The have the effect of precluding the standards scenario in each case is based purchase of a new model of that on the Level 1 standards. A straight line product. As a result, some consumers rate was not considered to be may retain products past their useful life reasonable for the historical analyses or purchase older used appliances. because improvements in energy These older products are generally less efficiency tend to decrease over time as efficient than newer models to begin was projected by the ORNL Model for with, and DOE believes that for some the eight products. Therefore, the appliances initial efficiencies may . historical analyses were based on the deteriorate if they are retained beyond premises that the rate of energy their useful life. Thus, these consumers efficiency improvements would - might, because of standards, be forced decrease over time and that the energy to live with less efficient products and, efficiency would reach an upper limit . : in turn

, use more energy

. However, if no For the Level 2 sensitivity analysis, standards were adopted, consumers of the future trend in energy efficiency . all income levels wquld be able to during the market

-based scenario is choose from a range of products with identical to the market-based scenario varying energy efficiencies and prices. It in the Level I standards analysis. The would then be possible for a lower standards scenario is based on Level 2 income person to purchase a new. standards. This scenario was selected to product with a higher efficiency than the show the effect that standards would model it was replacing

, albeit at an efficiency less than would be required under standards, but also at a purchase price less than would be available under standards. DOE believes that this impact of standards on lower income persons is important even if the number of such persons disadvantaged is relatively small compared to the total number of persons affected by standards

. This is so because lower income persons are the least able to endure economic disadvantage resulting from governmental regulatory action. The development of first cost relationships to efficiency for the four products was patterned after•the method ,used for the eight products. When possible, exponential cost curves were developed based on retail price and energy efficiency data . Otherwise, cost curves were developed by use of regression analyses . See Technical Support Document
, pages 81 thru 88. Market survey data were used for the four products because, unlike in the eight products rulemaking, detailed engineering cost data were not available. - The market survey data provided information by model on price and energy efficiency. However, the market survey data provided no information of this nature as to individual utility or performance related features or individual design options associated with improvements in energy effiiciency.'a In the case of dishwashers, clothes washers, and humidifiers, the market survey data points correlated well with a simplified form of the curves used for the eight products. Accordingly. simplified exponential costs curves were . developed and used for dishwashers, clothes washers, and humidifiers. The exponential cost curves initially developed for both television sets and dehumidifiers, however, significantly overestimated the costs of very efficient products and did not rationalize well the frequent occurrences of more efficient products at lower prices. For these two products, analytical regression curve techniques were used to derive a relationship between cost and 

### efficiency. . DOE is interested in receiving further cost and energy efficiency data specific to particular design options. DOE is also interested in receiving comments

OFor example, the market survey data for television sets listed products at the same energy efficiency, but with a wide variation in price. The variation in price was

. in part. due to utility features, such as remote control and cable ready, that were included in the higher price models. These kinds of features had little effect on energy efficiency. - Federal 

### Register 

## I Vol. 50. No. 

### 62 

## I Monday. 

### April 1. 19M 

## I Proposed Rules 

### 12971

the historical analysis (Case 2). and the Level Z sensitivity analysis.

.. . :

For the constant efficiency analysis. the future trend in energy efficiency

. during the market-based scenario remains constant at the 1978 

### SWEF. There is no improvement 

### in energy

. efficiency over the 1978-2006 period. .' The standards scenario is based on 

### the

- Levell standards. This scenario wa:s selected to snow the maximum effect that Level 1 standa,rds could have in ' saving energy.

For the conservative improvement 

### in efficiency analysis. the future trendin energy efficiency is taken to be the' ' lowest trend in energy efficiency

, forecasted by the ORNLModel for the eight products. This was for central

### ,air conditioners for which the energy , efficiency in 2005 was prpjected to be 75.9 percent of the standards level. The standards scenario 

### is based on Levell standards. This sensitivity analysis was undertaken to show the effect that Level 1 standards would have were there tobe

a less optimistic trend in increased energy efficiency {a trend culminating in 75.9 percent of the standards level} than used during the standards analysis. where the SWEF for the year 2006 reached 91.2 percent of 

### the standard level.

,

Two historical analyses were conducted which provided estimates 

### of the Ilpper and lower limits of energy savings assuming that improvementa ill energy efftciency are expected 

### to ' continue. For each. thefuture trend 

### in ene.rgy efficiency without standards is ' expected to increase. initially. at the historical rate. The historical rate was based on the improvement in energy efficiency from 1972 to 1978. The rate is then assumed to decrease over time and approach an efficiency limit. which for Case 1 is the Levell standards and for Case 2 is the Level Z standards. The standards scenario in each case is based

on the Levell standards. A straight line rate was not considered to be reasonable for the historical analyses because improvements in energy efficiency tend to decrease over time as
was projected 

### bythe ORNL Model far ' the eight products. Therefore. the historical analyses were based on the premises thi'll the rate 

### ofenergy , efficiency improvements would ' de1;rease over time and that the energy efficiency would reach an npper limit.

For the Level 2 sensitivity analysis. the future trend in energy efficiency

, during the market-based scenario 

### ilS identical to the market-based scenario in the Levell standards analysis. The standards KeDario**~** based on Level 2 standards. This scenario was selected to show the effect that sfandards would



### .. , 

## .**~**...=-=.......,. c7TS
have due to a more pessimistic trend in energy efficiency during the marketbased scenario than was used in the ' Level 2 standards analysis. DOE 

### is ' interested in receiving comments and statements concerning the sensitivity analyses conducted for the 

### fOtzr '**prod.u~.** , "; . , ' : 

### d. Economic

## Jusii/k:at4ni

Section 

### 3Z5[bJ prohibits an appliance efficiency standard for a product 

### ifthat standard is not eronomicallyjustified. Section 3Z5(d} states that 

### a standard can be economically justified only 

### ifDOE determines that the benefits ofthe standard exceed its burdens. In other words. even 

### ifa standard saved "significant" 'amounts ofenergy, 

### ifthe benefits of that standard did not outweigh. its burdens. the standard would not be economicallyjustified. In determining whether a particular standard'a,benefits exceed the burdens. to the greatest extent practicable. DOE 

### is to weigh six specific racton 

### as well as any other factors 

### DOE deems appropriate. 

### See section 325{d) {lH7}. These factors are separately addressed below.

,

Certain of these factors can 

### be quanlified. albeit L'lrough projections and computermodels: other. are Dot quantifiable. Congress recognized thia and indicated thaI greater weight should not be given to a factor merely because it was quantifiable. 

### See 

### H.R. Rep. 

### No. 95-1751. 95th Cong.• 2d Sess. 116 (1978).



### 1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and

### Consumers (Sec. 325(d)(l)). For consumers, one measure ofeconomic impact is the first cost of the,product. Increased first costs to consumera resulting from standards 

### can affect different consumers in different ways. For lower income consumers. increases in first costs for a particular product c'an have the effect ofprecluding 

### the

, purchase ofa !lew model of that product. 

### As a result, some COllSumcrs may retain products past their usefulliIe

or purchase older used appliances. These olderpr·oducts are generally less efficient than newer models to begin with. 

### and DOE believes thatfar some appliances initial efficiencies may deteriorate 

### ifthey are retainedbeyond their useful life. Thus. these consumers might. because ofstandards. be forced to live with less efficient products and. in tum. use more energy_ However. ifno standards were adopted. consumers 

### of all income levels wQuld be able to choose from a range ofproducts with varying energy efficiencies and**price~.** It would tben be possible for a lower income person to purchase a new, , product with a higher efficiency than the model it was replacing, albeit at an ,,'

. . 

### . . ",: efficiency less than would be required under standards. but also at a purchase priceless than would be available under standards. DOE believes 

### that this impact of standards 

### On lower income persons is important even 

### ifthe number ofsuch persons disadvantaged 

### is relatively small compared to the total number ofpersons affected 

### by standards. This 

### is so because 

### lower incoIJ;le persons are the least able to endure economic disadvantage resu1til18 from**govern~ental** regulatory action.

The development offirst cost relationships to efficiency for the four products was patterned after'the method ,used for the eight products. When possible, exponential cost curves were developed based on retail price' and energy efficiency data. Otherwise. cost

curves were developed by 

### use of regression analyses. 

### See Technical Support Document. pages 81 thm 88.. Market survey data were used for the four products because. unlike in the eight products rulemaking. detailed engineering cost data were not available.

The market survey data provided information by model on price and energy efficiency. However. the market survey data provided no information of this nalure as to individual utility or performance related features or individual design options associated with improvements in energy effliciency.'o



### In the case of dishwashers. clothes washers, and humidifiers. the market survey data points correlated well with

a simplified form ofthe curves used for the eight products. Accordingly. simplified exponential costs curves 'werE, developed and used for dishwashers. clothes washers. andhumidifiers. The exponential cost curves initially developed for both television sets and dehumidifiers. however. significantly overestimated the costs ofvery efficient products and did not rationalize weTI the frequent occurrences of more efficient products at lower prices. For these two products. analytical regression curve techniques were Used 

### to derive a relationship between cast 

### and**emcien~.**

DOE

## is interested in receiving further cost and energy efficiency data specific. to particular design options. DOE is also interested 

### in receiving comments

"Forexample. the market survey data for television sets listed products at the s;ame energy effICiency, but with a wide variation in price, The varfation inprice was. in part. due 10 utility features. .och as remote conn-ol

.....d cable ready. thaI

# -=**ilIcl,,~d** ill the higher pric£ model.. These kinds of features had liule efIcc1 on energy efficiency, ' ,

### Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 1 Proposed Rules

cerning whether first cost curves can offset by fuel savings over the life of the be developed for the four products by product. - using market survey data in lieu of The life cycle cost analysis was used detailed engineering costs and whether to determine the life cycle cost . the first cost curves for television sets minimum

, which for the "average" and dehumidifiers

, which use analytical consumer'should beat the optimal regression curve techniques in lieu of an efficiency level. Where a consumer is exponential cost curve

, are reasonable

. not average
, however, that level is not For consumers
, another measure of necessarily optimal. If the consumer has economic impact is the life cycle cost of higher than average fuel prices or higher ' a product
, becase it takes account of the than average usage rates, there may be increased first cost
, any increased a more optimal efficiency level for that maintenance costs
, and the reduced fuel consumer

, but the consumer is not costs over the product's service life penalized because the market is able to resulting from the product's greater provide such a model : If, however, the efficiency. The life cycle cost analyses consumer has lower than average fuel are discussed under a separate heading • prices or lower than average usage below

. rates
, the consumer may be penalized For manufacturers

, no measure of by having to purchase a product whose economic impact was made

. Results efficiency level was required by a from the EUP Model projected that Federal standard that assumed higher standards would probably not result in fuel prices or higher usage than is true significant conservation of energy for for that consumer any of the four products

. Moreover
, the For the eight products, DOE economic impact on consumers

. conducted a net present value (NPV) predicted that standards would likely analysis to show the total differential increase both the first costs and the life economic impacts on consumers that cycle costs for all four products

. DOE would occur generally from the adoption considers the failure of a standard to of standards

, compared to a base caseachieve significant conservation of with no standards but with marketnergy and the associated increases in induced efficiency improvements. The 

### th first and life cycle costs to be NPV analysis is similar to the LCC ubstantial impediments towards analysis

, and the greatest NPV generally standards

. Consequently, DOE did not should occur at the standard level set at determine the economic impact on the LCC minimum for the product. The manufacturers

. ORNL Model calculated the total cost 2. Life Cycle Cost (Sec. 325(d)(2)). The for each product (discounted total value life cycle cost (LCC) analysis calculates of energy consumption from 1987 

### the total cost of ownership for through the last year of use for those consumers for each class of product

. products purchased through the year The lifetime operating costs for each of

. 2005

, plus the total discounted the four products accounted for the equipment costs for equipment future escalation in energy prices and purchased from 1987 through 2005) with were discounted to the present

. The and without standards

. The difference discount rate of 10 percent
, which was between these two is the NPV used for the eight products
, was used

. attributable to standards

. A positive The forecasts for energy prices were NPV for a product at a given standard from NEPP IV. The amount of energy level indicates that, if that standard used annually'by a typical consumer were adopted

, consumers of that product was based on the DOE test ' product as a whole would save that procedures

. See Technical Support much more money in fuel costs, Document,-Chapter IX

. Comparison of discounted to the present

, than they the life

-cycle cost of the-projected 1988 would pay in increased first cost for sales weighted energy efficiency models more efficient products

, discounted to with models at the standard level allows the present

, compared to the situation DOE to determine the changes in total where no standard is adopted. DOE cost of ownership

. considers the failure of a standard to 

### If the life cycle at a particular achieve a positive NPV to result'in a standard level is greater than the life substantial burden. cycle cost of the projected 1988 sales It is anticipated that, if a NPV weighted energy efficiency model
, this analysis were to be conducted for the demonstrates that it is not economically four products

, it would result in a beneficial for the average consumer to negative NPV. The primary reason for purchase a product built to the standard the negative NPV is that the standards level compared to the projected 1988 level identified for analysis in each sales weighted energy efficiency model

. instance deviated from the minimum That is, the increased first costs of .' . LCC point

. This results in a substantial obtaining a particular efficiency are not burden for consumers and fails the test of positive savings

. Consequently, DOE concluded that a NPV analysis for the four products is not required. 3. Energy Savings (

Sec. 325(d)(3)). While the significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for imposing an energy efficiency standard

, the total projected savings directly resulting from standards is also one factor to be considered in weighing the burdens and benefits under section 325(d). The EUP Model results were utilized for this factor

. In each product

-specific analysis, the savings are specified.. 4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products (Sec. 325(

d)(4)). This factor cannot be quantified

. In the eight product rulemaking by establishing classes of products

, DOE attempted to eliminate any degradation of utility or performance in existing covered products

. That is, to the extent that comments or our own research indicated that a product included a utility or performance related feature that affected energy efficiency

, a class was created for the product with a lower standard

. In this way. DOE attempted to minimize the impact of this factor as a result of the standards analyzed. Product classes are also reflected in today's rulemaking

.i 3 The existence of classes, however

, does not affect the product analyses

, except for a portion of the analysis of television sets. See infra. This is so because the analyses generally assume the most prevalent class to be the only class. However, even were DOE able to eliminate any lessening of utility or performance in existing products as a result of standards

, DOE believes it is not possible to eliminate all impacts of standards that might lessen the utility or performance of future products

. This is true for two reasons. First

. DOE believes that the effect of requiring investments on the basis of regulations rather than fundamental business considerations may' result in manufacturers foregoing some investments that would have been made in the absence of the regulatory requirements

. These investments might be in improvements in utility or performance of a product. ' - 

### Second

, while separate classes of products in light of their different performance features can aid in

" For example

, there are separate product classes for front loading clothes washers and top loading clothes washers

. Top loading clothes washers. which generally are less efficient than other kinds of clothes we shera

. provide added utility for consumers by being able to spin clothes dryer: Consequently, the Level i standard selected for top loading clothes washers was lower than the level selected for front loading clothes washers. 

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 50. No. 62 

## I Monday, April 1. 1985 

## I Proposed Rules**~I[)ct:mlllg** 

### whetherfirst cost curves can be developed for the four products by 

### using market survey data in lieu of detailed engineering costs and whether the first cost curves for television sets and dehumidifiers. which use analytical regression curVe techniques in lieu ofan exponential cost curve. are reasonable.

For consumers. another measure of economic impact is the life cycle cost of

a product. becase it 

### takes account of the increased first cost, any increased

. maintenance costs. and the reduced fuel costs over the product's service life resulting from the product's greater efficiency. The life cycle cost analyses

are discussed under a separate heading below.

For manufacturers. no measure of economic impact was made. Results from the EUP Model projected that standards would probably not result in significant conservation of energyfor any of the foul' products. Moreover. the economic impact on consumers , predicted that standards would likely increase both the first costs and the life cycle costs for all four products. DOE considers the failure ofa standard to achieve significant conservation of 

# E er

sy and the associatea increases in th first and life**cy~** 

### costs to be ubstantial impediments towards

. standards. Consequently. DOE did not determine the economic impact on manufacturers.

. .

2. Life Cycle Cost 

### (Sec. 325{dJ(2J). 

### The life cycle cost (LCC) analysis calculates the total cost ofownership for

consumers for each class ofproduct. The lifetime operating costs for each of the four products accounted for the future escalation in energy prices and

were discounted to the present, The discount rate of 10 percent, which was used for the eight products. was used.

. The forecasts for energy priceswere from NEPP IV. The amount ofenergy used annuallY'by a typical consumer product was based on the DOE test" procedures. See

### Technical Support

. Document. ·Chapter IX. Comparison of the life-cycle cost of thct--projected 1988 sales weighted energy efficiency models with models at the standard level allows DOE to determine the changes in total cost of**o~rship.** 

### .



### Ifthe life cycle at a particular ' . standard level is greatertltan'the life cycle cost of the projected 1988 

### sales weighted energy 

### efficiency model. this demonstrates that it 

### is not economically beneficial for the average consumer to

I

### purchase a product buill to the standard le\'el compared 10 

### the projected 1988 sales weighted energy efficiency model. That is. the increased first costs of

.. obtaining a particular efficiency are not offset by fuel savings over the life ofthe product.

The life cycle cost analysis was used to determine the life cYcle cost , . minimum. which for the "average"

... consumer·should be at the optimal efficiency level. Where a consumer is not average, however, that level is not necessarily optimal. If

### the consumer has higher than average fuel prices orhigher' than average usage rates, there may 

### be

a more optimal efficiency level for that

consumer. but the consumer is not penalized because the market is able to provide such a model:If, however, the consiuner has lower than average fuel prices or lower than average usage rates, the consumer may be penalized by having to purchase a product whose efficiency level was required by a Federal standard that assumed higher fuel prices or higher usage than is true for that consumer.

For the eight products. DOE conducted a nel present value (NPV) analysis to show the total differential economic impacts on consumers that would occur generally from the adoption ofstandards. compared to a base case with no standards but with marketinduced efficiency improvements. The NPV analysis is similar to the LCC analysis, and the greatest NPV generally should occur at the standard level set at the LCC minimum for the product. The ORNLModel calculated the'total cost for each product (discounted total value ofenergy consumption from 1987 

### through the last year ofuse for those products purchased through the year

. 2005, plus the total discounted

.

equipment costs for equipment

. purchased from 1987 

### through 2005) with and without standards. The difference between these two is the NPV attributable to standards. A positive NPV 

### for a product at a given standard level indicates that, 

### ifthai standard

were adopted, consumers ofthat product as a whole would save that much more money in fuel costs. discounted to the present. than they would pay in increased first cost for



### more efficient products. discounted to the present. compared to the situation where no standard is adopted. DOE considers the failure ofa standard to

.achieve a positive NPV to result 'in a substantial burden.

.

It 

### is anticipated that. 

### ifa NPV

. analysis were to be conducted for the four products. it 

### would result in a negative NPV. The primary reason for the negative NPV is that the standards level identifi.ed for analysis in each instance de\'iated from the minimum LCC point. This results in a substantial burden for consumers and fails the test ofpositive savings. Consequently, DOE concluded thaI 8 

### NPV analysis for the four products is not required.



### 3. Energy Savings (Sec. 325[d}(3)}. 

### While the significant conservatiQn of energy is a separate statutory requirement for imposing an energy efficiency standa!'d, the total projected savings directly resulting from standards is also one factor tobe considered in weighing the burdens and benefits under section 325(d). The EUP Model results were utilized for this factor. In each product-specific analysis. the savings are specified.·



### 4. Lessening of

### Utility orPerformance 

### of

Products 

### [Sec. 32S(d)[4)). 

### This factor cannot be quantified. In the eight product rulemaking by establishing classes ofproducts, DOE attempted to eliminate any degradation ofutility or performance in existing covered products. That is. to the extent that comments or our own research indicated that a product included a utility or performance related feature that affected energy efficiency. a class was created for the product with a lower standard. In this way. DOE attempted to minimize the impact of this factor 8S 

### a result of the standards analyzed. Product classes are also reflected in loday's rulemaking. 11 

### The existence of classes. however. does not affect the product analyses, except for a portion of the analysis oftelevision sets. See infra. 

### This is sobecBuse the analyses generally assume the most prevalimt class to be the only class.

However. even were DOE able to eliminate any lessening ofutility or perfonnance in existing products as a result ofstandards. DOE believes it is not possible to eliminate all impacts of standards iliat might lessen the utility or performance offuture products. This is true for two reasons. First, DOE believes

. that the effect ofrequiring investments

on the basis ofregulations rather than fundamental busines8 considerations may ·result in manufacturers foregoing

some investments that would have been made in the absence of the regulatory requirements. These investments might 

### be in improvements in 

### utility or**~rformance** 

### ofa product.·

-

Second, while separate classes of products in light of their different performance features can aid 

### in

II For example, there are eeparate product classes (or front loading clothe, washer. and top loadi"8 clothe! walhel'S. Top loading clothes washers. which generally are Ie

.. efficient than other kind. ofclothes we ahera. provide**add~d** utility for consumers bybeing able to apin clothes dryer: Consequently. the Levell standard selected for lop loading clothes walhen wal lower than the level Delected for front loading clothe. w8lbera.

### Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 62 1 Monday, April 1, 1985 1 Proposed Rules

minimizing degradation of utility or performance, there is not a specific. mechanism in the statute for recognizing new performance features after a final rule is adopted. That is, were a final rule adopted with specific standards for different classes of products, it would have the effect of freezing those classes in the regulation. A manufacturer would be prohibited from distributing in commerce any covered product with new performance-feature, if that feature would have the effect of reducing the products' energy efficiency below the . standard level as measured by an .. applicable DOE test procedure, unless and until the rule were amended to create a new class or a new standard in light of such a new performance feature. The delay and uncertainty associated with this process would create a disincentive for manufacturers to develop the feature in the first instance. While this possible disincentive to the development of more energy intensive performance features cannot be quantified, it could create a risk that some performance features that ' otherwise might be developed would not be. Given the importance of many past performance features that reduce the energy efficiency of a product, such as remote control television sets, which, if standards had been imposed before their development, might result in the new product failing the standard, DOE believes that any risk created by such a disincentive constitutes a burden to be considered in weighing the burdens of and benefits of possible standards. DOE requests comments on this issue. 5. Impact of Lessening Competition (Sec. 325(d)(5)). The determination of this factor must be made by the Attorney General. - 6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy (Sec. 725(d)(6)). Although the Nation's need to conserve energy must be balanced against other factors to determine the net burdens or benefits of an efficiency standard, Congress did not define what the Nation's need to conserve energy was. The statute itself, however, provides clear evidence that Congress did not consider the need to save energy to be absolute. First, section 325(f) authorizes DOE to establish higher or lower standards for classes of product in the same product type that use different sources of energy. Thus, for example, DOE could set a lower standard for oil furnaces than electric furnaces, effectively limiting possible energy savings. Second, section 325(f) also. authorizes DOE to establish higher or lower standards for different classes of products in the same product type if they have different utility or. performance-related features. Thus, a color television set, which inherently

uses more energy than a monochrome television set, can have a less stringent standard. Because these effects of the law reduce the potential savings that could be obtained from standards, saving energy must be balanced with other considerations. By including these provisions. Congress recognized that a standard which might save the greatest' amount of energy, could effectively ban appliances using certain types of fuel .(because of their relative inefficiencies compared to the same product using a different source of energy) or having useful performance features. The statute is clear, DOE believes, in providing that such a result should not be the consequence of standards. These provisions indicate that the statute itself recognizes that the importance of saving energy is relative, not absolute. NECPA's findings and purposes singled out oil and gas as the two energy sources of particular concern. Yet since the passage of NECPA, this Nation's total imports of oil have declined about 43 percent.12 To the extent that a source of energy other than oil and gas is involved. DOE believes the relative need to conserve energy is less. - Electrical generation capacity is .generally adequate. After a number of years of large growth in demand, the industry is now seeing a demand Increase at an annual rate of 32 percent." Problems with the supply of electricity at the present time and for the foreseeable future are localized in nature, depending on specific circumstances. Such problems are generally better dealt with in light of the specific circumstances, not by means of a Federal nationwide solution. The above discussion is not intended to indicate that DOE does not value highly the benefits of conservation in the use of all energy. Rather, it is intended merely to recognize that the degree of the Nation's need to save energy depends on the fuel involved and can change over time. To the extent that the market and government initiatives to

32 According to the 1983 Annual Energy Review, DOEJF1A-03&4183) . Table 35, total imports of oil peaked in 1977 and averaged 8.81 million barrels per day. During 1983

, total imports of oil averaged 4.99 million barrels per day, the lowest level since 197 72 13 Total electricity sales are projected to rise at an average annual rate of 3.9 percent with the continuation of the economic recovery from 1983 to 1985. From 1985 to 1990. electricity sales are expected to grow at an average rate of 3

.4 percent per year. slightly more rapidly than the real GNP. From 1990 to 1995, electricity sales are expected to increase at an average annual rate of 2.8 percent, so that. over the entire 1983 to 1995 period, electricity sales are expected to grow at an annual rate of 32 percent. See Annual Energy Outlook 1983 with - projections to 1995. DOEJEIA-0383(83), page is 

### 12973

remove regulatory disincentives to conservation and energy production result in a healthier national energy situation, the need for additional, Federally mandated conservation ofenergy is decreased. Because of theacross-the-board improvements in the national energy picture of the past few years and its projected continuation into the future 14-Without regard to - appliance program-the need of the Nation to conserve marginal increased amounts of energy through a particular appliance efficiency standard is diminished; 7. Other Factors. Section 325(d)(7) requires DOE to include in the process of weighing the burdens and benefits of a standard, and other factors the - Secretary considers relevant. The Department requests comments from interested persons as to what other - factors, not hitherto considered, should be considered relevant in weighing the burdens and benefits of standards. 8. Weighing of Factors. The above discussion of the factors to be weighed in determining the burdens and benefits of possible standards is intended to identify the factors and explain their bases. Some of the burdens discussed above are not dependent on a particular product-specific standard, but on the existence of any standard at all. The existence of. these generic burdens does not, in itself, disqualify a particular standard or standards. Standards for each product must be judged on their own merits, weighing the burdens and benefits arising from them.

Ill. Product

-Specific Discussion

This section presents separate discussions for each of the four products. Each product-specific discussion is divided into the following five subjects: product classes , design options, standard levels, energy savings and economic justification. The discussion on energy savings addresses each of the three tests of significant energy savings (oil and gas savings, electricity savings and percent savings). The discussion on economic justification addresses the six economic factors cited in section 325(d) of the Act 

### a. Dishwashers
A "dishwasher" means a cabinet-like appliance which with the aid of water and detergent, washes, rinses, and dries (when a drying process is included) dishware, glassware, eating utensils, and most cooking utensils by chemical,

10 See generally the National Energy Policy Plan. DOE/S-0014(1. October 1983. (hereafter referred to as"NEPPIV").' 

### Federal 

### Register 

## I Vol. 50, No. 62 

## I Monday, April 

### 1, 1985 

## I Proposed Rules 

### 12973

minimizing degradation ofutility or

.. :. performance, there is not a specific

.. mechanism in the statute for recognizing

new performance features after a final rule is adopted. That is. were a final rule adopted with specific standards for different classes ofproducts. it 

### would have the effect offreezing those classes in.1he regulation. A manufacturer would' be prohibited from distributing in '



### commerce any covered product with '

new performance·feature. 

### ifthatfeature would have the effect ofreduCing the products' energy efficiency below 

## tPe standard level as measured by an

. applicable DOE test procedure. unless and until the rule were amended to create a new class or a new standard in light ofsuch a new performance feature. The delay and uncertainty associated

. with this process would create a disincentive for manufacturers to develop the feature in the first instance.

While this possible disincentive to the development ofmore energy intensive performance features cannot be quantified. it 

### could create a risk that

some performance features that

. otherwise might be developed would not be. Given the importance ofmany past performance features that reduce the energy efficiency of a product. such as remote control television sets. which. if standards had been imposed before their development, might result in 

### the

new product failing the standard, DOE believes that any risk created by such a disincentive constitutes a burden to be considered in weighing the burdens of and benefits ofpossible standards. DOE requests comments on this issue.

5. impact of Lessening Competition {Sec. 325{d)(5J). 

### The determination of this factor must be made by the

. Attorney General.

.

6. Needof theNation to Conserve Energy (Sec. 325(d)(6)). 

### Although the Nation's need to conserve energy must be balanced against other factors to

. determine the net burdens or benefits of

an efficiency standard. Congress did not define what the Nation's need to
conserve energy was.

The statute itself. however, provides clear evidence that Congress did not consider the need to save energy to be ' absolute. First, section 325(f) authorizes DOE to establish higher or lower

.. standards for classes ofproduct in the slHlle product type that use different

, sources ofenergy. Thus. for example. DOE could set a lower standardfor oil

. furnaces than electric furnaces, effectively limiting possible energy savings. Second. section 325(f) also. authorizes DOE to establish bigher or

. lower standards for different classes pf products in the same product type 

### if they have different utility

# m:; '.'

r . , 

### performance-related features. Thus. a color television set. which inherently

uses more energy than a monochrome television set. can have a less stringent standard. Because these effects ofthe law reduce the potential savings that

. could be obtained from standards. saving energy must be balanced wi'th other considerations. By including these provisions. Congress recognized thai a standard which might save the greatest' amount ofenergy. could effectively ban appliances using certain tl-'Pes offuel "because oftheirrelative inefficiencies -compared**~o** 

### the same product using a different source ofenergy) or having useful performance features. The statute is clear, DOE believes. in providing that such a result should not be the consequence ofstandards. These provisions indicate that the statute itself recognizes that the importance ofsaving energy is relative. not absolute.

NECPA's findings and purposes singled out oil and gas as the two energy
sources ofparticular concern. Yet since the passage ofNECPA. this Nation's total imports ofoil have declined about 43 percent. 12 

### To the extent that a source ofenergy other than oil and gas is involved. DOE believes the relative need to conserve energy is less. ' Electrical generalion capacity is ,generally adequate. After a number of years oflarge growth in 

### demand. the industry is now seeing a demand increase at an annual rate of3.2

, percent.J:I Problpms with the supply of electricity at the present time and for the foreseeable future are localized in 

### nature. depending on specific circumstances. Such problems are generally better dealt with in light ofthe specific circumstances. not by means of

a Federal nationwide solution.

The above discussion is not intended to indicate that DOE does not value highly the benefits ofconservation in the

use ofan energy. Rather, it

### is intended merely to recognize thai the degree of the Nation's need to save energy depends on the fuel involved and can change over time. To the extent that the market andgovernment initiatives to

IIAccording to the 1983 AnnualEnergyReview. DOE/EIA-mIl4I!l3I. Table 35. lolal impoN ofoil

_ peaked in 1917 and averased 8.81 million burrell per day. During 1983. tolal imports ofoil averaged 4,l1li million barrels per day, the lowesllevel since 1912.

••Total electricity sales are projected to rise at an average BMual rale of3.9 percent with the continuation ofthe economic recovery from 1911310 1\l8S. From 1\l8S 10 1990. electricity sales lire expected to grow 81 an average rate

## or3.4 percent Per year. slightly more rapidly than the real GNP. From 1990 10 1995. electriCity .ales are expected to increase at an B"erage annual rale of2.8 percenl, 10 that. over the entire 1983 10 1995 period. electricity I13les are expecled 10 grow a( an annual rate of3.2 percent. See Annual Energy Outlook 1983 with ' prpjeclioll8 to 1995. DOEjElA-0363(83), pIIse 122. • C&Fe 

# -

remove regulatory disincentives to conservation and energy production result in a healthier national energy situation, the need for additional. Federally mandated conservation or energy is decreased. Because of the, across-the-board improvements in the**~atlonal** 

### energy picture of the past few years and its projected continuation into the future 14-

### without regard to appliance program-the need ofthe Nation to conserve marginal increased amounts ofenergy through a particular appliance efficiency standard is diminished.



### 7. Other

### Factors. Section 325(d)(7) requires DOE to include in the process of weighing the burdens and benefits of

. a standard. and other factors the '

Secretary considers relevant. The Department requests comments from interested persons as to what other ' factors. not hitherto considered. should be considered relevant in weighing the burdens and benefits ofstandards_



### 8. Weighing of Factors. The above discussion ofthe factors to be weighed in determining the burdens and benefits ofpossible standards is intended to identify the factors and explain their bases. Some ofthe burdens discussed above are not dependent on a particular product-specific standard. but on the existence of any standard at all. The existence of. these generic burdens does not, in itself. disqualify a particular standard or standards. Standards for each product must be judged on their

own merits. weighing the burdens· and benefits arising from them.

. . 111. Product-Specific Discussion

This section presents separate discussions for each ofthe four products. Each product-specific discussion is divided into the following five subjects: product classes, design options. standard levels. energy savings and economicjUstification. The discussion on energy savings addresses eRch of the three tests ofSignificant energy savings (oil and gas savings. electricity savings and percent savings). The discussion on economicjustification addresses the six economic factors cited in section 325(d} of the Act.·

a. Dishwashers



### A "dishwasher" means a cabinet-like appliance which with the aid ofwater and detergent. washes, rinses, anddries (when a drying process is included) dishware. glassware. eating utensils. and most cooking utensils by chemical.

,. Seegenerally Ihe National Energy Policy Plan. DOE/&-OOH/l. OClober 1983. {hereafler referred 10
aa "NEPP IV").

, .

### 12974 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 1 Proposed Rules

anical and/or electrical means and arges to the plumbing drainage systems. See 10 CFR Part 4302. 1. Product Classes. Two classes of dishwashers, standard and compact. were specified by DOE in the December 1979 advance notice

. These classes are distinguished by their capacity. Dishwasher energy consumption is strongly related to the hot water usage of the machine. Compact dishwashers use less water and less energy than _ standard size dishwashers

. Compact dishwashers are dishwashers having an exterior width of less than 22 inches. Compact dishwashers generally have an exterior width of 18 inches, and fit into smaller spaces and handle smaller loads than standard size dishwashers. Standard size dishwashers are defined as those with an exterior width greater than or equal to 22 inches. Standard size dishwashers generally have an exterior width of 24 inches. Standard size dishwashers typically have lower energy factors than compact dishwashers

, but their larger capacity provides increased utility to consumers. Exterior width was chosen as the measure of capacity because it

J curately delineates the two classes of hwashers in the current population d is a readily available dimension. As discussed above
, DOE has established a third product class
, called water heating dishwashers. Water heating dishwashers have added utility and performance for consumers because the thermostat settings for water heaters could be lowered resulting in overall reductions of utility bills. A class of water heating dishwashers is - appropriate due to differences in utility, as well as the seperate treatment of water heating dishwashers in the test procedures. 2. Design Options. The December 1979 advance notice identified five design options or combinations of design options that, if incorporated into the design of a dishwasher
, were projected. to achieve the max tech level These design options were optional power dry, reduced inlet water temperature., modified sump geometry, improved fill controls
, aril improved insulation-15

is water heating dishwashers is the only product class for which the design option of reduced inlet water temperature is appropriate

. Compact and standard size dishwashers generally use incoming water at 140 'F, while water heating dishwashers k se incoming water at 120 'F. DOE did not consider veering the incoming water temperature below 120 F as a viable design option because this is not addressed in the test procedures

. Consequently, the inlet water temperature was not reduced below 120 .F The dishwasher with the highest energy factor was reported to incorporate the optional power dry design option

. Most dishwashers are insulated to reduce noise. Using additional insulation was reported to be of marginal use in saving energy. See Topical Report-Subtask 3.1 Clothes Washer and Dishwasher Use, September 1979. Thus, improved insulation was no longer considered a design option . The Topical Report also considered improved food filters as a viable design option

. Therefore, the three design options considered for dishwashers are: (a) Modified sump geometry (b) Improved fill controls (c) Improved food filters 3. Standard Levels. See Table 4 for the standard levels selected for dishwashers . The Level l standards are 0.50 cycles/kWh for compact . dishwashers

, 0.38 cycles/kWh for standard size dishwashers and 0.455 cycles/kWh for water beating dishwashers . The Level1 standard for compact dishwashers is identical to the level published in the December 1979 advance notice. DOE would like comments concerning whether the Level I standards for the compact and water beating dishwashers are the maximum improvement in energy efficiency. - 4. Energy Savings. The energy savings realized by standards for dishwashers were projected by the EUP Model. Compact dishwashers and water heating dishwashers are not widely in use. Consequently, the EUP Model based the energy savings for dishwashers solely on standard size dishwashers by specifying that all dishwashers are standard size dishwashers. Since standard size dishwashers typically use more energy than compact or water heating dishwashers, specifying that all dishwashers are standard size dishwashers would tend to overstate the' energy savings that could be achieved by standards for all dishwashers. According to results from the EUP Model, Level 1 standards for dishwashers are projected to save about 0.125 Quads over the 1988-1999 period, the 12-year average life of a dishwasher. See Technical Support Document. Table 4. Likewise. Level 2 standards for dishwashers are projected to save about 0.135 Quads over the 1988-1999 period. See Technical Support Document. Table 5. Energy savings are forecasted to be less than the three tests of significant energy savings. Therefore, DOE believes that standards for dishwashers would not likely result in significant conservation of energy. A. Oil and Gas Savings. For Level 1 standards. savings of 0.125 Quads 14 would result in the savings of 430 bpd of oil and of 9,260 mcf per day of natural gas. This is only 4 and 16 percent, respectively, of the amount that DOE deems significant. For Level 2 standards, savings of 0.135 Quads would result to the savings of 470 bpd of oil and of 9,960 mcf per day of natural gas. This is only 5 and 18 percent, respectively, of the amount that DOE deems significant. B. Electricity Savings. For Level I standards, electricity savings of 0.079 Quads over the 12-year period are less than 0.02 percent of the total national TAat.E 4.--STANDARD LEvet.S SELECTED FOR

DtsHwASHERS

PMOXI class Lard i i.snt 2

t. Campaat^ 2. standw nra 3. Wow Hera g 

### 0sa r 0. 50 0.3E 0.41 

### 0.455. x455

Cycles per kilowatt how. DOE is revising the level for standard size dishwashers in today's notice. DOE received several comments stating that the level in the December 1979 advance notice was determined incorrectly by failing to account for the energy usage during the normal cycle of a dishwasher. The level only considered the energy usage during the truncated normal cycle. The level should be the average of the energy usage during both the normal and truncated normal cycles. The commenters recommended that it should be 0.38 cycles/kWh. Therefore, DOE is using 0.38 cycles/kWh as the Level I standard for standard size dishwashers in today's notice. The Level 2 standard is 0.41 cycles! kWh for standard size dishwashers. The Level 2 standard is based on a dishwasher design which does not incorporate a power-dry feature. Level 2 standards for compact dishwashers and water heating dishwashers are the same as the Level I standards because the Level I standards are expected to be the maximum improvement in energy efficiency which is technologically feasible for these two product classes. "The 0

.125 Quads of energy savings resulting from Level I standards are due to savings achieved by using less hot water

. The fraction of households which heat water by electricity is 33 percent and Is 54 percent for natural gas and 13 percent for oil See Residential Energy Consumption Survey Housing Characteristics 1980

, DOE/EIA

-0314

, June 1982 Further

. it is assumed that oil constitutes 2.65 percent and gas 8.15 percent of the energy used to generate electricity over this time period. These percentages are the average of the projected proportions for the years 1990 and 1995

. See 1991 Annual Report to Congress

, Volume 3_ Forecasts. 130E/E5A 0173(81)13, February 1982. 

### Federal Register 

# I Vol. 50. No. 62 

# I Monday, April 1. 1985 

# I Proposed Rules

and/or electrical means and to the plumbing drainage systems. See 10 CFR Part 430.z.

1. Product Classes. Two classes 

### of dishwashers. standard and compact,

were specified by DOE in the**D~cember** 

### 1979 advance notice. These classes 

### are distinguished by their capacity. Dishwasher energy consumption is J 

### strongly related to the hot water usage of the machine. Compact dishwashers

use less water and less energy than 'standard size dishwashers: Compact dishwashers are dishwashers having 

### an exterior width ofless than 22 

### inches. Compact dishwashers generally have an exterior width of18 inches. and fit into smaller spaces and handle smaller loads than standard si%e dishwashera.

Standard size dishwashers 

### are defined as those with an exterior width greater than or equal to 22 

### inches. Standard size dishwashers generally have an exterior width of24 inches. Standard size dishwashers typically' have lower energy factors than compact dishwashers. but their larger capacity provides increased utility to consumers.

Exterior width was chosen as the

measure ofcapacity because it 

# l uratelY 

### delineates the two classes of hwashers in the current population d is a readily available dimension. As discussed above. DOE has established a third product class. called water heatinS( dishwashers. Water

. heating dishwasbers have added utility and performance for consumers because the thermostat settings 

### for water heaters could be lowered resulting in overall reductions ofutility bills. A 

### class of water heating dishwashers is

. appropriate due to differences in 

### utility.

as welles the seperate treatment of 

### water heating dishwashers in the test procedures. '

2. Design Options. 

### The December 1979 advance notice identified five design options or combinations ofdesign options that, ifincorporated into the

, design of a dishwasher. were projected. to achieve the max tech leveL These design options were optional powerdry, 

### reduced inlet water temperature. modified sump geometry. improved 

### fill controls. all,tl improved insulation.1Ii

,.Water heating dishwashen i. Ihe only**~uct** class for which the design option ofreduced inlet waler lemperatu", i. appropriate. Compact and Slandard size dishwashers generally lise inCOmlllg
water 81140 ·F. while waler heating dishwashera**e** incomins waler 81120 'F. DOE did 1101 consider

wenng the incoming waler temperature below 120 F as a viable desisn option because this i. nol addressed in the lest procedul'e$. Consequently. the Inlet waler temperature was nol reduced below l20 'F. ' 

### The dishwasher with the highest energy factor was reported to '

,. incorporate the optional powerdry 

### design option. Most dishwashers 

### are insulated to reduce noise. Using additional insulation was reported to be ofmarginal use in saving energy. See Topical Report-Subtask 3.1 

### Clothes Washer and Dishwasher Use. September 1979. 

### Thus. improved ' insulation was no longer considered a design option. The Topical Report also considered improved food filters 

### as a viable design option. Therefore. the three design options considered for dishwasllers are:

,(a) Modified sump geometry (b) 

### Improved 

### fill controls

, (cJ Improved food filters 3. Standard

### Levels. See

### Table 4 

### for the standard levels selected for dishwashers. The Levell standards are 0.50 cycles/kWh for compact dishwashers. 0.38 cycles/kWh for standard size dishwashers and 0.455 cycles/kWh for water beating dishwashers. The Levell standardfor compact dishwashers is 

### identical to the level published in the December 1979 advance notice.

TABLE 4.-5TANOARO lEvELS S£LECTEO FOR DIsHWASHERS

I"ro<U:t

....**~1** LweI I

1. Co<npae1 '0.50 '0.50 2. Slandal'd S1zit 0,38 0.41 3, Wahl< t--.g

____ --:.... 0,455

, U55

, C\'<Ies pet

# _n

hour.


### DOE is rel-ising the level for standard size dishwashers in today's notice. DOE received seyeral comments stating that the level in the December 1979 advance notipe was determined incorrectly by failing to account for the energy usage during the normal cycle ofa dishwasher. The level only considered the energy usage during the truncated nonnal cycle. The level should be the average ofthe energy usage during both the normal and truncated normal cycles. 

### The commenters recommended that it 

### should be 0.38 cycles/kWh. Therefore. DOE is using 0.38 cycles/kWh as the Levell standard for standard size dishwashers

, in 

### today's notice. The Level 2 standard is 

### 0.41 cycles! kWh 

### for standard size dishwashers. The Level 2 standard is 

### based on a dishwasher design which does not incorporate a power-dry feature. Level Z standards for compact dishwashers and water heating dishwashers are the same
as the Levell standards because the Levell standards are expected fabe the maximum iInprovement in energy efficiency which is technologically, feasible for these'two product classes.

, DOE would like comments concerning whether the Levell standards for the compact and :water beating dishwashers

are the maximum improvement in 

### energy efficiency.

4. 

### EnergySavings. The energy savings realized by standards for dishwashers

were projected by the 

### EUP Model.

. Compact dishwashers and water heating dishwashers are not Widely in



### use. Consequently. the 

### EUP Model based the energy savings for dishwashers solely on standard size dishwashers by specifying that all dishwashers are standard size dishwashers. Since standard size dishwashers typically use more energy than compact or water heating dishwashers, specifying that all dishwashers are standard size dishwashers would tend 10 overstate the' energy savings that could be achieved by standards for all dishwashers.

According to results from the EUP 

### Model. Levell standardsfor dishwashers are projected to save about 0.125 Quads over the 198&-1999 period. the 12·year average life ofa dishwasher. See Technical Support Document, Table 4. 

### Likewise. Level 2 

### standards for dishwasbers 

### are projected to save about 0.135 Quads over the 1988-1999 period. See Technical Support Document, Table 5. Energy savings are forecasted 

### to be less than the three tests of significant energy savings. Therefore. DOE believes that ,tandards 

### for dishwashers would not likely result in significant conservation of energy.

A. Oiland Gas Savings. ForLevell standards. savings 0(0.125 Quads 1. 

### would result in ,the savings of430 bpd of oil and of9.260 mc! per day of natural gas. This is only 4 and 16

### percent. respectively. ofthe amount that DOE deems significant. ForLevel Z 

### standards. savings of0.135 Quads would result in 

### the savings of470 

### bpd ofoil and 

### of9.960 mcfper day ofnatural gas. This is only 5 

### and 18

### percent. respectively. ofthe amount that DOE deems significant.

B. 

### ElectricitySavings. For Levell standards. electricity savings of0.079 Quads over the 12-year period are less than Il.02 

### percent 

### ofthe total national

'"The 0.125 Quads ofenergy .avings resulting from Level 1 standards are due to aavinas achieved by uaqlenhot waler. The fraction ofbousehollb "'hich heat water by electricity is 33 percent and Ia 54 percenl for natural 88& and 13 percent

## ror oil &6 Residential Energy ComwnptiOD Survey: Howrirts Chamclerilltic. 1980, OOEfEIA-OOU.**J~** 198.\!. Further. it is aasumed that oil constitute. 2.65 percenl and 8al 8.15 percenl

## or the energy used to generate electricity oyer \hi. time period.

## n.e.e percentage. are the average ofthe projected proportion. tor the yean 1990 and 1995. See 1981 Annual Report to Cangres4. Volume 3: Forecaats. DOE/EIA D113{81}/3. February 198Z.Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 / Proposed Rules

energy used for electricity. 17 For Level 2 standards, electricity savings of 0.085 Quads over the 12-year period are about 0.02 percent of the total national energy used for electricity; DOE believes that the electricity savings are so small as to have no measurable effect on the - environment or on the need for new. . generating capacity. . C. Percent Savings. The percent savings in the year 2000, the year after the average life of a dishwasher purchased in the year 1987, the last year before standards would be imposed, are projected to be about 6.1 percent for Level I standards and about 6.6 percent for Level 2 standards. D. Conclusion. On the basis of the above, DOE believes that standards for dishwashers would not result in a significant conservation of energy. 

### 5. Economic Justificotion A. Economic impact on Consumers. The economic impact on consumers was found by estimating the additional first cost, if any. that a consumer would pay in order to purchase a dishwasher which meets the standard. The development of a first cost curve for dishwashers was patterned after the exponential cost curve developed for the eight products. See Technical Support Document, page 84. Market survey data for 31 dishwashers were used. 18 Due to the wide scatter in data used in developing the first cost curve, the difference for the 31 dishwashers between the market survey data and the first cost curve averaged about 20 percent. DOE is interested in comments regarding the uncertainties associated in estimating the first costs for dishwashers at various efficiencies. The average cost of a dishwasher in 1988 (one with an energy efficiency of 0.327 cycles/kWh) is expected to be about $329. The average cost of a dishwasher meeting the Level 1- standard is expected to be about $439. The economic impact of the Level I standard is projected to increase the first cost of a dishwasher by about 33 percent ($110). B. Life Cycle Cost. The life cycle cost for dishwashers is the sum of the first cost and the operating costs discounted fiver the lifetime of the appliance. More efficient dishwashers are not expected to result in increased maintenance costs.

"Electricity usage over the period 1988

-1999 is estimated to be about 413.1 Quads

. This number is derived from NEPP IV. . ra A literature search'was made to collect market survey data for dishwashers

. Data for dishwashers. were found in the report. "Appliance Efficiency Information

. Survey and Data Base Development." Bonneville Power Administration

. August 1983..: Thus, maintenance costs were not included in estimating life cycle costs. The minimum life cycle cost is estimated to be about $829 and occurs for a dishwasher with an energy efficiency of 0.320 cycles/kWh. See Technical Support Document, Figure 8. The life cycle cost for a dishwasher, -. which meets the Level I standard, is estimated to be about $870. Standards for dishwashers could result in an ' increase of life cycle costs over the LCC minimum of approximately $41.- - • - C. Energy Savings. As indicated above, the energy savings attributable to standards for dishwashers over the' period 1988-1999, the average life of a dishwasher, are forecasted to range from 0.125 to 0.135 Quads based on savings for Level 1 and Level 2 standards, respectively.. - Results from sensitivity analyses also indicated that standards would not result in significant conservation of energy. Energy savings over the period of the average life of a dishwasher beginning with the year 1988 were forecasted to range from 330 bpd to 800 bpd for oil savings and from 7,150 mcf/ day to 17,180 mcf/day for gas savings. Each sensitivity analysis fails the significant energy savings test regarding oil and natural gas. See. Table 5.

TABLE 5.= SENstTwr Y ANALYSIS ON ENERGY

SAVINGS FOR DISHWASHERS .

Anayats OR (met t'N

(bpd) day) Low. oera

ceng

Constant eNriency_- 800 17

. 180 0

.036 11.64 Conservative

....... 800 17.180 0

.036 11.60 Hstorical (

case 1 ).v. 410 6

.810 0

.019 5.62 Historical (cam 2)-.. 330 7

. 150 0

.015 3.96 Level2 sensitivily

.__ 650 13

,980 0

.029 9.48

Electricity savings over the period of the average life of a dishwasher beginning with the year 1988 were projected to range from 0.015 percent to 0.036 percent of the national electricity use. Each sensitivity analysis fails the significant energy savings test concerning electricity. The annual savings in the year 2000, the year following the period of the average life of a dishwasher purchased in the last year before a standard could be imposed, were forecasted to range from 3.96 percent to 11.64 percent. Each sensitivity analysis fails the significant energy savings test for percent savings . Accordingly, DOE proposes that standards for dishwashers are not likely to result in significant conservation of energy. . 

### D. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products. As indicated in the General; Discussion section, there is no -

assurance that future utility or12975

performance of dishwashers would not be lessened as a result of disincentives caused by standards toinvestments in new energy-using features. 

### E. Impact of Lessening Competition. The determination of this factor must be made by the Attorney General. F. Need to Save Energy. Dishwashers use electricity directly, and oil, natural gas and electricity indirectly through their use of hot water. Energy savings, which are forecasted to be 0.123 Quads for Level '1 standards and 0.135 Quads for Level 2 standards are expected to be achieved through reduced use of hot water. DOE believes that the need of the Nation to save the marginal amount of energy realized by dishwasher standards is an insufficient reason for standards.. 

### Conclusion
Benefits of a standard for dishwashers, compared to no standards, are that standards would save energy. Burdens of a standard at level i are estimated to be. the increased first cost of a dishwasher by about 33 percent ($110) over the average cost of a dishwasher purchased in 1988; and the life cycle cost is increased by about $41 over the life cycle minimum. Burdens of a standard at level 2 would result in even greater economic burdens for

consumers. In light of all the factors discussed here and in the General Discussion, on balance, DOE believes that the burdens of standards for dishwashers outweigh the benefits. Therefore, DOE proposes that dishwasher standards are not . economically justified as required by section 325(b)(2) of the Act 

### b. Television Sets

A "television set" means a color television set or a monchrome television set. "Color television set" means an electrical device designed to convert incoming broadcast signals into color television pictures and associated sound. "Monochrome television set" means an electrical device designed to convert incoming broadcast signals into monochrome television pictures and associated sound. See 10 CFR Part 430.2. 1. Product Classes. Two classes of television sets, color and monochrome, were specified by DOE in the December 1979 advance notice. These classes are distinguished by their ability to reproduce images in color or in black and white, a performance-related feature which affects utility and efficiency' I 

### Color television sets consume more energy than monochrome television sets because of the use of multiple electron 

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 50, 

### No. 62 

## I Monday. April 1. 1985 

## I Proposed Rules 

### 12975

energy used for electricity. 17 

### For Level 2 standards. electricity savings of0.085 Quads over the 12-year period are about ·0.02 percent ofthe total national energy used for**elec~ricity~** 

### DOE believes that

. the electricity savings are 80 

### small as to have no measurable effect on the environment or on the need for new. ' generating capacity.

.

C. Percent Savings. 

### The percent savings in the yelilr 2000. the year after the average life ofa dishwasher

. . purchased in the year 1987, the last year before standards would be imposed. are projected to be about 6.1 percent for Levell standards and about 6.6 percent for Level 2 standards.

D. Conclusion. 

### On the basis ofthe above. DOE believes that standards for dishwashers would not result in a significant conservation ofenergy. 5. EconomicJustification

A. 

### Economic Impact on Consumers. 

### The economic impact on consumers was found by estimating the additional first cost. ifany. that a consumer would pay in order to purchase a dishwasher which meets the standard. The development of

a first cost curve for dishwashers was patterned after the exponential cost

. curve developed for the eight products. See 

### Technical Support Document. page 84. Market survey data for 31 dishwashers were used. I 8 

### Due to the

,. wide seaIter in data used in developing the first cost curve. the difference for the 31 dishwashers between the market ' survey data and the first cost curve averaged about 20 percent. DOE is

. interested in comments regarding the uncertainties associated in estimating the first costs for dishwashers at various efficiencies.

Th.e average cost ofa dishwasher in 1988 (one with an energy efficiency of 0.327 cycles/kWh) is expected to 

### be about $329. The average cost ofa

... dishwasher meeting the Levell

.. . standard is expected to be about $439

.. The economic impact of the Levell, " standard is projected to increase the

. first cost ofa dishwasher by about 33 percent ($110). . : .

B. Life Cycle Cost. 

### The life cycle cost for dishwashers is the sum ofthe 

### first cosl and the operating costs discounted 2,Yer the lifetime ofthe appliance. More efficient dishwashers are not expected to result in increased maintenance costs.

..Electricity ul8geover the period 1988-1999 i. estimated to be aboul413.1 Quads. Thi' number is

. derived (rom NEPP IV. .•

.

II Aliterature search·was made to collect market
survey data for dishwashers. Data for disl)w8shel'L

were found in the report. "Appliance Efficiency Information. SurVey and Dala Base DeveJopUlent," BoMeville PowerAdministration. August 1983..**~** ... 

### Thus. maintenance costs were not included in estimating life cycle costs.

.

The minimum life cycl!! cost is

. estimated to be about $829 and occurs for a dishwasher with an energy efficiency of0.320 cycles/kWh.

## See. Technical Support Document. Figure 8. The life cycle cost for a dishwasher.

_ .. which meets the Levell standard. is estimated to be about $870. -Standards for dishwashers could result in an

. increase oflife cycle cpsts over the LeC minimum ofapproximately $41., ;. ,



### C. Energy Savings. 

### As indicated above. the energy savings attributable to standards for dishwashers over the

. period 1988-1999. the average life of a dishwasher. are forecasted to range from 0.125 to 0.135 Quads based on savings for Levell and Lev!!12

. standards. respectively..

. . .

Results from sensitivity analyses also indicated that standards would not

.. resuit in significant conserVation of energy. Energy savings over the period ofthe average life of a dishwasher beginning with the year 1988 were

. forecasted to range from 330 bpd to 800 bpd for oil savings and from 7.150 mcfl day to 17.180 mcf/day for gas savings. Each sensitivity analysis fails the significant energy savings test regarding oil and natural gas. Sf!.e: 

### Table 5.

TABLE 5 • ...:.sENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ON ENERGY SAVINGS FOR DISHWASHERS

.

Gas Elec· AnalysIs Oil (mcf! Incity Pet· (bpdI**da~)** (pet. oonI cent)

Constanl 1Iffi<:ieney

__ lOG 17.t80 0.036 11.&4 Conservatlve

__**~_** 800 ·17.180 0.036 11.&4 Historical (case 1)._ .,0 8.810 0.019 5.82 HistoricloJ (case 2)_ 33D 7.150 0.D15 3.96 l_2 sensitMIy

__ B50 13,980 0.029 8.43



### Electricity savings over "the period ofthe average life ofa dishwasherbeginning with the year 1988 were prQjected to

. range from 0.015 percent to 0.036 percent ofthe national electricity use. Each sensitivity analysis fails the significant

. energy savings test concerning electricity. The annual savings in the year 2000. the yearfollowing the period ofthe average life ofa dishwasher

. purchased in the last ye!lr before a .-. standard could be imposed. were

. forecasted to range from 3.96 percent to 11.64 percent. Each sensitivity analysis. fails the significant energy savings test for percent savings. Accordingly. DOE proposes that standards for dishwashers

are not likely to result in significant conservation ofenergy.: '.



### D. Lessening ofUtility orPerformance 

## of

Products. 

### As indicated in the General Discussion section. there is no

.. . assurance thatfuture .utility or·

. performance ofdishwashers would not be lessened as a result ofdisincentives caused by standards to.investments in



### new energy-using features•



### . E. Impact of Lessening Competition. 

### The determination ofthis factor must be ·made by the Attorney General.

F. Needto Save Energy. 

### Dishwashers

use electricity directly. and oil. natural gas ·and electricity indirectly through their use of.hot water. Energy savings. which are forecasted to be 0.123 Quads for Levell standards and 0.135 Quads for Level 2 standards are expected to be achieved through reduced use ofhot water. DOE believes that the need of the Nation to save the marginal amount of energy realized by dishwasher standards is an insufficient reason for**standards.~** 

### Conclusion

Benefits ofa standard for dishwashers. compared to no standards.

are that standards would save energy.

Burdens ofa standard at level 1 are estimated to be: the increased first cost ofa dishwasher by about 33 percent ($110) over the average cost ofa dishwasher purchased in 1988; and the life "cycle cost is increased by about $41

over the life cycle minimum. Burdens of

a standard at level 2 would result in**~ven** 

### greater economic burdens for

consumers.

In light ofail the factors discussed here and in the General Discussion. on balance. DOE believes that the burdens of**stan~ards fo~**  

### dishwashers outweigh the benefits. Therefore. DOE proposes that dishwasher standards are not economically justified as required by section 325(b)(2) ofthe Act.

. b. 

### Television Sets



### A ';television set" means a ·color television set or a monchrome television seL "Color television set" means an electrical device designed to convert incomiI)g broadcast signals into color television pictures and associated Bound. "Monochrome television set"

means im electrical device designed to convert incoming broadcast signals into monochrome television pictures and associated sound. See 

### 10 CFR Part 430.2.

1. Product Classes. 

### Two classes of television sets. color and monochrome.

were specified by DOE in the December 1979 advance notice. These classes are distinguished by their ability to reproduce images In color orin black and white. a performance-related feature**w~ich** 

### affects utility and efficiency:

Color television sets consume more energy than monochrome television sets because ofthe use ofmultiple electron

### 12976

uns, whereas monochrome television received several comments stating that sets use only one electron gun. For this the level was based on a color television

reason, energy efficiency levels set with a 12-inch screen and that the achieved by monochrome television sets level is dependent on screen size. The are not achievable for color television sets

. Since color television sets and monochrome television sets offer distinct differences in utility to the

consumer, DOE is specifying separate classes for color and monochrome television sets. DOE did not receive comments on the classes proposed in the December 1979 advance notice, so these classes remain unchanged.

Federal Register / Vol. 50

, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 / Proposed Rules

2. Design Options. The December 1979 advance notice identified the following design options for television sets: (a) Eliminate Instant-On. (b) Replace Tubes (other than picture tube) with Solid State Components. (c) Improve Thermal Design. The elimination of the instant-on feature and the use of solid state components have already become common practices and the adoption of standards is not necessary to encourage these features

. Several commenters noted that improved thermal design is not a valid means of improving energy consumption

. However, the substantial differences that exist in the energy consumption of color television sets of the same picture tube size with the same features suggest that improved thermal design is a valid design option. 

### Another commenter suggested that "beam indexing" design which uses a single picture tube gun rather than the standard three gun design be factored into the standard levels

. The levels analyzed were based on commercially available television sets. Since "beam indexing" television sets are not commercially available

, DOE has determined that it should not be factored into the -standard levels. 3. Standard Levels

. See Table a for the standard levels selected for television sets. The Level I standards are 178 percent for monochrome television sets and 181 percent for color television sets. The Level I. standard for monochrome television sets is identical to the level published in the December 1979 advance notice.

TABLE 6.-STANDARD LEVELS SELECTED FOR

.. TELEVISION SETS

Product OM Level I
owcert0 Level 2

I. Mooef2. Cow.. 176 161 176

200



### The Level 1 standard in today 's notice for color television sets is different from the level of 229 percent published in the December 1979 advance notice. DOE average screen size for a color television set is reported to be 19 inches. See Technical Support Document

, page 34. The level is being revised today to be for an average color television set (one with a 19-inch screen) and is 181 percent. The Level 2 standard is 200 percent for color television sets. Level 2 standard for monochrome television sets Is the same as the Level 1 standard, because the Level i standard is expected to be the maximum improvement in energy efficiency which is technologically feasible for this product class

. DOE would like comments concerning whether the Level I standard for monochrome television sets is the maximum improvement in energy efficiency. 4. Energy Savings. The energy savings realized by standards for television sets were projected by the EUP Model. Color television sets are reported to be the dominant product class and typically use over three times the energy of monochrome television set.19 Consequently , the EUP Model bases the savings for all television sets on data for color television sets by specifying that all television sets are color television sets. Since color television sets typically use more energy than monochrome television sets, specifying that all television sets are color television sets would tend to overstate the energy savings that could be achieved for all television sets. According to results from the EUP Model, Level 1 standards for television sets are projected to save about 0.240 Quads over the 1988-1999 period, the 12- year average life of a television set. See Technical Support Document , Table 11. Likewise, Level 2 standards for television sets are projected to save about 0.246 Quads over the 1988-1999 period

. See Technical Support Document

. Table 12 

### A. Oiland Gas Savings. For Level 1 standards, savings of 0.24 Quads

Of The typical annual energy use is reported to be 240 kWh for color television sets and 77 kWh for monochrome television sets. See Technical Support Document, page 34. "This assumes that oil constitutes 2.55 percent and gas 8.15 percent of the energy used to generate electricity over this time period Thew percentages are the average of the projected proportions for the years 1990 and 1935. See 1061 Annual Report to Congress

, Volume 9: Forecasts, I1OE/EIA 0173 [Sill 3. February 11162 would result in the savings of 250 bpd of oil and of 3
,240 mcf per day of natural gas. This is only 3 and 6 percent,. respectively, of the amount that DOE deems significant

. For Level 2 standards, savings of 0.246 Quads would result in the savings of 250 bpd of oil and of 3,320 mcf per day of natural gas. This is only 3 and 6 percent

, respectively, of the amount that DOE deems significant. B. Electricity Savings. For Level 1 standards

, electricity savings of 0.24 Quads over the 12

-year period is less than 0.06 percent of the total national electricity usage.21 For Level 2 standards

, electricity savings of 0.246 Quads is less than 0

.06 percent of the total national energy used for electricity, DOE believes that the electricity savings are so small as to have no measurable effect on the environment or on the need for new generating capacity. C. Percent Savings. Results from the EUP Model show that the percent savings in the year 2000

, the year after the average life of a television set purchased in the year 1987, the last year before standards would be imposed, are projected to be about 15.3 percent for Level 1 standards and about 16.7 percent for Level 2 standards. 'The EUP Model tends to overstate the energy use for television sets by assuming that all television sets are color television sets. In fact
, the energy use for a monochrome television set is about one-third the energy use for a color television set. Since the percent savings for Level 2 standards projected by the EUP Model are at the threshold of significance, DOE analyzed the percent savings by the actual class composition of television sets. From 1975 to 1982

. monochrome television sets represented about 37.18 percent of all television sets sold. See U.S. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1984
, 104th Edition, Table 958. As presented below
, DOE estimated the energy use for color television sets and monochrome television sets separately for the market

-based and standards scenarios in the Level 2 standards analysis

. The energy use for both classes was then added to yield the estimated energy use of all televisions. For the market-based scenario, the EUP Model forecasted that all television sets are expected to use about 0.193 Quads in the year 2000. The forecast is 0.161 Quads in the Level 2 standards scenario. See Technical Support Document, Table 12. By adjusting the results from the EUP Model in order to

"Electricity usage over the period 1988-1999 is estimated to be about 413.1 Quads. This number is derived from NEW R.V. 

### 12976· Federal Register 

## I Vol. 50. 

### No. 62 

## I Monday, April 1. 1985 

## I Proposed Rules

uns whereas monochrome television

. sets

### ~se only one electron 

### gun. For this

reason. energy efficiency levels

. achieved by monochrome television sets

are not achievable for color television sets. Since color television sets 

### and monochrome television sets offer distinct differences 

### in utility to the

consumer. DOE is specifying separate classes for color and monqchrome television sets. DOE did nbl receive comments on the classes proposed in the December 1979 advance notice. 

### so these classes remain unchanged.



### 2. Design Options. The December 1979 advance notice identified the following design options for television sets:

(a) Eliminate Instant-On.·

. (b) Replace Tubes (other than**pict~** tube) with Solid State Components.

.

(c) Improve Thermal Design. The elimination ofthe instant-on feature and the use ofsolid state components have already become

common practices and the adoption 

### of standards is not necessary to encourage these features. Several commenten noted that improved thermal design is not a valid means ofimproving energy consumption. However. the Bubstantial differences that exist in the energy consumption ofcolor television lets of the same picture tube size with the same features lIuggest that improved thermal design is a valid design option.

Another commenter suggested that "beam indexing" design which uses 8 single picture tube 

### gun rather than the standard three gun design be factored into the standard levels. The levels analyzed were based on commercially available television lets. Since "beam indexing" television sets are not

. commercially available. DOE has determined that it should not be factored into thelItandard leve)lI.

3.

### StandardLevels. See Table 6 for the standard levels selected for television sets. The Levell standards are 176 percent for monochrome television lets and 181 percent for color television sets. The Levell standard for monochrome television sets is identical to the level published in the December 1979 advance 

### DOtice. - . TABLE 6.-SrANDARD I.£VELS 5a.ECTa) FOfI
TELEVISIOH SETS

1.**Monodcn.~CMi~.=====l** 2. CoIor._ ,." 1111 178 100

The Levell

### sta~dard in today's notice for color television sets is different from the level of229 percent publisbed in the December 1979 advance notice.DOE received severa! comments stating that the level was based on a color television
set with a 12-inch screen and that the level is dependent on screen size. The average screen size for a color telev.ision set is reported to be 19 inches. See Technical Support Document. page 34. The level is being revised today to be for

an average color television set (one with

a 19-inch screen) and is 181 percenL

The Level 2 standard is 200 percent for color television sets. Level 2

: . standard for monochrome television sets



### Js the same as the Levell standard, because the Level 1 standard 

### 111

. expected to be the maximum .'
;improvement in energy efficiency which is technologically feasible for this product class. DOE would like comments concerning whether the Level 1 standard for monochrome television sets is the maximum improvement in energy efficiency.

.

4. 

### EnergySavings. The energy savings realized by standards for television seta

were projected by the EUP Model. Color television sets are reported to be the dominant product class and typically

use over three times the energy 

### of monochrome television seLl. Consequently. the EUP Model bases the savings for all,televiSion sets on data for color television sets by specifying 

### that all television sets are color. television
sets. Since color television sets typically

use more energy than monochrome television sets. specifying that all television sets are color television sets would tend to overstate the energy savings that could be achieved for 

### all television sets.

According to results from the £up. Model. Levell standards for television

. sets are projected to save abollt o.Z40 Quads over the 1988-1999 period. the 12- year average life of8 television set. 

### See Technical Support Document, Table 11. Likewise. Level 2 standards for

. television sets are projected to save

about 0.246 Quads over the 1988-1999 period. 

### See Technical Support Document. Table 1Z.

A. 

### OilandGas Savings. ForLevell standards. aavings of0.24 Quads •

••The twlcal aDDUBl energy use iii reported to be Z40 kWh fOl' color television seta and 77 kWh for lIlOllOChrome lelellisiau leta. See Teclmical Support Document; piI8e 34.

.

"This asSIUnM that oil constl.tuteli %.85 percent and gS8 8.15 percent

## or the energy used to generate**.~IJ** oYerthla time period. Theta percenl4get
ant the averqe

## or the projected propor1iona fOl' \he yean; 11l9O and 1119S. See 1981 Annual Report to Cohgre

... Volume 3: Forecasll, OOE/EIA0173(81)1 3. Pebruary 1l1li%. • would result in the savings of250 bpd of oil and of 3.240 merper day ofnatural gas. This is only 

### 3 and 

### 6 percent •. respectively. o(the amount that 

### DOB deems significant. ForLeyel 2 standards. saVings of0.246 Quads would resultin the savings of250 bpd ofoil and 

### of3.320

merper day ofnatural gas. This is only 3

. and 6 percent. respectively. of**th~** amount that DOE deems significant.



### B. ElectricitySavings. For 

### Levell standards. electricity savings 

### of0.24 Quads over the 12-year period is less than 0.06 percent oftl1e total na**tion~l** electricity usage. 21 ForLevel 2 . standards. electricity savings of 0.246 Quads is less than 0.06 percent ofthe total national energy used for electricity, DOE believes that the electricity savings

are so small as to have no measurable effect on the environment or on the need for new generating capacity.

C. 

### Percent Savings. Results from the EUP Model show that the percent savings in the year 2000. the year after the average life ofa television set purchased in the year 1987. the last year before sfandards would be imposed. are projected to be about 15.3 percent for Levell standards and about 16.7 percent for Level 2 standards. TheEUP Model tends to overstate the energy use for television sets by assuming that all television sets are color television sets. In fact, the energy use for a monochrome television set is about one-third the energy use for a colortelevision set. Since the percent savings for Level 2 standards projected by the EUP Model

are at the threshold of significance. DOE analyzed the percent savings by the actual class composition of television seta.

.

From 1975 to 1982. monochrome television sets represented about 37.18 percent ofall television sets sold. 

### See U.S. Statistical Abstract of the United States. 1984.104th Edition. Table 958. As presented below. DOE estimated the energy use for color teleVision sets and monochrome television sets separately for the market-based and standards scenarios in the Level 2 standardll analysis. The energy use for 

### both classes was then added to yield the estimated energy use ofall televisions.'

For the market-based scenario. the EUP Model forecasted that all television sets are expected to use about 0.193 Quads in the year 2000. The forecast is

. 0.161 Quads in the Level 2 standards

scenario.

### See Technical Support Document. Table 12. By adjusting the results from the EUPModel 

### in order to

,., B/eclricity lI.IBge over !he p.erfod 1988-1999 i. estimated tobe about 413.1 Quacla. Thia number iI derived from NEPP IV.

### Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1 , 1985 / Proposed Rules Federal Register 12977

more closely consider the effects of standards to monochrome television sets, all television sets are forecasted touse about 0.146 Quads in the marketbased scenario and 0.122 Quads for Level 2 standards." In conclusion
, DOE believes that, by considering more fully the effects that standards would have on monochrome television sets. the percent savings would be about 16.2percent. This value is lower than the level of 16.67 percent required for significant energy savings. Consequently, DOE believes that standards for television sets would not result in significant energy conservation. DOE is interested in receiving comments and statements concerning whether the adjustments to the percent savings forecasts by the EUP Model are appropriate.

Conclusion On the basis of the above, DOE believes that standards for television sets would not result in a significant conservation of energy. 5. Economic Justificadon A. Economic Impact on Consumers. The economic impact on consumers was found by estimating the additional first cost
, if any, that a consumer would pay in order to purchase a television set which meets the standard. DOE is interested in comments regarding the uncertainties associated with estimating

ss In the year 2000

, color television sets are forecasted to use 0122 Quads in the market-based scenario and 0

.101 Quads in the Level 2 standards scenario

. These numbers ere 6200 percent of the results from the EUP Model For determining the energy see for monochrome television sets in the market

-based scenario. the value of 0.193 Quads is adjusted by the following. First
, the value of 0.193 Quads is multiplied by 3714, percent (the fraction of television sets that are monochrome) for a proddci of 0.0719 Quads. Second

. the EUP Model bases the energy use for all television sets on the energy use for color television sets
, Typically

, a color television set user, about three times more energy than a monochrome television set. Consequently
, the value of 0.0729 Quads

, which is based on the energy use of tutor television sets, must be adjusted to repeal the energy use of monochrome television sets. The annual per unit energy use in the year 2000 la forecasted tube 163 kwH for color television sets and 55 kWh for monochrome selertsioa sets. See Technical Support Documeot

. Appendix C. 'therefore

, the value of 110719 Quads was adjusted by the ratio of 55 kWh to 163 kWh to account for the difference in energy use between a typical monochrome television set and a color television set, resulting in that monochrome television sets ate expected to use about 0

.024 Quads

. In the market based scenario

. all television sets are forecasted to use about 0

.148 Quads in the year 2000 (0.122 Quads for color television sets and 0

.024 Quads for monochrome television sets)-By a similar procedure

, all television sets are forecasted to use 0.122 Quads in the year 2000 for the standards scenario

. See Technical Suppest DocumeaL Appendix C. . 

### the first costs for television sets at various efficiencies. The exponential first cost developed for television sets showed a poor correlation to the market survey data. The difference between the market survey data and the exponential first cost curve averaged about 34 percent. A linear regression analysis was then conducted to improve the correlation to the market survey data. A cubic first cost curve showed the best correlation to the market survey data. The difference between the market survey data and the cubic first cost curve averaged about 17 percent. Therefore, on the basis of an improved correlation, the cubic first cost curve was used to estimate the economic impact on

consumers

. See Technical Support • Document

, page 85. The average first cost of a television set in 1988 (one with an energy - efficiency of 143 percent) is expected to cost about $439. The average first cost of a television set meeting the Level I standard (181 percent) is expected to cost about $507. The economic impact of the standard is projected to increase the first cost of a television set by about 15 percent ($68). Similarly, the average cost of a television set meeting the Level 2 standard (200 percent) is expected to cost about $608, which is projected to increase the first cost of a television set by about 38 percent ($169). B. Life Cycle Cost The life cycle cost for television sets is the sum of the first cost and the operating costs discounted over the lifetime of the appliance. More efficient television sets are not expected to result in increased maintenance costs. Consequently, maintenance costs were not included in estimating life cycle costs. The minimum life cycle cost is estimated to be about $541 and occurs for a television set with an energy efficiency of 145 percent. See Technical Support Document, Figure 9. The life cycle cost for a television set which meets the Level I standard
, is estimated to be about $588. For Level 2 standards, the life cycle cost is estimated to be about $681. Standards for television sets could result in an increase of life cycle costs of approximately $47 for Level I standards and $140 for Level 2 standards., . C. Energy Savings. As Indicated above, the energy savings attributable to standards for television sets over the period 1988

-1999, the average life of a television set, are forecasted by the EUP Model to range from 0.240 to 0246 Quads based on savings for Level I and Level 2 standards

, respectively. Results from sensitivity analyses indicated that standards might result in significant energy savings. For the sensitivity analyses, energy savings over the period of the average life of a television set beginning with the year 1988 were forecasted to range from 230 bpd to 680 bpd for oil savings and from 3,040 and/day to 8,930 mcf jday for gas savings. Each sensitivity analysis fails the significant energy savings test • regarding oil and natural gas . See Table 7. Electricity savings over the period of the average life of a television set beginning with the year 1988 were projected to range from 0.056 percent to 0.16 percent of the national electricity use. Each sensitivity analysis fails the significant energy savings test concerning electricity. The annual savings in the year 2000
, the year following the period of the average life of a television set purchased in the last
year before a standard could be imposed

, were forecasted to range from 12.48 percent to 37.04 percent

TABLE 7.-SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ON ENERGY

SAVINGS FOR TELEVISION SETS

Analysis t E1eo•

sent

Constant Et bency 090 5.9300 0.15 37.04 Conservative CARS*- 510 0.640 0.12 29.08 Historical (Casa 11 290 3.650 0.070 15.71 Historical (Case 21 230 3.040 0.056 12.45 Level 2 390 4.600 0.086 2337

DOE believes that for television sets, the sensitivity analyses tend to
overstate the energy savings attributable to standards. Historically. television sets have shown a dramatic improvement in energy efficiency. The energy efficiency improved from 69 percent in 1972 to 114 percent in 1978. See Technical Support Document, page 34. The EUP Model forecasts that the energy efficiency in 2006 under the two historical extrapolation sensitivity analyses would range from 163 to 174 percent

. See Technical Support Document, Tables 16 and 17. The trend in energy efficiency for television sets indicates that the energy efficiency will not remain constant

, as in the constant efficiency analysis

, or increase slightly, as in the conservative analysis. Therefore, DOE believes that for television sets, the constant efficiency and conservative analyses overestimate energy savings. 

### DOE also believes that the historical (Case 1), historical (Case 2). and the Level 2 sensitivity analyses also result in overestimates of energy savings. Advancements in electronics, in general. are an ongoing drive toward 

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 50, No. 62 

## I Monday. April 1. 1985 

## I Proposed 

### Rules 

### 12977

more closely consider the effects 

### of standards to monochrome television sets. all television sets are forecasted to

use about0.146 Quads in the market-

. based sc!!nario and 0.122 Quads for Level 2 

### standards. 22

.



### In conclusion. DOE believes that, 

### by considering more fully 

### the effects that standards would have on monochrome television sets. the**~rcent** 

### IXlvings would be about 16.2'peTCent. This value is lower than the level of 16.67 percent required for significant energy savings. Consequently, DOE believes that

. standards for television sets would nol result in significant energy conservation. DOE is 

### interested in receiving comments and statements concerning whether the adjustments to the percent savings

. forecasts by the 

### EUP Model 

### are appropriate.
Conclusion

On the basis ofthe above, DOE believes that standards for television sets would not result in a significant conservation of

### energy. S. EconomicJustification

A. 

### Economic Impact on 

### Consumers. '.



### The economic impact on consumers was found by estimating the additional first cost, ifany. that a consumer would pay in order to purchase a television set which meels the standard. DOE is interested in comments regarding the

. uncertainties associated with estimating

WI In the year2000. color lek!Yieion .eta moe forecasted 10 lI1I'e tU22 Quad. In the merket-based Bcenario and 0.101 Quad. In the Level Zftandatda 5cenario.These numbers ara !lUIpercent 01 the results from the EUP Modet.

For delermining tbIt energy III1e 

### b**~** television sets in the market-bued scenario. 1M value ofIU93 Quad. ic adjusted by the followin3. First. the value of0-193 Quads is multiplied by 37.lB percent (the fraction oftelevision leIs that ant ' monochrome) fur a prodlict of M7'19 Quada. Second. the EUP Model basea the anergy usefor aU television lelll on the energy vse for colD\" televiaioa

..

15. Typically•• eclor television ael uses about three time. more energy than a monochrome television lei. Consequently. the value of0.0719 Quad

.. which iabased on the energy use ofcohx television .e!&. mual be adjusted 10 reflec1 the
energy use ofmonochrome television tel8..The aMusl perunit energy uae in the year 2000 it f

..re<:Btlted II>be 1&3 kWHfor colortelevision lIels and 55 IIWb for IDBDOCbrome aeleYiskJa leta. &Ie Technical Support DocumeaL Appeadix C. Therefore. the value of D.0719 QuadD wu IIdjusted. by t.Iu ratio 0155 kWh to 163 kWh to ac.cou.at for the difference in energy use between • typical moeochrome te!eYi,ioa let and a c:cior televiainn 8et. resultill8 In the t mooochrome**~leviaiolll8b** _ expected to Wit abotU0.ll24 Quads. In the IIIlUketbased scenario. aD television aela lire forecasted to use about 0.148 Quads in Ifte :rear 2000 (0.12% Quad. Corcolor ItIlevisiOl1 lela and Q.024 Quad_ for monochrome television 

### eetsl-

### Br •• isnilal' procedure. all teJevisioll ..,15 are £arecasted t.e-uae 0.122 Quad. in the year 2000 Cor the standards scenario.**~** TecMical &!ppm't Decw:nef. Appendi>l.C, 

### the first costs for television sets 

### at various efficiencies.

The exponential first cost developed for television sets showed a poor correlation to the market survey data.

. The difference between the market survey data and the exponential first cost curve averaged about 34 

### percent. 

### A. linearregression analysis was then conducted to improve the correlation to themarket survey data. 

### A cubic first cost curve showed the best correlation to the market survey data. 

### The difference between the market survey data and the cubic first cost curve

. averaged about 17 

### percent. Therefore.

on the basis ofan improved correlation, the cubic first cost curve was used to 

### estimate the economic impact 

### on
consumers. 

### See Technical Support

. 

### Document. page 85.

.



### The average fIr.t cost ofa television set in 

### 1988 (one with an energy

. efficiency of 1(3 percent) 

### iii expected. to 

### cost about $439. The average fIrSt cost of

a television set meeting the Levell

. standard (181 

### percent) is expected to cost about $507. 

### The economic impact of the standard is projected to increase the first cost ofa television set by about 

### 15 percent ($68). 

### Similarly, the average cost ofa television set meeting the Levelz standard (200 

### percent) is 

### expected to

. cost about $608. 

### which is projected to

. increase the first cost ofa television set

by about 38 percent ($169).

.



### B. Life Cycle Cost The IiIe cycle coat for television sets is the sum ofthe first cost and the operating costs discounted

over the lifetime of the appliance. More efficient television sets are not expected to result in 

### increased maintenance cost._ Consequently. maintenance costs were notincluded in estimating life cycle costs.

The minimum life cycle cost 

### i. estimated to be about $541 and-occurs 

### for a television set with an energy efficiency 

### of145 percent. 

### See Technical Support Document. Figure 9. The liIe cycle cost for a television let. which meets the" Levell standard, is estimated to 

### be about $568. 

### For Level 2 standards. the life cycle cost is 

### estimated to 

### be about$681. 

### Standards for television lets 

### could result in 

### an increase of

### life cycle costs ofapproximately $47 for Levell standards and $140 for 

### Level 2 standarda.

C. 

### Energy

### Savings. As indicated above. the energy savings attributable to 

### standards for television sets over 

### the period 1988--1999. 

### the average life of a 

### television set. are forecasted by the 

### EUP Model to range 

### from D.24O to G.Z46 

### Quads based on 

### savings for Levell and Level 2 

### standards. respectiTely. Results from sensitivity

### analyse~ indicated that standards might result in significant energy savings. For the sensitivity analyses. energy savings over the period ofthe average life of

### a . television setbeginning with the year 1988 

### were forecasted to range from 230 

### bpd to 680 

### bpd for oll S8\.ings 

### and from 3,040 

### mdlday to 8.930 mcf/day for gas savings. Each sensitivity analysis fails the significant energy savings test

. regarding oil and natural gas. 

### SeeTable 7. 

### Electricity savings over the period of the average life ofa television 

### set beginning with the year 1988 

### were projected to range from 0.056 

### percent to 0.16 percent ofthe national electricity

use. Each sensitivity analysis fails the significant energy savings test concerning electricity. The annual 

### savings in 

### the year 2000. 

### the year following the period 

### of the average life ofa television set purcbased in 

### the last 

### year before a standard could be imposed. were forecasted to range from lZ,48 percent to 37.04 

### percenL

TA9I.E 7.-SENStTIVITY ANALYSIS ON ENERGY
SoWINGS FOR TELEVISION SETs

6D EJeo.**~** 01 (mct.l**~** Per· Cbpcfj day) (per

## '*" c:en1)

Constant EIficiency_ eeo 11.930 0.111 S7.D4**~Weea.._** 510 1I,s..o 0.12 19.08 ffistOricaI tCue 11_ 290 3.850 0.070 16.71

### ~~~- Z30 3.0.c0 0.0511

. 12.411 31!0 4.680 0.086 23.37



### DOE believes that for television sets, the sensitivity analyses tend

# to
overstate the energy savings attributable to standards. Historically. television sets have shown a dramatic improvement in energy efficiency.The energy efficiency improved from 69 

### percent in 1972 

### to 114 

### percent in 1978- 

### SeeTechnical Support Document. page 34. TheEUP Model forecasts that the energy efficiency in 2006 

### under the two historical extrapolation sensitivity anslyses would range 

### from 163 

### to 174 

### percent. 

### See Technical Support Document. Tables 16 

### and 17. 

### The trend in energy efficiency for television sets indicates that the energy efficiency will not remain constant. 88 

### in the constant efficiency analysis. 

### or increase slightly.

as in

### the conservative analysis. Therefore. DOE believes that for television sets. the constant effICiency and conservative analyses overestimate energy savings.

DOE also believes that the historical (Case 1). 

### historical (Case ·2). 

### and the Level 2 

### sensitivity analyses also result in overestimates ofenergy savings. Advancements in electronics. in general.

are an ongoing drive 

### toward

.

### 12978 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 / Proposed Rules

iaturization and lower power equirements as vacuum tubes were replaced by transistors and transistors are replaced by integrated circuits. Television sets are following this overall trend. Newer designs in television sets could become commercially available after 1988 which could be substantially more efficient than any standard level based on available technology in 1988. For example, newer technology is emerging which could replace picture i tubes with low-power flat screens. Three types of flat screens being. developed use color liquid crystal displays (LCD), gas plasma, and electroluminescence. Manufacturers have already developed prototypes of small screen color LCD television sets. DOE expects television sets with low power flat screens will be commercially available in the future (by 2000). If these technologies, or other similar technologies, become competitive with picture tubes, power requirements for television sets could drop remarkably. Therefore, DOE believes that the sensitivity analyses for television sets results in overestimates of energy savings because emerging technologies could become commercially available F hich could result in all television sets eing more efficient than the standards evel. A further concern with the constant efficiency and and conservative sensitivity analyses is that the improvement in energy efficiency in the market based scenario is projected to be lower than the improvement in the Level 1 standards analysis. For these sensitivity analyses, standards would result in greater burdens to consumers. For example, television sets are projected to cost about $415 in the constant sensitivity analysis and $426 in the conservative sensitivity analysis, while television sets which meet Level 1 standards were projected to cost $507. The resulting increases in first costs to consumers would be $92 (22 percent) for the constant sensitivity analysis. Similarily, the resulting increases in first costs to consumers are expected to be $72 (17 percent) for the historical -- analysis (Case 1) and $69 (16 percent) for the historical analysis (Case 2). These increases are greater than the projected increase for the Level .1 standards analysis. 

### D. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products: As indicated in the General Discussion section, there is no assurance that future utility or performance of television sets would not be lessened as a result of disincentives caused by standards to investments in new energy-using features. -; - .. - ... .. 

### E. Impact of Lessening Competition. ` The determination of this factor must be made by the Attorney General. . . F. Need to Save Energy. Energy savings as forecasted by the EUP Model are 0.240 Quads for Level I standards and 0.246 Quads for Level 2 standards. DOE believes that the need of the Nation to save the marginal amount of energy realized by television set. standards is an insufficient reason for standards. 

### Conclusion -
Benefits of a standard for television sets, compared to no standards, are that standards would save energy. 

### Burdens of a standard at Level I are estimated to be: the increased first cost of a television set by about 15 percent ($68) over the average cost of a television set purchased in 1988; the life cycle cost is increased by about $47 over the life cycle minimum. Burdens of a standard at Level 2 would result in even greater economic burdens for

consumers. In light of all the factors discussed here and in the general discussion, on balance, DOE believes that the burdens of standards for television sets outweigh the benefits. Therefore, DOE proposes that television set standards are not economically justified as required by section 325 (b)(2) of the Act 

### c. Clothes Washers
A "clothes washer" means a consumer product designed to clean clothes, utilizing a water solution of soap and/or detergent and mechanical agitation or other movement See 10 CFR 430.2. 

### 1. Product Classes. Two classes of clothes washers, top loading and front loading, were specified by DOE in the December 1979 advance notice. These classes are distinguished by performance-related features which affect utility and efficiency. Front loading clothes washers typically use significantly less water than top loaders. Since clothes washer energy consumption is a function of. the hot water usage of the machine, front loaders typically use significantly less energy than "top loaders

. Top loaders, on the other hand, offer a distinct performance-related feature in that they spin the clothes drier

. Front loaders are difficult to balance during the spin cycle and may vibrate significantly. Spin - speeds are typically lower with the front loaders than with top loaders in order to reduce vibration. Therefore, top loaders typically remove more water from the clothes during the spin cycle than do front loaders

. Because of differences in utility and efficiency. top loading clothes washers and front loading clothes •washers are specified as separate - c l a s s e s . --- : -, -. .. Based on comments received on the - December 1979 advance notice • . recommending expansion of the classes, DOE has determined that there may be merit in adding some or all of the • following additional clothes washers classes to the program: top loading . automatic clothes washers, top loading - semi-automatic clothes washers, and clothes washers with suds-saver .. . features. .. , 2. Design Options. The design options for clothes washers specified in the December 1979 advance notice were: 

### (a) Eliminate Warm Rinses. (b) Improve Fill Control. (c) Reduce Thermal Mass. 

### (d) Increase Motor Efficiency.- (e) Add Insulation. (f) Reduce Tub Clearances.- 3. Standard Levels. See Table 8 for the standard levels selected for clothes washers. The Level I standards are 1.14 it 3/kWh for top loading clothes washers and 1.25 ft'/kWh for front loading clothes washers. The Level I standard for front loading clothes washers is identical to the level published in the December 1979 advance notice.

TABLE 8

.-STANDARD LEVELS SELECTED FOR

CLOTHES WASHERS .

Product elm Laval 1 Level 2

1. Top LoaAnp.- 2 Front Loading 11.14 12$ '1302

12$

A cubic feet per lutowatthow. DOE is revising Level 1 for top loading clothes washers in today's notice. DOE' received several comments stating that the level was determined incorrectly by using 2.39 ft3 as the average tub capacity of a top loading clothes washer. The average tub capacity was actually 1.94 W. Therefore, the commenters recommended that 1.14 ft'/ kWh should be the level. Consequently, DOE is also using 1.14 ft3/kWh as the Level I standard for top loading clothes washers. The Level 2 standard is 1.302 fts/kWh for top loading clothes washers and is based on the industry data as to the most efficient clothes washers available in 1988. The Level 2 standard designated for front loading clothes washers is the same as the Level I standard, because the Level 1 standard is expected to be . the maximum improvement in energy efficiency which is technologically feasible for this product class. 4. Energy Savings. The energy savings realized by standards for clothes washers were projected by the EUP 

### Federal 

## I Vol. 50. 

### No. ()2 

## I ,VJU,l1UQ.V. 

### April 1, 1985 

## I Proposed**Ru~e8**



### turization and lowerpower**"I'Pnlliil'~lm~ntFl** 

### as vacuum tubes were ret,la(:ed by transistors and transistors

are replaced by integrated circuits. ' Television sets are following this overall trend. Newer designs in 

### television sets could be;:ome commercially available after 1988 which could be substantially

more efficient than any standard level based on available technology in 1988. For example. newer technology is emerging which could replace picture i 

### tubes with low-powerflat screens. " Three types offlat screens being

. developed use color liquid crystal displays (LCD). gas plasma. and electroluminescence. Manufacturers have already developed prototypes of small screen color LCD television sets. DOE expects television sets with low power flat screens will be commercially available in the future (by 2000).1£ these technologies. or other similar technologies. become competitive with picture tubes, power requirements for television sets could drop remarkably. Therefore, DOE believes that the sensitivity analyses for television sets results in overestimates ofenergy savings because emerging technologies could become commercially available**hiCh** 

### could result in all television sets

eing more efficient than the standards evel.

. .'

..

A further concern with the constant efficiency and and conservative ' ' sensitivity analyses is that the

, improvement in energy efficiency In 

### the market based scenario is projected to be lower than the improvement in the Level 1 standards analysis. For these

. sensitivity analyses, standards would result in greater burdens to consumers. For example, television sets are projected to cost about $415 in the " constant sensitivity analysis and $426 in the conservative sensitivityanalysis, while television sets which meet Levell standards were projected to cost$507. The resulting increases in first costs to

consumers would be $92 (22 percent) for the constant sensitivity analysis. Similaril}" the resulting inCJ:eases in first costs to consumers are expected to be

. $72 (17 percent) for the historical·, '-. analysis (Case 1) and $69 (16**pe~cent)** 

### for the h!§torical analysis (Case 2). These inct'l=l.ases are greater than the projected increase for the Level.1 standards analysis. .' " '



### D. Lessening ofUtility

### orPerformance of

Products: As indicated in the General Discussion section. there is DO


### assurance that future utility or

. performance of television sets would not be lessened as a result ofdisincentives caused by standards to'investments in

new energy-using features. -,',

.. 

### E.lmpact of Lessening Competition

. . : The determination ofthis factor must be made by the Attorney GeneraL, ".'



### F. Need

### to SaveEnergy. Energy savings as forecasted by the EUP 

### Model

are 0,240 

### Quads for Levell standards and 0.246 Quads for Level 2 standards. DOE believes that the need ofthe Nation to save the marginal amount of energy realized by television set, standards is an insufficient reason for standards. " ',-

,., ': ' :

.... ":., .,'

.. Conclusion

.

Benefits ofa standard for

### t~1eVision sets. compared to no standards. are that standards would save energy.

.

Burdens ofa standard at Levell are estimated to be: the increased first cost ofa te1evision set by about 15 percent ($66) over the average cost ofa television set purchased in 1988; the life cycle cost is increased by about $47 over the life cycle minimum. Burdens ofa standard at Level 2 would result in even greater economic burdens for

consumers.

In light ofall the factors discussed here and in the general discussion, on balance. DOE believes that the burdens of standards for television sets outweigh the benefits. Therefore, DOE proposes, that television set standards are not ' economicallyjustified 8S 

### required by "ection 325(b)[2} ofthe 

### Act.



### .c. Clothes Washers
A "clothes washer" means a
consumerproduct designed to clean clothes. utilizing a water solution of soap and/or detergent and mechanical agitation or other m.oveinent. 

### See 10 CFR 430.2. "

, .



### I,

### Product 

### Classes. Two classes of ' clothes washers. top loading and front loading. were speCified by DOE in the December 1979 advance notice. These classes are distinguished by performance-related features which affect utility and efficiency. ' : •

Front loading clothes washers ' typically use significantly less water than top loaders. Since clothes,washer energy consumption is a function of, the hot waterusage .ofthe machine. front loaders typically use significantly less " energy than top loaders. Top loaders, on the other hand. offer a distinct

. performance-related feature in that they spin the clothes drier. Front loaders are difficult to balance during the spin cycle and may vibrate significantly. Spin

.. speeds are typically lowerwith the front loaders than with top loaders 

### in order to reduce vibration. Therefore. top loaders typically remove more water from the clothes during the spin cycle than do

. , front loaders. Because ofdifferences in

. utility and efficiency. top loading clothes washers and fi:ont loading clothes ·washers are specified as separate classes.-'

. .

Based on comments received on the'

, December 1979 advancenotice . : recommending expansion ofthe classes, DOE has determined that there may be merit in adding some or all ofthe

. following additional clothes washers classes to the program: top loading, ' automatic clothes washers. top loading

- semi-automatic clothes washers. and .' clothes washers with suds-saver, features. 0: ' ,



### 2. Design Options. The design options for clothes washers specified in the December 1979 advance notice were:

(a) Eliminate Warm Rinses. (b) Improve Fill Control. (c) Reduce Thermal Mass. (d) Increase Motor Efficiency.· (e) Add Insulation. ' (f) 

### Reduce Tub Clearances'- 

### 3. Standard

### Levels. See Table 8 for the standard levels selected for clothes washers. The Levell standards are 1.14 

### ft '/kWh for top loading clothes washers and 1.25 ft'/kWh for front loading clothes washers. The Levell standard for front loading clothes washers is

. identical.to the level published in the December 1979 advance notice.

TABLE 8.-STANOARD lEVELS SELECTED FOR CLOTHES WASHERS

1. Top l.oIcIng. 2. Front IJlacing

• CuI:>ic feel ""'.

__ ' '1.14 1.25 , 1.302 1.25



### DOE is revising Leve11 for top loading clothes washers in today's notice. DOE' received several comments stating that the level was determined incorrectly by using 2.39 fta as the average tub capacity ofa top loading clothes washer. The average tub capacity was actually 1.94 Its. Therefore, the commenters recommended that 1.14 fts/ kWh should be the level. Consequently. DOE is also using 1.14 fts/kWh as the Levell standard for top loading clothes washers.

The Level 2 standard

### is 1:302 fts/kWh for top loading clothes washers and is based on the industry data as to the most efficient clothes washers available in 1988. The Leve12 standard designated for front loading clothes washers is the

same as the Leve11 standard. because the Levell standard is expected to be

. the maximum improvement in energy efficiency which is technologically feasible for this product class.



### 4. EnergySavings. The energy savings realized by standards for clothes washers were projected by the EUPFederal Register / Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 /.Proposed Rules

Model. Over 98 percent of all clothes washers shipped in 1979 were reported to be top loading units

. See Technical Support Document, page 45 . Therefore, the EUP Model uses top loading clothes washers to represent all types of clothes washers. According to results from the EUP Model, Level I standards for clothes washers are projected to save about' 0.347 Quads over the 1988-2000 period, the 13-year average life of a clothes washer. See Technical Support . Document, Table 18. Likewise, Level 2 standards for clothes washers are projected to save about 0.396 Quads over the 1988

-2000 period

. See Technical Support Document, Table It. A. Oil and Gas Savings. For Level I standards

, savings of 0.347 Quads *3 would result in the savings of 1,100 bpd of oil and of 23,690 mcf per day of natural gas

. 114 This is only 11 and 42 percent, respectively
, of the amount that DOE deems significant For Level 2 standards
, savings of 0.396 Quads would result in the savings of 1,260 bpd of oil

'and of 27,140 and per day of natural gas. This is only 13 and 48 percent respectively, of the amount that DOE deems significant. B. Electricity Savings. Electricity savings of 0.218 Quads of electricity over the 13-year period is less than 0.05 percent of the total national energy used for electricity." For Level 2 standards, electricity savings of 0.250 Quads over the 13-year period is less than 0.06 percent of the total national energy used for electricity. DOE believes that electricity savings are so small as to have no measureable effect on the environment or on the need for new generating capacity. C. Percent Savings

. The percent savings in the year 2001, the year after the average life of a clothes washer purchased in the year 1987, the last year before standards would be insposed. is projected to be about 9.0 percent for Level 1 standards and about 1118 percent for level 2 standards

"The 0.347 Quads of energy savings meuktng from Level I standards are due to sv ►iogs achieved by using less hot water

. The fraction of households which heat water by electricity is 33 percent and is 54 percent for natural gee and 13 percent for oil. See Residential Energy Consumption Survey : Housing Characteristics 1980, DOE/ELA-43314. June IBM . 94 This assumes that oil cn adtutas 1,85 percent and gas 615 percent of the energy used to generate electricity over this time period. These percentages are the average of the projected proportions for the years I990 and 1985

. See 1981 Annual Report to Congress

. Volume 3: Forecasts . DOE/mA 0173 (8i)/ 3. February 1982. III Electricity usage over the period 1966

-2000 is estimated to be about 45ZS Quads

_ This number is derived from NEPPIY. - Conclusion On the basis of the above, DOE 

### believes that standards for clothes - washers would not result in a significant conservation of energy. S Economic justification A. Economic Impact an Consumers. The economic impact on consumers was found by estimating the additional first cost, ifany, that a consumer would pay in order to purchase a clothes washer which meets the standard. The - development of a first cost curve for clothes washers was patterned after the exponential cost curve developed for the eight products. See Technical Support Document

, page 85. Market survey data for 27 clothes washers were used.2e Due to the wide scatter in data used in developing the first cost curve, the difference for the 27 clothes washers between the market survey data and the first cost curve averaged about 14 percent

. DOE is interested in comments regarding the uncertainties associated in estimating the first costs for clothes washers at various efficiencies. The average cost of a clothes washer in 1988 (one with a energy factor of 0.993 ft3/kWh) is expected to cost about $460. Similarly, the average cost of a clothes washer meeting the standard level of 1.14 ft'/kWh is expected to cost about $674. The economic impact of the Level I standard is projected to increase the first coat of a clothes washer by about 47 percent ($214). First costs at Level 2 are expected to be even greater. B. Life Cycle Cost. The life cycle cost for clothes washers is the sum of the first cost and the operating costs discounted over the lifetime of the appliance

. More efficient clothes washers are not expected to result in increased maintenance costs. Consequently

, maintenance costs were not included in estimating life cycle costs. The minimum life cycle coat is estimated to be about $1003 and occurs for a clothes washer with an energy efficiency of 0.87 ft'/kWh: See Technical Support Document

. Figure 10. The life cycle costs for a clothes washer, which meets the standard level of 1.14 ft't kWh. is estimated to be about $1173. Standards for clothes washers set at Level I could result in an increase of life cycle coats of approximately $170 over the LCC minimum

. Life cycle costs at Level 2 are expected to be even greater.

16A literature search was made to collect market survey data for clothes washers

. Data for clothes washers were found in the report. "Appliance - Efficiency Information. Survey and Data Base Development, Bonneville Power Administration. August 1989.. - 

### 12979

C. Energy Savings. As indicated above, the energy savings attributable to a standard for clothes washers over the period 1988

-2000

, the average life of a clothes washer

, are forecasted to range from 0.347 to 0.396 Quads based on savings for Level 1 and Level 2 standards

, respectively.. - , For 'the sensitivity analyses, energy savings over the period of the average life of a clothes washer beginning with the year 1988 were forecasted to range from 300 bpd to 2,130 bpd for oil savings and from 6

,380 mcf

/day to 45,980 mcf/ day for gas savings

. Each sensitivity analysis fails the significant energy savings test regarding oil and natural gas. See Table 9. Electricity savings over the period of the average life of a clothes washer beginning with the year 1986 were projected to range from 0,013 percent to 0.096 percent of the national electricity use

. Each sensitivity analysis fails the significant energy savings test concerning electricity

. The annual savings in the year 2001

, the year following the period of the average life of a clothes washer purchased in the last year before a standard could be imposed

, were forecasted to range from 1.30 percent to 18

.16 percent. Each sensitivity analysis

, except for the Level 2 sensitivity analysis

, fails the third significant energy savings test for percent savings . Energy savings for the Level 2 sensitivity analysis are projected to be 16

.16 percent

. The standards level in the Level 2 sensitivity analysis is based on the highest energy efficiency level projected to be commercially available by January 1, 1988. DOE believes that this is an unlikely occurrence because it is difficult to believe that all clothes washers manufactured after January 1. 1988, would be at this efficiency level. DOE further believes

, that if the percent savings were adjusted to account for separate product classes as was done for television sets

, the adjusted savings would be less than the forecasted value of 18

.16 percent

. In fact. the adjusted savings could be less than the level of 16.67 percent. resulting in no significant energy savings for this sensitivity 

### analysis. .. .

TABLE 9.-SENSITMTY ANALYSIS ON ENERGY _ SAVINGS FOR CLOTHES WASHERS

ON Gas t r Etw

cs rovdj o ah(

eano

constant Etficieacyr

. 1,880 40.490 0.084 15.45 Conservative case

__. 1,880 40.490 0.084 15.45 Histori at (Cass 1j 830 17.880 0

.037 5.80 Hiistoneal (Case 2).._

. 300 6

.380 0

.013 1.30 Level 2 SanalU+ay._. 2.130 45.980 OD96 18.18 Federai Register 

## I Vol. 50. No. 62 

## I Monday. April 1, 1985 /. Proposed Rules 

### 12979

Model. Over 98percent ofan 

### clothes washers shipped in 1979 were reported to be top loading units. 

### See Technical Support Document, page 45. Therefore. the EUP Model uses top loading clothes washers to represent all types 

### ofclothes washers. ".

.

According toresults from the 

### EUP Model, Levell standards for clothes washers are projected to save about

. 0.347 Quads over the' 1988-2000 period, the 13-year average life of a clothei washer. 

### See Technical Support !. Document. Table 18. Ukewise. LevEll 2 standards for clothes washers 

### are projected to save about 0.396 

### Quads

over the 1988-2000 period. 

### See Technical Support Document, Table 19. :

A. 

### OilandGasSavings. ForLevel :I standards. savings of0.347 Quads U would result in the savings of 1.100 bpd ofoil and of 23,690 melperday of natural gas. Z4 This is only 11 and42 percent. respectively. ofthe amount 

### that DOE deems significant. For Level 2 . standards. savings of0.396 Quads would result in the savings of 1.260 bpd 

### ofoil 'Bnd of27.140 mdper day ofnatural gas. This is only 13 and 48 percent. respectively. ofthe amount that DOE deems signifiC8.llL



### B. ElectricitySavings. Electricity sBvings of0.218 Quads ofelectricity

over the 13-year period is less than

## o.os percent ofthe total national energy 

### used for electricity.u ForLevel 2 mndards, electricity savings of 0.250 Quads over the 13-year period is less than 0-06 percent of the total national energy 

### used for electricity. DOE believes that electricity savings are so small 

### as to have no measureable effect 

### on

### the environment or 

### on the need for 

### new

. generating capacity. "

C. 

### Percent Savings. The**pem!~1** 

### . savings in the year2001. the year after the average life of a clothel washer

. pnrcbased in the year 1987. 

### the last year before standards would be 

### imposed.

### is projected to be about 9.0 percent 

### for Levell standards and about 10.8 percent for Level 2 standards.

n The 0.347 Quad,

## orenel1l' savfn;gs**~** from Level 1 lIandanit are due 10 'Irlins& achJewed by

... ing le8l1lD1 water.The rraction of**hou~oIda** wllich heat

... Ier by electricity is 33 percent and b 54 percent for nalurals•• and 13 percent for oilSee Residential Energy Con.wnption Surwy:Flouring Charac:leriatics 1900. DOE/EIA-«'I14. June 1l1li%. "••Thfa

.... umea that oil cmutltutn 1.115percent lind 8sa 6.15 percent ofthe energy used \0 generate electricity over thit time period. l1\ese percentage.
are the averase ofthe projected proportillDS for the years 1990 and 1995. See 1981 Annual Repori 10 

### Coosrea

.. VoIlIIIIII3: Forecula. OOE/ElA 0173161J1 3. FebMJ8ry lEa. . "

. ..Electricity usaae O\ICI' the pe.riod 1968-ZOOO ill etlimaled to be aboul4S2.S Quad

... Thil nWllber b derived from NEWlV. Conclusion . '

.. '" '" ".'
On the

### b~sis of the above, 

# DoE
believes that standards for clothes washers would not result in a significant conservation of energy. '.
S. 

### Economicluslificatiall .' :

A. 

### Economic Impact C111 

### Consumers. The economic impact on consumers was found by estimating the additional first cost. ifany. that a consumer would pay in order to purchase a clothes washer which meets the standard. The

. development ofa first cost curve for clothes washers was patterned after the exponential cost curve developed for the eight products. 

### See Technical Support Document, page 85. Market survey data for 27 clotheswashers were used.26 Due to the wide scatter in data used in developing the fust cost curve, the difference for the 27 clothes washers between the market survey data and the first cost curve averaged about 14 percent. DOE is interested 

### in comments regarding the uncertainties associated in estimating the first costs for clothes washers at various efficiencies.

The average cost ofa clothes washer in 1988 (one with a energy factor of0.993 ft 3

### /kWh) is expected to cost about $460. Similarly. the average cost ofa clothes washermeeting the standard level of 1.14 ft'/kWh is expected to cost about $674. 

### The economic impact ofthe Level . 1 standard is projected to increase the

first coat ofa clothes washer by about 47 percent ($214). First costs at Leve12

are expected to be even grea\er.



### B. 

### Life Cycle CosL The life cycle cost for clothes washers is the sum ofthe first cost and the operating costa discounted over the lifetime

# or the appliance.. More emcient clothea washers are not expected to result in increased maintenance costa. Consequently. maintenance costa were not included inestimating 

### life cycle costs.

.

The minimum Ufe cycle c:oat Ut estimated to be about $1003 a.ud occurs for 8 clothes washer with aD energy efficiency of0.87 ft3/kWh.. 

### See Technical Support Document. Figure 10- 

### The 

### life cv.cIe costs for a clothes washer. which meets the 5tandard level 

### of1.14

## ft'l

. kWh. is estimated to 

### be about$1173.

. Standards for clothes washers set at Levell couldresult in an increase oflife cycle costs of approximately $170 over the LeC minimum. Life cycle cosm at Level 2 are expected to 

### be evengreater.

• A literature IeIIrch "'811 mlde to**~ect** marf<et .urveydata £or clothes**wa.be~** 

### n.. ta for clothe!! washers were found in the report. "AppIiBIIC8 Efficiency hUonnation. Survey and Data Dele Developmenr. Bonneville PowerAdministration. Aaguatt1III3.

. . • C. 

### Enelgy Savings. As indicated above. the energy savings attributable 

### to

a standard for clothes washers over the period 1988-2000. the average life of

### a clothes washer. are forecasted to range from 0.347 to 0.396 Quads 

### based on savings for Levell and Level 2 standards. respectively. "

For'the sensitivity analyses. energy savings over the period of 

### the average life ofa clothes washerbeginning with the year 1988 were forecasted to range from 300 bpd to 2.130 bpd 

### for oil savings and from 6,380 md/day to 45.980 

## mcfl day for gas savings. Each sensitivity analysis fails the significant 

## energy savings test regarding oil and natural gas. 

### See Table 9. Electricity savings over the period of the average 

### life of a clothes washer beginning with the year 1988

were projected to range from 0.013 percent to 0.096 percent of the national electricity use. Each sensitivity analysis fails the significant energy savings test concerning electricity. 

### The annual savings in the year 2001. 

### the year following the period of the average life

ora clothes washer purchased in the last yearbefore a standard could be imposed. were forecasted to range from 1.30 percent to 18.16 percent. Each sensitivity analysis. except for the Level 2 sensitivity analysiS, fails the third signifu:ant energy savings 

### test for percent savings. Energy savings for the Level 2 sensitivity analysis are projected to be 16.16 percent. The standards level in the Level 2 sensitivity analysis is based 

### on the highest 

### energy efficiency level projected to be commercially available by January 1.1988. DOE believes that this is an unlikely

occurrence because it 

### is difficult 

### to believe that all clothes washers manufactured afterJanuary 1. 1988. would be at this efficiency leveL DOE further believes. that 

### if the percent savings were adjusted to account 

### for separate product classes as was" done for television sets. the adjusted savings wouldbe less than the forecasted valne of 18.16percent. In fact. the adjusted savings could be less than the level of 16.67 percent. resulting in no significant energy savings for this sensitivity atlalysis.

.... "

TABLE 9.-5ENSITMlY ANALYSIS ON ENERGY SAVINGS FOR CLOTHES WASHERS

<OM eJoc. 

# ,..,.. 01 (onctl IIV:lIy Per. \bpd) day) (per. cent ani)

Constant EfficieII<:)t- 1.1180 40.490 O.()8.4 15.45 Conse<va_ CIIsa

__ 1,880 40.490 0.()8.4 15.45 ttistorica!

## cc- 1)- 830 17.880 O.o:l7 S.BO IflStOriCal (e-. 2)-- 300 6.360 0.013 1.30 Level 2 Sena/IMI)'-. l!.13O**~.9BO** .O.D96 18.18

### 12980 ' Federal Register / Vol. 50

, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 / Proposed Rules

0. Lessening of Utility or Performance central system humidifiers , room for dehumidifiers. The Level i standards Products. As indicated in the General humidifiers, and dehumidifiers. for room humidifiers and dehumidifiers 

### Discussion section, there is no - - The two classes of humidifiers are are identical to the levels published in

assurance that future utility or distinguished by their performance- the December 1979 advance notice.' performance of clothes washers would related features which affect utility and not be lessened as a result of efficiency . Central system humidifiers TABLE 10. STANDARD LEVELS SELECTED FOR disincentives caused by standards to are designed to add moisture into the air HUMIDIFIERS AND DEHUMIDIFIERS 

### investments in new energy

-using stream of a central heating system. A features

. central system humidifier uses energy E. Impact of Lessening Competition. . supplied by the warm air furnace to The determination of this factor must be evaporate water used for humidification, made by the Attorney General. and it adds moisture to the entire F. Need to Save Energy. Clothes residence.
washers use electricity directly, and oil. Room humidifiers are designed to add natural gas, and electricity indirectly moisture directly to the conditioned air through their use of hot water. Energy without requiring connection to a savings

, which are forecasted to be 0.347 separate heating or distribution system. Quads for Level I standards and 0

.398 Room humidifiers have heaters or other Quads for Level 2 standards
, are means to evaporate the water used for expected to be achieved through humidification
. A room humidifier can
reduced use of hot water

. DOE believes be used to add moisture to a local area
that the need of the Nation to save the of the residence, and can be moved from marginal amount of energy realized by one room to another
. if necessary.
clothes washer standards is insufficient Because of the differences in the reason for standards.
Conclusion . 

### source of neat for evaporating me water used for humidification

, the DOE test method for determining the energy Benefits of a standard for clothes efficiency is different for central system washers, compared to no standards
, are and room humidifiers. This difference, that standards would save energy. . as well as differences in utility, require
Burdens of a standard are estimated that separate classes be specified for to be; the increased first cost of a central system and room humidifiers. No classes of dehumidifiers are clothes washer by about 47 percent specified. All dehumidif iers have ($214) over the average cost of a clothes midr washer purchased in 1988; and the cost components essentially nent and same there d do o not appear not ppto is increased by about $170 over the life n cycle minimum . be any different erent functional In light of all the factors discussed characteristics which affect energy
here and in the general discussion
, on consumption warrant the c aDOE is balance, DOE believes that the burdens specification ested in n i receiving that

separate statements of standards for clothes washers d outweigh the benefits. Therefore, DOE concerning whether there e should be

proposes that clothes washer standards dehufic product classes for dehumidifiers. are not economically justified as 2. Design Options. The December 1979 required by section 325(b)(2) of the Act. advance notice identified the following d. Humidifiers and Dehumidifiers - design options for humidifiers:
A "humidifier" is a consumer product (a) Add Humidistat. designed to add moisture into the Based d upon comments omMotor Efficiency. Bamments on the conditioned air, and which falls into one December 1979 advance notice, DOE of the following classes : a central believes that almost all humidifiers are system humidifier or a room humidifier. fitted with humidistats. Therefore, the A "dehumidifier" means a self- projected savings are based on contained, electrically-powered, improved fan motor efficiency only. d d i f i h ce, .

ev mec an cally

-re rigerate designed primarily to decrease the. moisture content of the air in an enclosed space; it has a refrigerated surface (evaporator) onto which: moisture from the air condenses, a refrigerating system that includes an electric motor

, a fan for circulating air, and a drainage arrangement for _ 3

. Standard Levels

. See Table 10 for collecting and/or disposing of the

- the standard levels selected for condensate

. See 10 CFR 430

.2. humidifiers and dehumidifiers. The 1. Product Classes

. The three product Level I standards are 93 percent for classes specified by DOE in the central system humidifiers, 93 percent December 1979 advance notice are for room humidifiers and 2

.9 pints/kWh The December 1979 advance notice identified the following design options for dehumidifiers: 

### (a) Improve Compressor Efficiency. (b) Improve Condensor Heat Transfer. (c) Improve Fan Motor Efficiency. (d) Improve Controls. (e) Improve Cycle Efficiency. aro&,ct dose

1. Cenral Syolom Hw6aw 2. Room Huriiffw 3. De fier Ls 

### I

303 103 '26 L*VW 2

'36.6

r^

pints per ktowatniov

.
The level I standard in today's notice for central system humidifiers is - different from the level of 92 percent published in the December 1979 advance notice. The Auto Flo Company, Division of Masco Corporation (Auto Flo) commented that the energy efficiency of one of its central system humidifiers in 1978 was 93 percent

. See Auto Flo, . comment Number 9. Exhibit 1, page 5. The level is being revised today to be 93 percent for central system humidifiers. The level 2 standard for central system humidifiers is 98

.6 percent. Level 2 standards are the same as the Level I standards for room humidifiers and dehumidifiers because the Level 1 standards are expected to be the maximum improvement in energy efficiency which is technologically feasible. 4. Energy Savings. The energy savings realized by standards were projected separately for humidifiers and dehumidifiers. Central system humidifiers use over 20 percent more energy than room humidifiers. See Technical Support Document

. page 55. The EUP Model uses central system humidifiers to represent all types of humidifiers. According to results from the EUP Model. Level 1 standards for humidifiers are projected to save about 0

.015 Quads over the 1988

-1997 period, the 10-year average life of a humidifier. See Technical Support Document

, Table 25. likewise, Level 2 standards for humidifiers are projected to save about 0.041 Quads over the 1988-1997 period. See Technical Support Document, Table 26. For dehumidifiers

, Level 1 standards are projected to save about 0.007 Quads over the 1988-1998 period, the 11-year average life of a dehumidifier. See . . Technical Support Document. Table 32. As presented below

, the projected - savings are forecasted to be less than the three tests of significant energy savings

. Therefore

, DOE believes that standards for humidifiers and dehumidifiers would not likely result in significant conservation of energy. . 

### 12980 Federal Register 

## I Vol. SO. 

### No. 62 

## I Monday. 

### April 1. 

### 1985 

## I Proposed Rules



### D. Lessening

### oiUtJ1ity 

### orPerformance Products. 

### As indicated in the General Discussion section. there is no

- - assurance that future utility or

. . performance ofclothes washers would not be lessened as a result of disincentives caused by standards to investments in new energy-usms features.

.

E.lmpact of Lessening Competition.

. 

### The determination ofthis factor must be made by the Attorney General.

..

F. Need

### to SaveEnergy. 

### Clothes

. . washers use electricity directly. and oil. naturalgas. Bnd electricity indirectly through their use ofhot water. Energy savings, which are forecasted to be 0.347 Quads for Levell standards Bnd 0.396 Quads for Level 2 standards. are 

### expected to be achieved through reduced use ofhot water. DOE believes that the need of the Nation to save the marginal amount ofenergy realized by clothes washer standards is insufficient

reason for standards.

. Conclusion

..

Benefits ofa standard for clothes' washers. compared to no standards. are that standards would save energy.

.

Burdens ofa standard are estimated to be: the increased first cost ofa . clothes washer by about 47 

### percent· ($214) over the average cost ofa clothes washer purchased in 1988; and the cost is increased by about $170 over tlte life cycle minimum.

.

In 

### light of all the factors discussed here and in the general discussion, on balance. DOE believes that the burdens ofstandards for clothes washers outweigh the benefits. Therefore. DOE proposes that clothes washer standards

are not economically justified as required by section 325(b)(2) ofthe Act
d. Humidifiers andDehumidifiers



### A "humidifier"is a consumerproduct designed to add moisture into the conditioned air. and which falls into one ofthe following classes: a central system humidifier or a room humidifier. A "dehumidifier" means a selfcontained. electrically-powered.

. mechanically-refrigerated device. designed primarily to decrease the. moisture content ofthe air in an encloseQ space; ithas a refrigerated surface (evaporator) onto which, moisture from the air condenses. a _**r~frigerating** 

### system that includes an electric motor. a fan for circulating air. and a drainage arrangement for

. collecting and/or disposing ofthe condensate. See 

### 10 CFR 430.2-

1. Product Classes. 

### The three product classes specified by DOE in the December 1979 advance notice are central system humidifiers. room humidifiers, and dehumidifiers.

The two classes ofhumidifiers are· distinguished by their performancerelated features which affect utility and

.efficiency. Central system humidifiers

are designed to add moisture into .the 

### air stream ofa central heating system. A central system humidifier uses energy supplied by the warm air furnace to evaporate water used for humidification. and it 

### adds moisture to the entire residence,··.

Room humidifiers are designed to add moisture directly to the conditioned air without requiring connection to a . separate heating or distribution system. Room humidifiers have heaters or other

means to evaporate the water used for humidification. A room humidifier can be used to add moisture to a local area ofthe residence, and can be moved from

one room to anothe!:, if

### necessary.

Because ofthe differences in the

source ofheat for evaporating the water used for humidification, the DOE test method for determining the energy

. . efficiency is different for central system and room humidifiers. This difference.

as well as differences in utility, require that separate classes be specified for central system and room humidifiers.

No classes ofdehumidifiers are specified. All dehumidifiers have essentially the same combination of components and there do not appear to be any different functional

. characteristics which affect energy consumption that warrant the specification ofseparate classes. DOE is interested in receiving statements concerning whether there should be specific product classes for dehumidifiers.

2. 

### Design Options. 

### The December 1979 advance notice identified the following design options for humidifiers:

(a) Add Humidistat.

. (b) 

### Improve Fan Motor Efficiency.· Based upon comments on the December 1979 advance notice, DOE believes that almost all humidifiers are fitted with humidistats. Therefore. the projected savings are based on improved fan motor efficiency only.

The December 1979 advance notice identified the following design options for dehumidifiers:·

. . .-

(a) Improve Compressor Efficiency•. (bJ 

### Improve Condensor Heat Transfer. (c) Improve Fan Motor Efficiency. (d) Improve Controls. (e) 

### Improve Cycle Efficiency. 3. 

### StandardLevels. See 

### Table 10 for the standard levels selected for humidifiers and dehumidifiers. The

. Levell standards are 93 percent for central system humidifiers. 93 percent

. for room humidifiers and 2.9 pints/kWh for dehumidifiers. The Levell standards for room humidifiers and dehumidifiers

are identical to the levels published in 

### the December 1979 advance notice_

.

TABLE 10. STANDARD lEvELS SELECTED FOR HUMIDIAERS AND DEHUMIDIFIERS



# i**~:::..** HIRnicIifiIr_**3.~**



### The levelt standard In 

### today'll notice for central system humidifiers is different from the level of92 percent published in the December 1979 advance notice. The AulD Flo Company. Division

orMasco Corporation (Auto Flo) commented that the energy effiCiency of

.one ofits central system humidifiers in 1978 was 93 percent. See 

### Auto 

### Flo•. comment Number 9. Exhibit 1. page 5. The level is being revised today to be 93 percent for central system humidifiers.

The level 2 standard for central system humidifiers is 98.6 percent. Level 2 standards are the same as the Levell standards for room humidifiers and

_ dehumidifiers because the Levell standards are expected to be the maximum improvement in energy

. efficiency which is technologically feasible.

.

4. EnergySavings. 

### The energy savings realized by standards were projected separately for humidifiers and dehumidifiers. Central system humidifiers use over 20 percent more energy than room humidifiers. See 

### Technical Support Document. page55

.. The EUP Model uses central system humidifiers to represent all types of humidifiers.

.

According to results from the EUP Model. Levell standards for humidifiers

are projected to save about 0.015 Quads

over the 1988-1997 period. the 10-year average life ofa humidifier. See 

### Technical Support Document. Table

## 25. Likewise. Level 2 standards for

. humidifiers are projected to save about 0.041 Quads over the 1988-1997period

.. See 

### Technical Support Document, Table 26. For dehumidifiers. Level 1 standards

are projected to save about 0.007 Quads

overthe 1988-1998 period. the a-year average life ofa dehumidifier. 

### See

.. Technical Support Document. Table 32- As presented below. the projected savings are forecasted to be less than the three tests of significant energy savings. Therefore. DOE believes that standards for humidifiers 

### and dehumidifiers would not likely result In

. significant conservation ofenergy.

### Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 / Proposed Rules

A. Oil and Gas Savings. For Level I standards

, savings for humidifiers of 0.015 Quads 21 would result in the savings of 20 bpd of oil and of 250 mcf per day of natural gas

. This is only 0.2 and 0

.4 percent
, respectively
, of the amount that DOE deems significant. For level 2 standards

, savings of 0.041 Quads would result in the savings of 50 bpd of oil and 670 mcf per day of natural gas. This is only 0

.5 and 1 percent, - respectively, of the amount that DOE. deems significant. For level I standards
, savings for dehumidifiers of 0.007 Quads would result in the savings of 10 bpd of oil and of 100 mcf per day of natural gas . This is only 0

.1 and 0.2 percent
, respectively, of the amount that DOE deems significant. B. Electricity Savings. For Level 1 standards.•electricity savings for . humidifiers of 0.015 Quads over the 10- year period are less than 0

.005 percent of the total national energy used for electricity

.29 For Level 2 standards, electricity savings of0.041 Quads over the 10

-year period are about 0.013 percent of the total national energy used for electricity

. DOE believes that the electricity savings are so small as to have no measurable effect on the environment or on the need for new. generating capacity. For level i standards

, electricity savings for dehumidifiers of 0.007 Quads over the 11-year period are less than . 0.002 percent of the total national energy used for electricity.49 DOE believes that the electricity savings are so small as to have no measurable effect on the _ environment or on the need for new generating capacity. C. Percent Savings. The percent savings for humidifiers in the year 1998, the. year after the average life of a humidifier purchased in the year 1987, the last year before standards would be imposed. are projected to be about 1.1 percent for Level 1 standards and 3.0 . percent for Level 2 standards. The percent savings for dehumidifiers in the year 1999. the year after the average life of a dehumidifier purchased in the year 1987, the last year before standards be imposed, are projected to be about 2.7 percent for Level I standards. 

### Conclusion On the basis of the above, DOE— believes that standards would not result in a significant conservation of energy. 5. Economic justification A. Economic Impact on Consumers. . For humidifiers and dehumidifiers, the economic

. impact on consumers was found by estimating the additional first cost, if any, that a consumer would pay in order to purchase a product which meets the standard. The development of a first cost curve for humidifiers was patterned after the exponential cost

curve developed for the eight products. See Technical Support Document, page 86. Market survey data for four humidifiers were used 30 Due to the limited data and the scatter in data used in developing the first cost curve, the difference for the four humidifiers between the market survey data and the first cost curve average about 6 percent. DOE is interested in comments regarding the uncertainties associated in estimating the first costs for humidifiers at various efficiencies. The average cost of a humidifier in 1988 (one with an energy factor of 90 percent) is expected to cost about $120. Similarly, the average cost of a humidifier meeting the standard level of 93 percent is expected to cost about $137. The economic impact of a standard is projected to increase the first cost of a humidifier by about 14 percent ($17). The exponential first cost curve developed for dehumidifiers showed a poor correlation to the market survey data

. In order to achieve a better correlation

, a parabolic first cost curve was developed. See Technical Support Document

, page 67. Market survey data for 12 dehumidifiers were used

.3 t Due to the wide scatter in data used in developing the parabolic first cost curve the difference for the 12 dehumidifiers between the market survey data and the first cost curve averaged about 14 . air This assumes that oil constitutes 2.65 percent percent

. DOE is interested in comments and gas 6

.15 percent of the energy used to generate regarding the uncertainties associated in electricity over this time period

. These percentage. . are the average of the projected proportions for the ' years 1990 and 1995

. See 1981 Annual Report to iD A literature search was made to collect market Congress. Volume 3: Forecasts
, DOE/EIA 0173(81) / survey data for humidifiers. Data for humidifiers 3, February 1982

. were found in the catalog. "Fall/Winter 1983 ss Electricity usage over the period 1988

-1997 is Catalog". Eastern Edition

. Sears

. Roebuck and Co. estimated to be about 336.8 Quads

. This number is 01 A literature search was made to conduct derived from data in the 1981 Annual Report to market survey data for dehumidifiers

. Data for Congress

, Volume 3: Energy Projections

. DOE/EIA- dehumidifiers were found in the article.' 0173(81)/3. February 1982 . " Dehumidifiers: Dryer Air Indoors". Consumers 29 Electricity usage over the period 1988

-1998 is Research Magazine

, Consumers Research

. Inc.. July estimated to be about 404

.4 Quads. This number is 2983: in the article "Dehumidifiers". Consumers derived from data lathe 1961 Annual Report to Reports

. Consumers Union

, May 1981 ; and the 19m Congress

, Volume 3: Energy Projections

. DOE/EIA/ Directory of Certified Dehumidifiers, Edition No.1. 0173(81)/3, February 1982

.. AHAtd 

### 12981

estimating the first costs for dehumidifiers at various efficiencies. The average cost of a dehumidifier in 1988 (one with an energy efficiency of 2.454 pints/kWh) is expected to cost about $218. Similarly, the average cost of a dehumidifier meeting the standard level of 2.90 pints/kWh is expected to cost about $267. The economic impact of. a standard is projected to increase the first cost of a dehumidifier by about 22 percent [$49). . , B. Life Cycle Cost. The life cycle cost for humidifiers and dehumidifiers is the sum of first cost and the operating costs discounted over the lifetime of the, appliance. More efficient humidifiers and dehumidifiers are not expected to result in increased maintenance costs. Consequently

, maintenance costs were not included in estimating life cycle costs. For humidifiers, the minimum life cycle cost is estimated to be about $648 and occurs for a humidifier with an energy efficiency of 92 percent. See Technical Support Document, Figure 11. The life cycle cost for a humidifier, which meets the standard level of 93 percent
, is estimated to be $653 . Level I standards for humidifiers could result in an increase of life cycle costs of approximately $5 over the LCC minimum. ' For dehumidifiers, the minimum life cycle cost is estimated to be about $503 and occurs for a dehumidifier with an energy efficiency of 2.64 pints/kWh. See Technical Support Document, Figure 2. The life cycle cost for a dehumidifier, which meets the standard level of 2.90 pints/kWh is estimated to be about $513. Standards for dehumidifiers could result in an increase of life cycle costs of approximately $10 over the LCC minimum. C. Energy Savings. For humidifiers, the energy savings attributable to a standard over the period 1988-1997, the average life of a humidifier, were forecasted to range from 0.015 to 0.041 Quads based on savings for Level I and Level 2 standards

, respectively. . Results from sensitivity

-analyses indicated that standards would not result in significant conservation of energy

. Energy savings over the period of the average life of a humidifier beginning with the year 1988 are forecasted to range from 20 bpd to 50 bpd for oil savings and from 20 mcf/day to 670 mcf/day for gas savings. Each sensitivity analysis fails the significant energy savings test regarding oil and natural gas . See Table 11. Electricity savings over the period of the average life of a humidifier, beginning with the year 1988
, are projected to range from 

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 

## so, No. 62 

## I Monday, April 1, 1985 

## I Proposed Rules 

### 12981

A. OilandGas Savings. 

### For Levell, in the year 1987, the last yearbefore., standards, savings for humidifiers of·

, standards be imposed, are projected to 0.015 Quads 2'1 

### would result in the .' be about 2.7 percent for Levell

.. :,

.. savings of 20 

### bpd ofoil 

### and of 250 

### mcf standards•. per day ofnatural gas. This is only 0.2**Concl~siOD'** 

### . ',:.

. .. , " and 0.4 percent. respectively, ofthe

. On the basl:s ·of

tho

### e abov'e, DOE' amount that DOE deems significant. For level 2 

### standards, savings of0.041 believes that standards would not result Quads would resu1t in the savings of 50 in a significani ,cons,ervation ofenergy. bpd ofoil and 62'0 

### mcrper day ofnatural 5. 

### EconomicJustification

__ ., .. "

..**~** 

### ... ". 

### gas. This is 

### only 0.5 and 1 percent, A. EconomicImpact on Consumers.

. 

### respectively, ofthe aPlount that DOE For humidifiers and dehumidifiers, the· deems significant.

., '.,

,

For level 1 standards, savings for economic.impact on consumers was dehumidifiers of0.007 Quads would found by estimating the additional first b d f I 

### d cost, if any, that a consumer would pay result in the Bavings of 10 p 0 

### oi an in order to purchase a product which of 100 mcfper day ofnatural gas. This is meets the standard. The development of only 

### O.l and 0.2 percent, respectively, of a first cost curve for humidifiers was the amount that DOE deems significa!lt.

B. 

### ElectricitySavings. 

### For Levell' patterned after the exponential cost·

. standards.'electricity savings for, curve developed for the eight products. humidifiers ofO.ot5 Quads over the 10- See 

### Technfcal Support Document. page 86. 

### Market survey data for four year period are less than 0.005 percent humidifiers were used.3o Due to 

### the ' ofthe total national energy used for' limited data a'nd the scatter in data used electricity.tII For'Level 2 

### standards, ' in developing the first cost curve, the electricity savings of0.041 Quads over difference for the four humidifiers the lO-year period are about 0.013· between the market survey daia and the percent of the total national energy used first cost curve average about 6 percent. for electricity. DOE believes that the DOE is interested in comments

. electricity savings are so small as to regarding the uncertainties associated in have no measurable effect on the estimating the flI'!!t costs for humidifiers environment or on the need for new. at various efficiencies. '" generating capacity. . : The average cost ofa humidifier in

For level 1 standards. electricity

. 1988 

### [one with an energy factor of90 

### savings for dehumidifiers of0.007 Quads percent) is 

### expected to cost**a~out** $120. '


### over the ll-year period are less than

. Similarly, the average cost of

### a 0.002 percent ofthe total national energy humidifier meeting the standard level of used for electricity.2I DOE believes that 93 

### percent is expected to cost about the electricity savings are so small as to $137. The economic impact ofa standard have no measurable effect on 

### the is projected to increase the first cost ofa environment or on the need for new humidifier by about 14 percent ($17). generat,ing capacity.

. . The exponential first cost curve

C. Percent Savings. 

### The percent developed for dehumidifiers showed a savings for humidifiers in the year 1{!98, poor correlation to the market survey the.year after the average life of a data. In 

### order to achieve a better humidifier purchased in the year 1987, correlation, a parabolic first cost curve the last year before standards WC1lld be was developed. See 

### Technical Support imposed. are projected to pe about 1.1

.., Document. page 67. Market survey data percent for Levell standards and 3.0, for 12 

### dehumidifiers were used.1Il Due to percent for Levelz standards. ' . ,the wide scatter in data used in

The percent savings for dehumidifiers developing the parabolic first cost curve in the year 1999.the year after the the difference for the 12 dehumidifiers average life ofa dehumidifier purchased between t)le market survey data and the

OfThil assumes that oil constitutes %.65 percent and 886 IUS percenl of the energy used 10 senerate eleclricity**~e~** this time period.These**percen~** are the average ofthe projected

### proportions (orthe years 1990 and 1995.See 1981 Annual Report to**'Co~s**.. Volume 3: Forecasts, DOE/EIA 0173!81)' 3, Feb"iuary 1982.

, .,

..ElectriCity ulage over the period 1988-1997 ia

. estimated 10 be aboul 336, 8 Quads, This numberia derived from data in !he 1981 Annilal 

### REport to Congre6l. Volume 3: Energy Projections, DOE/EIA0173(81)/3, February**~98Z.** . .

..Elec\ticity usage over the period 1988-1998 ia

. estimated to be aboul401J.4 Quads.This number is derived &om data In·the 1981 Annual Report to Congress, Volume 3: Ene.'gY Projections. DOE/EIA/ ot73(81l/a.**F~!JrualJ' 1~**  , 

### flI'st cost curve averaged about 14, ' 

### percent. DOE is interested in comments**reg~rding** 

### the uncertainties associated in

. .**~** 

### . .0A literature search was made to collect market survey data for humidifiers, Data for humidifiers

were found In the catalog, "Fall/Winler 1983 Catalog", Easlern Edition. Sears. Roebuck and Co

.

, ., A literature search was made to conduct ' market survey data for dehumidifiers, Dalli for dehumidifiers were found In the article. • "Dehumidifiers: DryerAirIndoors", Consumers Research Magazine, Consumers Research. Inc.. July 1983; in the article "Dehumidifiers". Consumers Reports. Consumers Union. May 1981; and the 1983 Direcll>ry

### 1>/CertifiedDehumidifiers. Edition No. 1. 

### ,!JiAM.,

... estimating the first costs for. dehumidifiers at various efficiencies.

The average cost ofa dehumidifier in 1988 [one with an energy efficiency of 2.454 pints/kWh) is expected to cost

. about $218. Similarly, the average cost ofa dehumidifier meeting the standard level of2.90 

### pints/kWh is expected to cost about $267. The economic impact of.

a standard is projected to increase the first cost ofa dehumidifierby 

### about 22 

### percent ($49). ' .

., ,



### B. Life Cycle Cost. 

### The life cycle cost for humidifiers and dehumidifiers is the

sum offirst cost and the operating costs discounted over the lifetime of the.

. appliance. More efficient humidifiers and dehumidifiers are not expected to result in 

### increased maintenance costs. Consequently, maintenance costs were nol included in estimating life cycle costs.

For humidifiers, the minimum life 'cycle cost is estimated to be about $648 and occurs for B 

### humidifier with an energy efficiency of92 percent. See

. 

### Technical Support Document, Figure 11. 

### The life cycle cost for a humidifier, which meets the standard level of93 

### percent. is estimated to be $653. Levell standards for humidifiers could result in

an increase oflife cycle costs 

### of approximately $5 

### over the LeC minimum

.. " ,Fordehumidifiers, the minimum life

cycle cost is estimated to be about $503 and occurs for a dehumidifier with an energy effiCiency of2.64 pints/kWh. See 

### Technical Support Document, Figure 2. 

### The life cycle cost for a dehumidifier, which meets the standard level of 2.90 

### pints/kWh is estimated to be about $513. Standards for dehumidifiers could result in an increase oflife cycle costs of apprOXimately $10 over the LCC minimum.

C. Energy Savings. 

### For humidifiers. the energy savings attributable to a standard over the period 1.988-1997, the average life ofa humidifier, were forecasted to range from 0.015 to 0.041

. Quads based on savings for Levell and ,Level 2 

### standards, respectively.

..

Results from sensitivity 'analyses indicated that standards -would not result in significant conservation of energy. Energy savings over the period ofthe average life of B 

### humidifier beginning with the year 1968 

### are ' forecasted to range from 20 

### bpd to 50 

### bpdfor oil sal'ings and from 20 mcf/day to 670 mcf/day for gas savings. Each sensitivity analysis fails the significant energy savings test regarding oil and natural gas. See 

### Table 11. Electricity saviIlgs over the period of the average life ofa huinidifier. beginning with the year 1988, are projected to range fromVaT. 50
,. No. 62 j Monday

, April 1, 1985 j Proposed` Rules

national electricity use. Each sensitivit ' analysis fails the significant energy savings test concerning

. electricity. The annual savings in the year 1998. the year following the period of the. average life of a. humidifier purchased in the last year before

.a standard could be - imposed

, are forecasted to range from, 1.12 percent
, to 3.03 percent. Each - sensitivity analysis fails the significant energy savings test for percent savings. Accordingly
, DOE proposes, that standards for humidifiers

- are not likely to result

.in significant conservation of
energy. For dehumidifiers

, the energy savings attributable to a standard over the period 1988

-1998

, the average life of-sr. dehumidifier
, are forecasted to be about 0.007 Quads based on Level I standards. Results from sensitivity analyses indicated that standards would not result in significant conservation of
energy

. Energy savings over the period' of the average life of a dehumidifier beginning with the year 1988 were forecasted to range from 10 bpd to 20 bpd for oil savings and from 110 mcfj day to 220 mcf/day for gas savings.:

`Each sensitivity analysis fails- the. significant energy savings test regarding oil and natural gas. See Table 12.. Electricity savings over the period of the. average life of a dehumidifier beginning with the year 1988 were projected to range from 0.902 percent. to. 0.004 percent of the national electricity use. Each sensitivity analysis fails the significant energy savings test concerning electricity

. The savings in. the year 1998.. the year following the period of theaverage life of a dehumidifier purchasedin the last year before a standard could, be imposed

, were forecasted to range, from 2

.69 percent to 5.78 percent Each sensitivity analysis fails the significant energy savings test for percent savings. Accordingly
, DOE proposes that . standards for dehumidifiers are not likely to result in significant conservation of'energy.

TABLE 11: SENsmvrn ANAtYSESON'ENERGY'

-SAVINGS FOR HUMIDIFIERS

AtaJyek ees p"`' ' t/ PWI t 

### dr) tiler- dent



### ^anu:

Constant EtIiicisnsy

,.. . 20 250' Moos 1.12 ConsemSIWe Caw_._ 20' 250 .0 M ' t12 Historical (case 1) 2e. i 257 ; x005 :71? HisIoricai 

### tease a ' 250 oaa5 m

### a Level 2 Sonsnivity

.. so , 670-

, 0.013 3.03 TABLE 12 .--SENsmvnY ANALYSIS OF ENEReT
SAVINGS FOR DEHUMt0IF1ERS -

Anatyss of Gas (MCI/ b

Consant Efficiency 20 ' 220 a054 . 5.78, Conservative Can . 20• 220 0501 5.75 tiislorical (Gies=1) 

### to 120 : 0002 2.51I Historical (Cue 2) 10 120 0.002 291

D. Lessening of Utility or Performance '• of Prodbcts. As indicated in the GeneralDiscussion section, there is pctassurance that future

. utility or performance of humidifiers and dehumidifiers would not be lessened-as 

### it result of disincentives caused by standards to investments in energy' using

-new features:. E. Impact of Lessening Campeti?taa. The. determination of this factor must be made by the Attorney-General F. Needto Save Energy

. Energysavings forbumidifiers are forecasted to be 0.015 Quads for Level I standards and 0.041 Quads for Level 2 standards. Energy savings for dehumidifiers are forecasted to be 0

.007 Quads for Levels standards

. DOE believes that the need of the Nation to save the marginal' ' amount of energy realized by standards for both humidifiers and dehumidifiers is insufficient reason for standards.
Conclnsioa .
Benefits of a standard for-humidifiers ' and dehumidifiers

, compared to no standards

, are that standard 's wouldsave energyBurdens

- of a standard for Iminidifiers• are estimated to be:• tbe increased first cost by about 14 percent ($17): over the average cost of a product purchased in 2988; the life cycle cost is increased'by about $5 over the life cycle minimum. Burdens of a standardfor dehumidifiers are estimated tbr be :*the increased first cost by about 22 percent ('$49) over the average cost of a product purchased in 1988;, the life cycle cost is increased by about $10- over the life cycle minimum. In light of all the factors discussed' here and- in the general dfscussibri, on balance.

, DOE'believes that the Burdens 'ofstandards for humidifiers and ' .' dehumidifiers outweigh the benefits, Therefore

, DOE proposes that humidifier and dehumidifier standards are not economically justified as required by section

- 325(b)(2) of the Act. .. IV. Preemption

.ofState RegulationsThe Department has adopted ' procedural regulations

. at 10• C FR.Par:t 430, Subpart a giving States: an. opportunity to petition

- the Department to preserve State or local efficiency standards for a covered product

. 47- FR. 5719& (December 22; T982) and 48 F W 39376 (August 30;1983). If DOE adopts the rule proposed today with regard to each of the four products, any State or local efficiency

- standard for those - products would be superseded pursuant to section 327(aj(2) of the Act. DOE believes that Florida, which has-it dishwasher standard, and New Y'®rfe, which has standards for boor dishwashers and'television sets; are the only States which currently have standards for any of the four products subject to today's notice

. Nevertheless, if, at a future time, any State or other. persons wish the Department to review State or local efficiency standards that have been promulgated

, the regulationsat 10 CFR Port 430,-Subpart D,'proviilethe procedural requirements which must' be met
V. Environmental

, Regulatory Impact, and Regulatory Flexibility Reviews The Department has reviewed today's proposed action in accordance with the Department's obligations under: - • The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42-U.S

.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing the procedural provisions

- of NEPA (40 CFR 1500 etseq

.r and the Departmenrs own NEPA guidelines (10 CFR Part 1021.);

• Executive Order 12291 (46' FR 13193.. February 19, T981 ) which pertains to agency review of the impact of Federal regulations; and • The Regulatory Flexibility Act' (5 U.S.C: 601 etseq.) which requires, in part, that an agency prepare an initial' regulatory flexibility analysis for any proposed rule unless it determines that the rule will not have a "significant economic impact on a substantial. number of'small entities .- In the event that such an analysis is not required for a particular rule, the agency must publish a certification and explanation. of that determination in the Federal Register.
a. Environmental Review The Department proposes to establish no energy efficiency standards for four types of consumer products..By operation of the Act, all State energy efficiency standards for these products would be preempted, except those.for which States petition and receive from the Department a rule which

. exempts them in accordance with section 327(b)(3) of the Act

.. Thus

, the proposed action

.potentially has three elements: (1) No establishment of energy efficiency standards for the four products in those States that do not now have standards 

### Federal Register 

# I 

# var. sO" No. 62 

# rMonday, 

### April 1. 

### 1985

, Proposed' Rules>

. 5 percent to 0.013 percentof

### tfrenational electricity use. Eacn sensitiVity analysis fails the Significant energy " savings fest concerning,electriCity. 

### Tlle, annual savings in the year W9B. 

### the- year following the period'ofthe,average life of a.humidifier purcliased'fu. 

### the lasr '
year before,S. standatd could be. imposed. are forecasted 

### to range 

### fi:om: 1.12 percent.to 3.03 percent-'Each ; sensitivity analysis fails the significaat energy savings test for percent saving&. Accordingly. DOE proposes,that, standards for humidifiers,are not likely,
to result.in**sign.ificaD~** eORservation of energy. ,

For dehumidifiers. the' energy savings attributable 

### to a standard over

### tfw. period 1988-1998. the average life 

### ahl' ' dehumidifier. are forecasted to be about' 0.007 Quads based on Levell standard"s.

Results from sensitivity analyses indicated that standards wouldnot , result in significant conservatiiln 

### of energy. Energy savings over the period' of the average life ofa dehumidifiet beginning with the year 1988 were forecasted to rimge from 1{) opd to ZO bpd for oil savings and from 110 mcCl day to 220 mcf/day for gas**savings~** lEach sensitivity analysis fails, 

### the. significant energy savings fest regarding oil and natural gas. 

### See Table 12., Electricity savings over the period, ofthe, average life of a dehumidifier beginning with the year 1988 were projected to range from 0.002 percent.to,O.OO4 perceJrt ofthe national electricity use. Each sensitivity analysis fails the significant ene.rgy savings test concerning electricity. The savings in, the year 19m, the year following the period ofthe average life ofa dehumidifier- purchased. in the last**y~ar** before a standard could· be imposed. were forecasted tb range· from 2.69 percent to 5.7'8 percent. Each sensitivity analysis fails ilie significant energy savings test for percent savings. Accordingly, DOE proposes that'

. standard's for dehumidifiers are not likely to result 

### in significant conservation**of'en~..** .'

TABLE n.-SENSITIVITY

### ANAtYSES'ON'EH~' -5AVII'IGS FOR HUMIOIFIEI'IS

,Oil**~GIIS** '(bpd!'**~/'** I day)

Constant Effic:ien<IY.. 20 250' ConseNative CMa'

_._ ' ZO' 250 Historical (CUll 11_ I 211 I 

### zso: : His!oIicaI (CaN

# a- ' 20' l!5C : Level 2 SensitMIy••

_ 

### so 670, ; 0.005 ,0:005' o.'OIIl5 D.005 o.Ot3 1.12 t:12 

## ',12' "la. 3,03 TABlE' 12.-SercslTMTY ANALYSIS QFENEFlGT' SAVINGS FOR OEHUMlDIRER&-

G

.. Eloc:Irici' ' AnaIysia Oil (mcfl If Per· CbPd) day) (per'-'

... Iito coni) , ,.



# . , , Ccmolanl EIfi<:ienC:l! ZQ 220 O-OQ,I 5.7& Conservative 

## r:asi::.. 20' 220 OJ)()C 

# , 5.7S' Historical (ca.,1)_ In; 120 0:002; 2,1111 Hloloric;aI (Cue 21- 10 120 0,002 2.91



### , D. 

### Lessening ofUtility 

### orPerformance



### -, ofProdiJcts. As indicated 

### in the General

,Discussion section; there 

### it! DO' assur!lDCt! tnaHuture'utility or'.' .:. performance ofhumidifiers amf ' dehumidifiers woultl not be lessened'as 8'result 

### ofdisincentiVB8' caused'by standards to investments in energyusing·new

### features,.,

E. 

### lmpuct

### ofJ:essening Competition. TIre determination ofthis facl'or mnst 

### hemade by the Attorney-General'. '

, F. 

### Needto Save Energy. Energy:- savfngs fOihumidifiers are forecasted to be 0.015 Quads for Levell standards and 0.041 Quads for 

### Le'\reJ 2 standards. Energy savings for dehmirldifiers are forecasted to be 0.007 Quads for LeveF1 standards. DOE believes that 

### the need ofthe Nation to save the marginm" ' amount ofenergy realized by standards

. for bath humidifiers and denumidifier.s. is insufficienf**~eason** for st'andard\;. '


### ConclasiOJr:

, Benefits 

### of a sramfurd for'humidifiers ' anddehumidifiers. compared to no standards. are thats1andardir would'

save energy':'

Burdens'ofa standard for humidifiersare estimated 

### to be:'the increased finrt. cost by about' 14 percent (,$11) over the average cost of a product p.urchased in 1988; the life cycle costis incr.eased'by about $5 over the life cycle minimum.

Burdens of a standard'for' dehumidifiers are estimated'to'

### be::tlie increased'first' cost 

### by about 22 percent ($49) over the average cost of a product' purchased in 19sa;,the life cycfe costis increasedbyahout$10'over the life cycle miirlmum.

. . .., fu 

### lighrofall the factors discoSBed' here**an~'** inthe general:discussibn, on balance-. DOE'believelf 

### !hilt the 

### l'ltmremr

. 'ofstandards for hmnilfifiers and: ' ." ' dehumidifiers outweigh the benefits. ' Therefore, DOE proposes thathumiaifier and'dehumidifier standard's' are not economicallyjiJstified as reqUired'

### liy section,325(b)(2) 

### of

### the AcL.

, IV. PreemptiOn.ofState Regulations.

The Department has adopted ' procedural regulations,at 10.CFR,P&rt' 430. Subpart

### D. giving States:an, opportunity to petition'the Department to preserve**~tate** or local efficiency' stamrards for a covered product. 47 FR' 5719& (December 22; 1'982) and 48 

### FR 39376 (August' 30; 1983). 

### If

### ODE adopts the rule proposedtoday with regard 

### toeach 

### ofthe fuur prod'ucts. any 

### State- er local effiCiency' standard'for 

### those' products wouldbe**supersed~d** pursuanf to section 3Z7{aJ(2) ofthe Act. DOE believes tliat Florida, which h88' 8' dishwasher standard. andNew 

### York ' which 

### has standards for botIr • , dishwashers and'television sets; ai'e 

### theonly States which currently have ' standards for any ofthe four products subject to loday's notice. Nevertheless if. at a future time. any Slare or other' • persons wish the Department to review Slate orlocal efficiency standards that have been promulgated. the regulations' at 10 CFR Part 430•.Subpart D. 'provioethe proceduralrequirements wliich'must' be met;
V. Environmental. Regulatory mipact, and Regulatory Flexibility Reviews

The D"epaMment has reviewed today's proposed action in accordance willi the Department's obligations'under:-

.

• The Natronal Environmental Policy Act 

### of 1969 (NEPA)(4Z'U.S.C. 4321 

### et seq.). the Council on Environmental Quality reguiations-impiementing theprocedural provisions'ofNEPA (40 CPR 1500 et'seq.rand the DepartmenYiI own NEPA guideiines (10 CFR Part 1{)21.);

• Executive Order 12291**(~6'FR** 13193•. February 19. 1981) which pertains 

### to agency review ofthe impact ofFederal regulattons: atler '

• The Regulatory Flexibility Act"(5- U.s.C. 601 etseq.) which requires, ih part. that an agency prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any proposed rule unless 

### it determines that the. rule will not have a "significant -. economic impact' on a substantial. number ohmall entities."'In the evenr that such an analysis is norrequiredfor

a particularrule, the agency must pubUsh a certification and explanation, ofthat determination in the Federal Register.



### a. Envirpnmenta]Review

TheDepartment proposes 

### to establish'

no**ene~gy** efficiency'standards 

### far. fom types ofconsumer products.,By

,**oper~tion** ofthe Act, all State energy effiCiency standards for these products would be preempted, except those,for ' which States petition and raceiva from the D:partment a rule..which,exempts them In IK:cordance 

### Wlth section

. 327(bJ13) of theAct..Thus. the proposed action.potentially has three elements: (1) No establishment of energy efficiency standards fur the four products in those States that do not now have 

### standard's

### Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1, 1985 / Proposed Rules .

in effect; (2) Federal approval of certain For television sets, New York is the State standards (i.e., exemption from only State known to DOE which has Federal preemption); and (3) Federal. standards. New York prohibits instant- "supersession" of certain existing State on television sets. If New York either standards. - does not seek exemption from or is 

### The first element clearly would not be denied an exemption from preemption, environmentally significant since it is elimination of State standards for simply a continuation of the status quo. television sets would result in maximum As for the second element, in all'cases increased energy usage of about 0.002 where DOE is requested to approve Quads per years' State standards, DOE will conduct an For clothes washers and humidifiers appropriate NEPA review on a case-by- and dehumidifiers, DOE is not aware of aPProP any State that has energy efficiency case basis. It is anticipated that the 'vast standards for these products. Since majority of these cases will be State standards do not exist, none will adequately covered by the be preempted and there will clearly be Environmental Assessment (EA) (DOE/ no environmental impact.. EA-.0113) and the Addendum to the EA The 1980 Environmental Assessment which the Department prepared and (EA) and Addendum analyzed the issued on the impact of setting and environmental impacts of setting and implementing energy efficiency implementing Federal energy efficiency standards for all-13 types of consumer standards. One conclusion from this EA products identified in section 322(a)(1)- was that a change in energy usage of 1.6 (13) of the Act. A Finding of No Quads would not have a significant Significant Impact and Notice of impact on the quality of the human Availability of that EA were published environment. As discussed above, the with the June 30, 1980 proposed rule for preemption of State energy efficiency minimum energy efficiency standards standards for the four products would for eight of the products (45 FR 44086). result in a maximum increase of Copies of that Environmental approximately 0.005 Quads per year Assessment and addendum may be (0.003 Quads per year for dishwashers obtained from the address indicated at and 0.002 Quads per year for television the beginning of this notice. • sets). This annual change in energy 

### As for the third element, a State with consumption is considerably less than existing standards could possibly not the change in energy consumption of 1.6 Quads determined not to have a seek exemption or would be denied an , significant impact on the quality of the exemption from preemption. For 'human environment in the 1980 EA. . dishwashers. Florida and New York ate Moreover, there is no difference in kind the only States to DOE's knowledge that between the impacts of setting have applicable energy efficiency standards and eliminating standards. standards. Both States require a switch • Therefore, the Department has 

### to manually control the power dry determined the proposed rulemaking feature. If these two States Either do not clearly will not significantly affect the seek exemption from or are denied an quality of the human environment so exemption from preemption, elimination that neither an Environmental of these standards for dishwashers Assessment or an Environmental Impact would result in maximum increased Statement is required. - energy usage of about 0.003 Quads per b. Regulatory Impact Review year.32 In light of the foregoing analysis of the

32 The increased energy use for dishwashers is effect of the proposed action, DOE has the product of the projected energy use for concluded that the rule is not a •`major dishwashers in 1988 of 0.28 Quads times the fraction rule" for purposes of Executive order
of the nation's households within the States with
standards (12.5 percent) multiplied by the maximum "The increased energy use fortelevision sets is savings that would be realized by the existing State the product of the projected energy use for atagtiards (6.5 percent). See Technical Support television sets in 1988 of 0.22 Quads times the Document. Table 4. for the energy use in 1988. fraction of the Nation's households within New Florida (3.744.000 households) and New York York State (7.9 percent) multiplied by the savings (6.340.000 households) represented about 12.5 realized by standards ( 11 percent). See Technical percent of the Nation's total households (E0.39o.000) Support Document. Table 4 forthe energy use in in 1980

. See Statistical Abstract of the United 1986. New York (6.340.000 households) represented

States
, 1984 . 104th Edition. Table 66. The savings about 7.9 percent of the Nation' s total households
realized by standards are 026 kWh/cycle. See (80,390.000) in 1980. See Statistical Abstract of the
Household Appliance Usage Data. page C-3. The United States, iotth Edition, Table 66. The savings were then divided by the sales-weighted instant-on feature f or television sets uses about 11 Y percent of the annual energy use for television sets. average energy use in 1988 of 3.06 kWh/cycle for a See Energy Efficiency Program for Appliances. savings of s.5 percent See Technical Support - Television Sets, Report 50-RD-77. Federal Energy Document. Table 4. - - Administration, October31,1977. , 

### 12983

12291 because it will not result in: (1) An annual effect on the economy of $100 . million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries

, Federal

, State, or local government agencies

, or geographic regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition

, employment, investment, productivity

, innovation, or on the ability of United States-basedenterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic or export markets

. Therefore

, in accordance with Section 3(c)(3) of the Executive Order. which applies to rules other than major rules

, the proposed rule was submitted to the Director of OMB for review without a regulatory impact analysis. Finally

, as mentioned above, the Department intends to consider the regulatory impacts, consistent with Executive-Order 12291

, of all rules proposed in response to petitions to preserve or supersede State standards under Section 327(b) of the Act, a RegulataryFlexibilityAct The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies, when proposing a rule that is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities , to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The rule proposed today-that is, determination that no standard should be adopted for the four covered products-would not likely have such an impact, if adopted. In light of the foregoing, the Department has determined and hereby certifies pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act that the proposal

, if promulgated

, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In addition, the Department will consider
, as appropriate, any significant economic impact on small entities in deciding petitions to preserve or supersede State standards'under section 327(b) of the Act.


### VI. Public Comment Procedures a. Participation in Rulemaking
DOE encourages the maximum level of public participation possible in this rulemaking. Following publication of th e December 13,1979 advance notice of proposed rulemaking, DOE held two - public meetings to acquaint the public with the issues relating to this particular rulemaking and invited public participation in the rulemaking process. There were also opportunities for the public to submit written comments on the advance notice-. 

### Federal Register 

# I Vol. 50. 

### No. 62 

# I Monday, April 1. 1985 

# I Proposed Rules 

### 12983

in effect: (2) Federal approval ofcertain State standards (i.e.• exemption from.· Federal preemption); and (3) 

### Federal

.. "supersession" ofcertain existing State standards.

The first element clearly would not be environmentally significant since it 

### is simpJya continuation of the status.quo.

As for the second element. in all cases where DOE is requested to approve State standards. DOE will conduct aD 

### appropriate NEPA review on a**case~by** 

### case basis. It 

### is anticipated that the vast majority ofthese cases 

### will be adequately covered by the Environmental Assessment (EA) 

### (DOE/ EA-0113) 

### and the Addendum to the EA 

### which the Department prepared and issued on the impact of setting and implementing energy efficiency standards for all'13 types of**consum~r** 

### products identified in section 322(a)(1}:- (13) 

### ofthe Act. A Finding of.No

. Significant Impact and Notice of

. Availability ofthat EA 

### were published with the June 30. 1980 

### proposed rule for minimum energy efficiency standards for eight of the products (45 FR 44086). 

### Copies ofthat Environmental

. Assessment and addendum may be

. obtained from the address indicated at the beginning ofthis notice.

. .

As for the third element. a State with existing standards could possibly not seek exemption or would be 

### denied an

.. exemption from preemPtion. I:or

. . dishwashers. Florida and New York are the only States to DOE's knowledge that have applicable" energy efficiency '. standards. Both Statesrequire a switch. to manually control the powerdry

. feature. If

### these two States 1!ither do not seek exemption from or are denied an exemption from preemption. elimination ofthese standards for dishwashers would result in maximum increased energy usage ofabout 0.003 

### Quads per year.:s2

... For television sets. New York is the only SlateknoWn to DOE which has standards. New York prohibits instant-

on television sets. 

### IfNew York either does not seek exemption from or is denied an exemption from preemption. elimination ofState standards for 

### television sets would result in maximum increased energy usage ofabout 0.002 Quads peryear. 1I3



### For clothes washers and humidifiers and dehumidifiers. DOE is 

### not aware of any State that has energy efficiency standards for these products. Since State standards do not exist. none will be preempted and there will clearly be

no environmental impact.

.

The 1980 Environmental Assessment (EA) 

### and Addendum analyzed the environmental impacts of setting and implementing Federal energy efficiency standards. One conclusion from this EA



### was that a change in energy usage ofl.6 Quads would not have a significant impact on the quality ofthe human environment. As discussed above. the preemption ofState energy efficiency standards for the four products would result in a maximum increase of approximately 0.005 Quads peryear (0.003 Quads per year for dishwashers and 0.002 Quads peryearfor television

. sets). This annual change in energy consumption is considerably less than the change in energy consumption of 1.6 Quads determined not to have a . Significant impact on the quality of the

.human environment in the 1980 EA. 

### Moreover. there is no difference in

### kind

. between the impacts ofsetting

standards and eliminating standards. Therefore. the Department has determined the proposed ruIemaking clelU'ly will not significantly affect the quality ofthe human environment so that neither an Environmental Assessment or an Environmentallmpact St!ltement is required.
.b. RegulatoryImpact Review

In light ofthe foregoing analysis ofthe effect ofthe proposed action. DOE bas concluded that the rule is not a**~'maior** 

### rule" for purposes ofExecutive Order 12291 because,it will nol result in: (1) An**annu~J** 

### effect on the economy of$100

. . million or more; (2) a major increase in 

### costs orprices for consumers, individual· industries. Federal, Stale. or local '. government agencies, or geographic

.. regions: or (3) significant adv'erse effects

on competition. employment. investment. productivity. innovation, or
on the ability ofUnited States-based enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic or export markets. Therefore. in accordance with Section 3[c)(3) of the Executive Order •. which applies to rules other than major rules. the proposed rule was submitted to the Director of OMB for review without a regulatory impact analysis:

Finally. as mentioned above. the Department intends to consider the regulatory impacts. consistent with Executive·Order lZ291, of 

### all rules proposed in 

### response to petitions 10 

### preserve or supersede State standards under Section.327(b) of the Act.

a. RegulatoryFlexibility

### Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Acl requires agencies. when propOSing a rule that is likely to have 

### a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

### to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The rule proposed today-that is•. determination that no standard should be adopted for the four covered products-would not likely have such an impact. if adopted. In 

### light of the foregoing. the Department has determined and hereby certifies pursuant to section 605(b) 

### of the Regulatory Flexibility Act that the proposal. ifpromulgated. 

### will not have a Significant economic impact 

### on a substantial number of small entities.

In 

### addition. the Department 

### will consider. as appropriate, any significant economic impact on small entities in deciding petitions to preserve or supersede State standards'under section 327(b) 

### ofthe Act.

.**~.PublicConunentFTocedures** ••The increased

### en~rgy**·~.e** for dishwashe

... is the product ofthe projected energy Wle for dishwashers in 1983 of0.211 Quad. til1}es the fraction ofthe nation'. houaehold. within the Stalel. with standard. 

### (U.s percent) multiplied by the maXimum savings that would be realized by the existing State staJUlards (6.5 percent). SeeTechnical Support DOCUMent. Table 4. for the energy use in 1988.**~~**The increated energy ute (ortelevision leta it

- 

### a. Participation 

### inRulemakinz.

. 'riOE ericourages the maximum ievel ofpublic participation possible in this rulemaking. Following publication of the December 13. 1979 

### advance notice of proposed rulemaking. DOE held two public meetings to acquaint the public . Florida (3.744.000 households) and NewYork (6.340.000 households) represenled about

### u.s pe=nl ofthe Nation', lolal households (80.390.000) in 1980. See Statistic:,p! Abstracl ofthe United Siaies. 1964. 101th Edition. Table 66. The I18vings realized by slandards are 026kWh/cycle. See Household Appliance Usage Dala. page C-3. The savings were then divided by the sales-weishted average energy Ide in 1988 of9.06 kWh/cycle for B savings of

### s.s percenLSeeTechnical Support

. Document. Table

.. the product orthe projected energy ute for

. television aets in 1988 or0.22 Quads times the fraction or the Nation's households within New York State (7.9 percent) multiplied by the aavings realized by atandarda (11 percent). See Technical Support Docoment.Table4 for-the enetgyuse in 1988. New York (6.340.000 hOWleholds) represented about 7.9 percent of the Nation'. total households (80.390.000) in 19&i. See Statistical Abstract ofthe United Sillies. 1984. 101thEdition.Table 66. The instant-on feature for television setsuses aOOul11 percent ofthe annual energy use for television sets. See Energy Efficiency Program for Appliances. Televi.oion Sets. Reporl

# 5O-RD-". Federal Energy .' Administration. October31.1977. 

### - with the issues relating to this particular rulemaking and invited public

. participation in the rulemaking process. There were also opportunities for the public to submit written comments on the advance notice: 

# -

### 12984 Federal Register I Vot 50, No. 6Z / Monday., April 1, 1985 / Proposed Rules

The Department again encourages terested persons to participate in:this: rulemaking. Individual consumers,. representatives of consumer groups, manufacturers' associations, States or other governmental entities
,. utilities,. retailers, distributors,. manufacturers,. and others are urged to submit written statements on the proposal. The. . Department also. encourages interested, persons to participate in the-public hearing to be held in Washington. D.C.at the time and place indicated at thebeginning of this notice.. One Technical Support Document has been prepared in connection with this. proposed rule. which is referenced in the text of this preamble. Copies of'this document may be found in the DOE' Freedom of Information Reading Room. Interested persons may obtain copies.of this document by writing to the

. address specified' at the beginning of this notice. The DOE has established a comment period of 90 days following publication. of this notice

, for persons to comment. on this proposal. Upon completion of the. comment period, all comments including the determinations made by the Attorney General- pursuant

. to section 325(d)(5) of the Act and transcripts. of all hearings will be available for review in the DOE. Freedom of Information Reading
,Room.. • .
b. Written Comment Pivicedunes - Interested persons are invited to participate in this proceeding.by submitting written data
, views or arguments with respect to the subjects set forth in this notice

. Instructions for submitting written

- comments are set forth at the beginning of thbrnotibe and` below. It is requested that, wherever reasonably possible, comments for each.. product type of addressed separately. Comments should be, labeled- both, on. the envelope and on, the documents; "Appliances (Docket No. CAS-RU-7#-- 113)" and must be received by- the date specified at the, beginning of this notice,. in. order to insure full consideration: Seven copies are requested. to-be submitted. All comments received by the date specified at the beginning of this notice and other relevant information will be considered by DOE before final action ie taken an the proposed-regulation. As mentioned above, 90-day comment period is being provided. • All, written comments received on. the proposed rule will be available for public inspection at the Freedom of - Information Reading Room as providedat the beginning of this noticePursuant to the provisions: of TO CFfi. 1004,1'1, any person suhmitting: information or data which is believed to. be canfdential: and exempt by law from Each person selected to be heard is. public disclosure, should submit. one requested to submit seven copies of the complete copy of the document, and six statement by the date given-at-the copies, if possible; from:which the beginning of this notice. In the event any information believed to be confidential person wishing to testify cannot meet. has. been deleted: DOE will make its .. . this requirement
, alternative own determination

- with regard to. the arrangements can.be made with the confidential status of the, information-or Office of Hearings and Dockets in ' data and treat it.accordingto its . advance by so indicating in the letter determination . -- - - requesting to make an oral- presentation. Factors

, of'interest to DOE, whom Lists of the persons selected to be evaluating requests to. treat an heard at the hearings will be. available

- confidential' informaiion

. thathas been upon request from the Office of -- 

### submitted include:- (1)-A description of Hearings and Dockets at the address the item; (

2) an indication as to whether and after dates specifiedat the and why such items of'information have beginning of this notice

. The lists will. been treated by the

. submitting party as also be available for inspection in the, confidential, and whether and why such DOE Freedom. of Information Reading items are customarily treated as

- Room as specified at the

. beginning of confidential within the industry;-(3), this notice. whether the information is generally 2. Conduct of Hearing. DOE reserves known

. or available

. from other sources: the right to select the persons to be 

### (4) whether the-information bas . . - heard at this hearing, to schedule the previously been made available

. tor- . respective presentations

,, and to others without obligation concerning its establish the procedures governing-the confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the conduct of the hearing. The length of competitive injur

y. to-the submitting each presentation is limitedto 20 person which would result from public minutes, disclosure; (a) an indication as to when A DOE official will be designated. to. such information might. lose its preside al the hearing. The hearing will confidential character due to- the. not be a judicial or an evidentiary-type passage

. of time;

. and (7) whether bearing, but will be conducted in, disclosum of the information would be accordance with 5 USC 553 and Section in dce

. public interest

.. . 336 of the Act. At the-conclusion of'aU
C. Pubtic Nearirw initial oral statements at each day of the hearing, each person who- has made an L Procedure for Submitting Requests oral statement will be given the to Speak. In. order to have the benefit of opportunity to make a rebuttal abroad range of public viewpoints in: statement

, subject to time limitations. this rulemaking

. DOE will hold a

- The rebuttal statements will be given in' hearing. Listed at the beginning of this

. the order in which the initial statements notice are the date, address, and DOE were made ; The official conducting the contact for this bearing Any person who hearing will accept additional comments has an interest in these prooeedings
,.or. or questions from those attending,. as who is a representative ef'agroup.ac time permits

. Any interested person may class of persons having an interest

, may: submit to the: presiding official; written make a written:requestforan questions to be asked of any person, opportunity to make an oral making a statement at the hearing. The presentation at the public

.hearing

. Such presiding

, official will. determine whether requests should be labeled both on the the question is relevant and whether letter and the evelope , "Appliances, time limitations permit it to be presented (Docket No. CAS-RM-79-113)" and for response. 

### should be sent to the address

. and must Any further procedural rules regarding be received by the time specified at the. proper conduct of the hearing will be beginning of this notice

. _ _ announced by the presiding official.. The person making

.the requestshauhl A transcript of the hearing will be; briefly describe the interest concerned' made

, and the entire record of thin and, if appropriate

, state why he or-she rulemaking
, including the transcript, will is a proper representative of the group be retained by DOE and made available or class of persons

. that has such. an. for inspection at the DOE Freedom of interest

, and give a- telephone number Inf ormation Reading Room as provided where he or she may be contacted

. Each - at the beginning of this notice. Any person requesting an opportunity

. to. person may purchase a copy of the speak should give a

. concise summary of transcript from the transcribing reporter. theproposed oral presentation. Each

- In consideration of the foregoing, it is person selected to be heard will be so proposed to. amend Fart 430 of Chapter notified by DOE-by the date specified at . II of Title 1.0. Code of Federal the beginning of this notice; Regulations, as set forth below. 

### 129M Federal Register 

## I Vot 50. No. 

### 62.. 

## I Monday.. April 

### 1. 1985 

## I Proposed Rules

The Department again encourages: terested persons ID participam in:thi!r. rulemaking. Individuafconsumers. representatives of consumergroups. manufacturers' associations. States on other governmental eatWes.**utiU~ies.­** retailers. distributors•. mauufacturel'

.... and others are urged to- submit written. stalemenls onthe pmposa1. The.

. Departmentalso.encourages interested. persons to pal'ticipate in iliepublic:. hearing 

### to be held in Washington."n.c.. at the time andplace indicated at the. beginning of

### this 

### neUce.

.

One TechnicalSupport Document has been prepared'in connection with·tllis. proposed rule.whrcll is referenceciih the text of tbis preamble. Copies of'this

.. document may be found in the DOE' Freedom ofInformation Reading Room. Interested persons may obtain copies.of this document by writing 

### to the.address specified'at the begiiming afthis notice,

The DOE has established a comment period of 90 daysfollowing publication. of this notice. for persons \0 comment· O.D this proposal. Upon completion of the. comment period. all comments including the determinatiol1I! madeby 

### the. Attorney General

### parsuant to section 325(d)(&) of the Act and transcripts.oCall hearings will be available.fer review in the DOE.FreedomoflDIarmatiOD Readlpg,Raom.

.. 

### b. Written Comment

### Procedures

rnterested persons are iDvitedfo participate iLl this proceedinsoy submitting wriften data. views or .: arguments wilh respect fa the sobjech! set forth in 

### furs notice. Instructions 

### for submitting w.rrtten·comments are 

### set forth at the begiiurlng of thiSnotice and' below. Itis requested that. wherever reasonably possible.'comments for each product type ofaddressed separately.

Comments shouldbe labeledboth· em' the envelope 

### and**Oll~**the lincaments; ··Appliances.fDocka

### No. CAS-RM-7it113)" andmusl be received by'the 

### daW specified atthe beginning of this DOUce,. in. order tt) insurefull consideration, Seven copies are requested.

### to·he submitted. All comments received b)!' the dale specified at the beginning of this notice and othel: relevant

. information 

### will be considered 

### by 

### DOE' before final action h

.. taken an the**propo9~egulation.** As mentioned above. 9O-day comment period is being provided.

. . ,

AU written comments r.eceilTed on·the proposed rule 

### will be availabTe 

### for public inspectiOn at the Freedom 

### of' lnformation Reading Room as provided at the beginning of**this:notiCe~** .

Purstlant to the pravisi(JlJ$: of16 

### CFR. l004..n. any: Penlon submitJirlg

. information or data whicll is. aelieved !D. b,e canfjdeDiial:an.d exempt: by law 

### from publicdisdosure. should submit.one complete copy of the document, and six copieS'. 

### if.possible. from:which 

### the information believed 

### to be confidential has.beendele1ed; DOE 

### will makefts

.. own determina!ion'withregard to 

### the confidential status-·afthe' imorrna.tiOll!Oll data and b:eat**itaccoro~to** ita

, determination. !.

Factors.of'interest til DOE. 

## whe.rD evalna1ing requests' 

### to.treat as; confidentialinfortnaiion.

### thathas been; submittedinclude:'(11A description 

### of the item;.

## (..2l an indication as to whether' and why. such items ofinformation hav.e. been treated by**the.submittingp~as** confidentiaL and whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within 

### the indusb!y;' (3) whether the information is generally knowuor: available.from other aom:ces; f41whether the-information baa ' . . previDusly been made available.ta·

. . others without obligation concerning its confidentiality: (5) an explanation ofthe competilive injurylD·the submitting person which wouldresult from public disclosure; (6) ari. indication 8S la when such information rnight.lolle 

### ita confidential chamcter due to·theo. pllSsage. oftime:. and(7) whether disclOl!ll:m orthe information woufdbe in 

### lim.public'interesU.



### c. Public Hearing:;

.

1. Procedure for: Submitting Requests: to Speali:. 

### In. order 

### to have the benefit

### or
a br-oad range ofpublic viewpoints;in: this rulemaking. DOE will bolda . hearing. Listed at the beginning 

### ofthis. notice are the date. address. and DOE contact 

### for this bearing. Any personwho has aninterest in these proCEedings

.. or: who is areprelientativ.e era.gratlp.QI: " class ofpersons haviilg-an 

### inrerast. may:' make a wriften:requestmraD: opportunity to make

## an,a presentation at the public.hearing. SlU:h requests should be labeTed Doth OIl the letter and the eveIope

... 

### Appnanc::es. (Docket No. CAS-RM-790-113)" 

### and should be sent

### to the 

### address.and.must be received by the time specified 

### at the beginning of this notice.

. ...... .



### The person making.

### the reqllestshmdd briefly describe the interestconcerned' and. 

### ifappropriate. state why he arme is a pt:oper representatf,\le of

### ilie. group
or class ofpersons that has suell.aainterest. and give a' telepnone number where 

### lie or she may be contacted. Each person requesting an opportunity. to. speak should give a.concise summary of the·proposed oral presentation. Each penlon selected 

### to Be heanf

### w.iU' be so noti.fiedby DOE'by the date specifieciitl. the beginning of-this;notim!:. 

### Each person selected to be heard is· requested to submit seven copies of the statement by the date given·altha. beginning ofthis notice. In the event any person wishing to testify cannotmeet. 

### this requirement. alternative

. arrang!?ments can.oe mad'e willi Ilie Office of Hearings and Dodets in

. advance 

### by so indicating in the letter requestihg to make an oralpresentation.

.

Lists ofthe persons serecteato be heard at the nearihgs wilfbe'avaiIaDle' upon request from ffie Office of'

-- HearIngs and Dockets at' the address and after aates specified' at the beginning ofIhis notice-. The lists 

### will· also be available for inspeclionin the' DOE Freedom.ofInformation Reading. Room as specified at the.beginnin:g

### of this not:il2.



### 2. Conduct 

### of Hearing. DOE tl!servesthe right to select the petsons to 

## hi heard at this bearing. to schedule the respective presentations•. and to establish the procedurei goveming·the condlU:t of 

### the hearing. The length of eru::h presentation ia limited

### to 20 miDlltes..

A DOE omclalwill be designated.

### to. preside at 

### the hearing. The hearing will not be 8 judicial or 

### an. evidentiary-type bearing. but 

### will be conducted·iD. accordance with 5 USC 553 and Section 336 ofthe Act. At 

### !lie.conclUSIon ofall initial oralstateuumts at each day ofthe hearing. each person who'has made an oral- statement 

### will be given the opportunity to make a rebuttar statement. subjecf to' time limitations. The reouttalstatements-

## win be given 

## m' ·the order iit which the initial statemmfIJ

were made; The official conducting the hearing will accept additional comments

orqllestions from those attending..as time 

### permits. Ally interested person may' 

### submit to the presiding official:writreB questions to be asked of any person: making a statement at !hi! heB£ing. 

### 1\'he. prlHliding, official Mll·lilelermine ""hether the question is relevant and whether time limitations permit it to be presented' for response.

Any further procedural rules regarding. proper conduct ofthe hearing will be announced by. the presiding official..

A transcript

### ofthe hearing

### will be, made. and 

### the entire record of'this' rulemaking. including the tranScript. 

### win be retained 

### byDOE and made available for inspection at the DOEFreedOm. 

### Qf

. Information Reading Room asprov.ided

a 1the beginnfug 

### ofthis notice.. An,! person may purchase- Ii copy 

### of the transcript from the transcribing reporter.

In consideration 

### of the furegoing. it is proposed to. amend 17art 430 ofChapter II ofTitle 10, Code o[Federal Regulations. as set forth**belo.w~**

### Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 62 / Monday, April 1. 1985 / Proposed Rules

Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Pub. L 94-163, as amended by Pub. L 95-619; Department of Energy . Organization Act, Pub. L 95-M.' List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 Administrative practice and procedure. Energy conservation. Household appliances.

Issued in Washington, D.C.. March 15,1985. Donna R. Fitzpatrick. ', Acting Assistant Secretary, Conservation and Renewable Energy.

PART 430-ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
§ 430.32 [Amended]
Section 430.32 is amended by addimg paragraphs (c). (hj, (j), and (k), as follows:

(c) Dishwashers: No standard for all classes.

(h) Televisions sets; No standard for all classes.



### (j) Clothes washers: No standard for all classes. (k) Humidifiers and dehumidifiers: No standard for all classes.
[FR Doc. 85-7646 Filed 3-29-85: 6:45 am]

BIWNG Cooa 646o-01-11 

### 12985 Federal Register

, Vol. 50, No. 62

, Monday, April 1. 19B5 

## I Proposed**Rule~**


### Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Pub. 

### L. 94-163, 

### as amended by Pub. 

### L. 95-619; 

### DeparbnentofEner.gy Organization Act,**~b.** 

### L. 95-91.**~** 

### Ust of Subjects in 

### 10 CFR 

### Part 430

Administrative practice and :. procedure. Energy conservation.

.**H~usehold** 

### appliances.

. .

Issued in Wa&hingtan. D.C.• March 15. 1965. Donna R. Fitzpatrick. •. ActingAssistantSecretary. Conservation ancf RenewableEnergy.

. PART 430-ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
§ 430.32 [Amended]



### Section 430.32 is amended by addimg paragraphs (cl. (h'. 

## GJ. and 

### (k). a8 

### follows: 

## • • 

# ·

.



### (cl Dishwashers: No standard for all classes

. 

## • •

.(h) 

### Televisions sets; No standard for all classes

. 

## • 

## • • • •

(j) 

### Clothes washers: No standard for all classes.

(kl Humidifiers and

### d~humidjfilirs: No 

### standard for all classes. [FR Doc. 65-7646 Filed 3-29-85; 6:45 am)

.'WNG CODE 14Il0-0'

.... 

## 12985