**~s. ~**  E.**i~~ -.~** **·~~,=-** r ••

.. ;
'<' . t.·· 

## f; l 

### ., ,November 25, 1997 DOE Meeting with 

### AHAM · .Clothes Washer Standards 2:30 - 4:00 

### p.m: \



### DOE Attendees: Deborah Miller, Michael McCabe, Carl Adams, Eugene Margolis, Mark Fredrichs, Bryan Berringer, Qonnie Laughlin . ·· AHAM Attendees: Charles Samuel, Wayne Morris Other Attendees:**Mi~hael** 

### Rivest (ADL). Mr. 

### Charles Samuel met with Mr. 

### Reicher on November 19, 1997, to discuss the clothes washer

• I • ' 

### standards rulemaking and delivered a letter concerning outstanding issues pertaining to analyses

. to be conducted as part ofthe rulemaking. (Attached is the AHAM letter.) The subject ofthe · · ·meeting was the tWelve points raised in the letter and the responses prepared by the Department.

Below is a briefdjscussion ofeach ofthe twelve points. ' 

### 1 & 2. 

### Electricity ·prices and future enem prices. DOE's initial analysis will use the EIA AEO 1998 energy price forecast. Furthermore, we expect to modify the forecast to·remove the fixed charges as discussed by the forecasting subcommittee and apply the trend in average price from the AEO 1998. 

### In addition, DOE will, as part ofits scenario and sensitivity analyses; use other

.energy prices forecasts that may be available,.e.g., GRI. With regard to fixed charges, DOE can agree to the concept but exactly how it will 

### be done. is not known yet. IfDOE had the AHAM. data we can do the analysis, use different assumptions, e."g. removal offixed charges, AEO 98 trends, etc., and provide explanations. · 

## 3. Water rates and projecflon of future water rates. 

### Unless DOE is able to·locate data on water rates and projections, the Department intends on using the 1995 A WWA data. DOE will 

### be. fooking at other sources because A WWAdoesri't

### make futUre projections. DOE will also use the most current data available. · · 4. Electric andgas waterheatermarketshare.. 

### EIA, in its RECS database includes detailed infolll)atiori on market share of

### gas and electric water heaters in homes. Furthermore, these data also includes market share information on water heaiers in homes with clothes washers. DOE will be using the latest RECS data for the hi_storical satu_ration and REM for theforecasted analysis.


# , s: Market

### divi~ion o{eldctric and

# gas dryers.

### ~CS also·

### includ~s data on clothes dryers. DOE intends on using these·data

## as well..DOE will

### be using the latest RE;CS data for the historical saturation and REM for**t~e** 

### forecasted analysis,_ · · 

### For.questions 4 

### and 5, 

### AHAM.currently has shipment datafor 2o·years butthey don't have it**ma~ched** 

### up by combination'ofwasher and type ofdryer and type ofwater heater. The most current RECS data is 1993 and we should do some. sanity checks on the data. Since RECS does



# .-

..**--....:.--~ ~~~--'-----~_;;...** 

# ______ . . I .



# ..

# -· not make future projections, DOE**~11** be makitig these projections, subject to stakeholder comments. 6. · 

### Future clothes washershipments. The alternative shipment forecasts.presented at the last

.clothes washer workshop provide,.DOE believes, a reasonable bound ofthe likely future

shipments. DOEwill continue to check with EIA and others.for recent data regarding ownership ofclothes washers, including.clothes washers in multi-family housing and manufactured homes. DOE will**contim~e** to forecast using historical data including such factors as saturation data and average**lif~time.** · 7. 

### LCCanalvsis spreadsheet: TheLCC analysis spreadsheet has not been revised. DOE and LBNL haye requested comments but none have been provided.. 

### As new data such as equipment. cost and energy prices become available the spreadsheet will be updated and distributed. • AHAM wanted the spreadsheet to be updated to incorporate the efficiency level vs. design option . approach. This will nqt take long to do· but would be easier to do with the data rather than in · some generic way. DOEwill get the LCC spreadsheet to people as soon as it is updated but ·there will a number ofitems to incorporate, e.g. price forecasts, Advisory Committee . recommendations, and RECS number. AHAM should workwith DOE contractor onthe revisions. A template is needed for putting in ranges ofnumbers. Crystal ball has already been combined with the LCC spread sheet. Even ifLBNLmakes all the changes discussed today, there is still the problem ofgenerating future prices. We.will have to.use a comfortable range for current prices as a first cut and refine as we go along. 8. 

### Discount rates. Discount rates do not represent a distribution ofvalues; rather alternative assumptions. The Department will.conduct separate LCC analyses using discount rates of2, 6- , and 15 percent, net ofinflation. All ofthe results will be·considered without any specific ·· weighting factor. Special analyses, e.g. the impact on subset ofthe population, can be conducted 

### alw. · · · . ·

. ' 9. 

### Cost of changes atdifferent e(ficiencv levels. The costdataprovided by 

### AHAM, marked up to price, will be used. DOE expects AHAMto provide the full distribution ofcosts for the · industry. This distribution includes the range and a weighing ofcosts for each:efficiency level developed by Mike Rivest ofADL and Wayne Morris ofAHAM. DOE

### will use the full distribution but. ifit looks strai:ige, then it needs to be evaluated and discussed.. AHAM needs to work with DOE in capturing all the data.

. 10. 

### Start yearfor the analysis. Based onthe current schedule, the earliest effective date would be October2002, three years after the expected issuance ofthe final rule. The Department will consider**ot~~r** effective dates. in weighti":g the impacts ofpossible standards. We expect energy savings to be calculated to the year 2030. ' · · · · · 11. 

### The manufacturerandretailmark-up. At present, the mark-up assumptions being considered for the LCCanalysis are: retail
- fixed at 

### 1.4; taxes - fixed at 

### 1.052; manufacturer
- variable between I and 1.35 (note: the mark-up over costs for the baseline unit= 1.35). Variability in manufacturer mark-up is to reflect different cost pass through assumptions. Thus,

## . - .**~,**. total mark-up ranges froni appro*1tately l.45 to 2.0, with a nlidpoint ofapproxi_mately 1.75. The mark-ups are based on a draft discussion paper onretail prices and mark-ups, which is currently under review. This paperwill be distributed to st3keholders in the near future.

. ' 12. Baseline retail price. In the year 1994, for which retail price information is available.from three sources (Census-ConsumerExpenditure Survey, Dealerscope and Elrick & Lavidge's ELCAP), the average price ofclothes washers**w~s** $400.25. Currently the Department only has ELCAP_prices- for 1996 and part of 1997. Fromthis data it.appears the price trend is flat. Hence, the Department intends to use $400.25 

### as the baseline 

### cost:-As additional databecomes available, the Department will consider it. .



### _

AHA!vI indicated that they would be talking to manufacturers onDecember 

### 1 and that they would

-be recommending that the databe sent to DOE. DOE

## Will try to get the ccystal ball template

done as soon as possible after the Advisory Committee meeting.

- . ' In addition to the issues raised above, there was a short discussion onthe clothes washertest

-procedures and an extension ofthe effective date. for representation purposes. DOE indicated that they were likely to grant the petition for extension according to the appropriate section in EPCA.



## -------------- - - . ---