DOE 11/15/96 1 

## CP I • b ,.

DOE 

# Clothes Washer Standards Rulelnaking

11/15/96 1

### : Summary of DOE Draft Reports

- Design Options

- Engineering Analysis
. Future Analyses

DOE 11/15/96 2 DOE >

## cs .:. SUInInary of DOE Draft Reports

- Design Options

- Engineering Analysis .:. Future Analyses

11/15/96 2

## )ign Option Xeor o Product classes segregated by size 

### (compact and standard) : Reports are limited to standard capacity -lack of data for compacts -compacts represent small market share

DOE 11/15/96 3 DOE 

# °gn Option Report .:. Product classes segregated by size (colTIpact and standard) .:. Reports are lilllited to standard capacity 

### -la.ck of data for cOlllpacts -cOlllpacts represent slllalllllarket share

11/15/96 3

## gkn COptions 

## onsi eIeL : To consider a design option it must be technically feasible (e.g. at a minimum a working prototype with public data) 

### : 20 

### design options were 

### investigated (report page 3) 

### -DOE proposed design options in the November 1994, ANOPR -DOE received feedback from industry -design options were added -terminology changes were made DOE 11/15/96 4 

# · n Options Considered .:. To consider a designoptionitmustbe technically feasible (e.g. ata minimum a vvorking prototypewithpublic data) . •

:. 20 designoptions were investigated (reportpage 3) -DOE proposed designoptions inthe Novell1ber 1994, ANOPR -DOEreceived feedback from industry -designoptions were added -terminologychangeswere l11ade
DOE 11/15/96 4

## ning ofDesign Option

- The Department considers the following factors to determine if a design option should be eliminated from consideration: -Practicability to manufacture, install and service -Adverse impacts on product utility or availability -Adverse impacts to health or safety : 8 ofthe 20 design options were tentatively eliminated

- Currently, DOE intends to consider 12 design options (report page 15) DOE 11/15/96 5 

# ;' ening of Design Options .:. The Departmentconsiders the following factors to deterllline ifa designoption shouldbe elilllinated from. consideration: -Practicability to lllanufacture, install and service -Adverse illlpacts onproductutility or availability -Adverse illlpacts to healthor safety .:. 8 ofthe 20 designoptions were tentatively elilllinated .:. Currently, DOE intends to consider 12 design· options (reportpage 15) DOE 11/15/96 5

## i 'fineering Anaysis

. 

### Based on AHAM aggregated data (uncertainty/variability analysis has not been conducted yet) :Based on proposed Appendix J1 test procedure (April 1996, NOPR) with revision to discount Remaining Moisture Content (RMC) (improved extraction used only 75% of time by consumers)

- Developed in terms of a Modified Energy Factor (MEF) DOE 11/15/96 6 

# "neeringAnalysis
.' .:. Based onAHAM aggregated data. (uncertainty/variability analysishasnotbeen conductedyet) .:. Based onproposed Appendix

## Jl.testprocedure (April 1996, NOPR) withrevisionto discount RelllainingMoisture Content (RMC) (illlproved extractionused only 75

### %oftillle byconsulllers) .:. Developed interlllS of a Modified EnergyFactor (MEF)
DOE 11/15/96 6.. ::!.ii i!:i .:...:...:~:!:!~ iiii.~..iiiiiiisi-i'i^i<r":i-i: :1 s ^ I::.. 

## ineering

## AnalIysis Resuits Energy use Hot water Mech anical Dryer Water use Per cycle Water Consumption Factor (WCF) Annual results Energy and water consumption Operating Expense Efficiency Modified Energy Factor (MEF) Percentage improvement
DOE 11/15/96 7 

# ineeringAnalysisResults Energy use Hot water Mechanical Dryer Water use Per cycle Water Consumption Factor (WCF) Annual results Energy and water consumption Operating Expense Efficiency Modified Energy**Facto~** (MEF) Percentage improvement
DOE 11/15/96 7.:: D::: ii ii;.

## .. t S.eps.. for Engineering
+ 

### Receive stakeholder inputs to identify and resolve remaining issues + Prepare revised engineering analysis, schedule dependent upon extent of issues identified today + Provide revised analysis to stakeholders for comment prior to Supplemental ANOPR being published DOE 11/15/96 8 

# t Stepsfor Engineering alysis .:. Receive stakeholder inputs to identify and resolve relllaining issues .:. Prepare revised engineering analysis, schedule dependentupon extent ofissues identified today .:. Provide revised analysis to stakeholders for COlll111ent prior to Supplelllental 

### ANOPR beingpublished 11/15/96 8

### nsumer and National Impact

. Energy and water saving forecasting + 

### Report discussing possible approaches and sources of data will be made available in January 1997 + 

### Workshop tentatively scheduled for February 26, 1997 : Draft analysis expected with Supplemental ANOPR, April 1997 DOE 11/15/96 9 DOE 

# re Analyses - . umer and National Impact .:. Energy andwater savingforecasting .:. Report discussing possible approaches and sources of data willbe made available in January 1997 .:. Workshop tentatively scheduledfor February26, 1997 .:. Draftanalysis expected withSupplemental ANOPR, April 1997 11/15/96 9'tianufacturer 

### Impact : DOE is currently undergoing intensive effort to improve analytical methodology :Manufacturer impact workshop tentatively scheduled for February 5, 1997 : Analysis for clothes washers will need to consider impact ofproprietary designs known to DOE

DOE 11/15/96 10 

# re Analyses - ufacturer Impact .:. DOE is currently undergoing intensive effort to illlprove analyticallllethodology .:. Manufacturer iIllpact workshop tentatively scheduled for February 5,1997 .:. Analysis for clothes washers willneed to consider illlpact ofproprietary designs known to 

### DOE

DOE 11/15/96 10+ 

### Analyses to address impact on electric and gas utilities will be conducted + 

### Analysis to project emission reductions and water savings for various candidate standard levels will be conducted

DOE 11/15/96 11 DOE :",.:.:.:.:.:.,.:.",."'. IP..,." .., ........-, II . -til

### ~~""Jlty 

## ana**~nvlronmental** ,"H 

# JITalyses .:. Analyses to address illlpact onelectric and gas utilities will be conducted

... :. Analysis to project elllissionreductions and \Vater savingsfor various candidate standard levels\ViII be conducted .

11/15/96 11

## ... t on Competition

. Department ofJustice (DOJ) makes a determination regarding any lessening of competition

- impact on consumers in terms of cost, quality, and innovation of products in the market : DOJ analysis previously based on NOPR

- DOE plans to involve DOJ early in the manufacturing impact analysis process DOE 11/15/96 12 · '- 

# ct on Competition .:. DepartlllentofJustice (DOJ) lllakes a deterIninationregarding any lessening of cOlllpetition**~** illlpact onconSUl11ers interl11S ofcost, quality, andinnovationofproducts inthe lllarket .:. DO] analysispreviouslybased onNOPR

- DOEplansto involve DO] early inthe lllanufacturingilllpactanalysis process DOE 11/15/96Revieewers



### · Richard Topping, Arthur D. Little Inc. ** James Gordon, Independent Consultant

.:John Tomlinson, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
DOE 11/15/96 13 

# RevieIvers .:. Richard Topping, Arthur D. Little Inc.

.

:. James Gordon, Independent Consultant .:. John Tomlinson, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
DOE 11/15/96 13

## n Options *:20 options analyzed :*8 options tentatively eliminated

DOE 11/15/96 14 

### .:. 20 

### options analyzed 

### .:. 8 options tentatively eliminated

DOE 11/15/96 14

## sig InOptions E limnated Design Option Reason for Tentative Elimination Improved Water Extraction for Technical Feasibility - No known prototype RMC's of35% Improved Water Extraction for Technical Feasibility - No known prototype RMC's of 30% Suds Saving Negative impact to utility; No energy savings Reduced Thermal Mass Technical Feasibility - No known method to reduce thermal mass below baseline (plastic tub). Electric Disassociation ofWater Technical Feasibility - No known prototypes for residential use Ultrasonic Washing Technical Feasibility - No known prototype Bubble Action No known energy savings Ozonated Laundering Technical Feasibility - No known prototypes for residential use DOE 11/15/96 15 

# sign Options Eliminated Design Option Reason for Tentative Elimination Improved Water Extraction for Technical Feasibility - No known prototype RMC's of 35% Improved Water Extraction for Technical Feasibility - No known prototype RMC's of 30% Suds Saving Negative impact to utility; No energy savings Reduced Thermal Mass Technical Feasibility - No known method to reduce thermal mass below baseline (plastic tub). Electric Disassociation ofWater Technical Feasibility - No known prototypes for residential use Ultrasonic Washing Technical Feasibility - No known prototype Bubble Action No known energy savings ozonated Laundering Technical Feasibility - No known prototypes for residential use DOE 11/15/96 15"a a i 

## esz, C^Options Consiaered in ':~4~,~iBvBIIW ZU m I ( in jSIS uj : rli infry Ynt inrin Ancl9ysi0 o Improved fill control : Horizontal axis with

. Tighter tub tolerance recirculation o Thermostatically : Automatic fill control controlled mixing valves * Increased motor efficiency (TCMV) + Direct drive motor o Improved water Improved water ,: Advanced controls/sensor extraction for RMC of 50% (l ld (soil load sensor) : Improved water . 4 * Improved water ./.: Added insulation extraction for RMC of 40%

· Horizontal axis design

DOE 11/15/96 16

### ~pesign 

# Options Considered in I\( 

# iminary EngineeringAnalysis .:. Improved fill control .:. Tighter tub tolerance .:. Thermostatically .:. Horizontal axis with recirculation .:. Automatic fill control controlled mixing valves (TCMV) .:. Increased motor efficiency .:. Direct drive motor -:. Improved water .:. Advanced controls/sensor extraction for RMC of 50% (soil load sensor) .:. Improved water .:. Added insulation extraction for RMC of40% .:. Horizontal axis design DOE 11/15/96 16

## n Options or Consideration -: Are there any other design options DOE should consider?

DOE 11/15/96 17 

# ·'gn Optionsfor Consideration .:. Are there any other designoptions DOE should consider?

DOE 11/15/96 17

## te for EstablishingPro uct

. Classes established based on

- different kind of energy

- capacity or performance-related feature that justifies a higher or lower standard

- In considering whether a performance related feature justifies establishment of a higher or lower standard, consumer utility is considered 42 USC 6295 (q) DOE 11/15/96 18 

# ,,"teriafor Establishing Product**>~ft:.** ,:::;:::::: .:. Classes establishedbased on

- differentkind ofenergy

- capacity orperform.ance-relatedfeature that justifies a higher orlower standard .:. Inconsideringwhether a perform.ance related featurejustifies establishlllentof a higher or lower standard, consum.er utility is considered 42 USC 6295 (q) DOE 11/15/96 18..........,1... -INA d-It 

### Fr 

## for 

## Engineering Analy s : Peer reviewers expressed significant concerns regarding validity and uncertainty of data

- Alternative methods for improving data :DOE requests inputs from stakeholders on how to resolve issues
19 DOE 11/15/96 

# for EngineeringAnalysis .:. Peer reviewers expressed significant concerns regardingvalidity and uncertainty of data .:. Alternative methods for illlproving data 

### .:. DOE requests inputs from. stakeholders on ho"W to resolve issues
DOE 11/15/96 . 19