3-i

CHAPTER 3. MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 PRODUCT DEFINITIONS......................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 PRODUCT CLASSES................................................................................................. 3-2

3.4 PRODUCT TEST PROCEDURES.............................................................................. 3-3

3.5 MANUFACTURER TRADE GROUPS ...................................................................... 3-5

3.6 MANUFACTURER INFORMATION ........................................................................ 3-5

3.6.1 Manufacturers and Market Shares................................................................................ 3-5

3.6.2 Mergers and Acquisitions............................................................................................ 3-8

3.6.3 Small Business Impacts..............................................................................................3-10

3.6.4 Distribution Channels.................................................................................................3-10

3.7 REGULATORY PROGRAMS...................................................................................3-11

3.7.1 Federal Energy Conservation Standards Prior to EISA 2007.......................................3-11

3.7.2 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007..........................................................3-12

3.7.3 State Energy Conservation Standards..........................................................................3-12

3.7.4 Canadian Energy Conservation Standards...................................................................3-13

3.7.5 Mexican Energy Conservation Standards....................................................................3-14

3.7.6 International Energy Performance Standards for Residential Clothes Washers............3-14

3.7.7 International Standby Power Regulatory Programs.....................................................3-15

3.8 VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS.....................................................................................3-17

3.8.1 Consortium for Energy Efficiency ..............................................................................3-17

3.8.2 ENERGY STAR.........................................................................................................3-17

3.8.3 Federal Energy Management Program........................................................................3-18

3.8.4 Manufacturer Tax Credits for Energy-Efficient Appliances ........................................3-18

3.8.5 Consumer Tax Credits for Energy-Efficient Appliances..............................................3-19

3.8.6 Rebates for Highly Energy-Efficient Products ............................................................3-19

3.9 HISTORICAL SHIPMENTS......................................................................................3-20

3.9.1 New Home Starts........................................................................................................3-20

3.9.2 Unit Shipments...........................................................................................................3-21

3.9.3 Value of Shipments ....................................................................................................3-23

3.9.4 Imports and Exports....................................................................................................3-24

3.10 HISTORICAL EFFICIENCIES..................................................................................3-25

3.11 MARKET SATURATION .........................................................................................3-25

3.12 PRODUCT RETAIL PRICES ....................................................................................3-26

3.13 INDUSTRY COST STRUCTURE .............................................................................3-28

3.14 INVENTORY LEVELS AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION RATES .........................3-32

3.15 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT...............................................................................3-34

3.15.1 Product Operations and Components..........................................................................3-34

3.15.2 Technology Options ...................................................................................................3-36

3.15.3 Energy Efficiency.......................................................................................................3-48
3-ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.6.1 Major and Other Residential Clothes Washer Manufacturers ................................ 3-6

Table 3.6.2 2000–2008 Clothes Washer Market Share............................................................. 3-7

Table 3.6.3 Major Appliance Sales by Channel (Purchased between 2001 and 2005) .............3-10

Table 3.7.1 Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers Established 

by the January 2001 Final Rule .......................................................................3-12

Table 3.7.2 Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers Established 

by EISA 2007 .................................................................................................3-12

Table 3.7.3 California Water Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers..........3-13

Table 3.7.4 Canadian Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers .........3-13

Table 3.7.5 Mexican Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Clothes Washers...............3-14

Table 3.7.6 International Energy Efficiency Standards and Labels for Residential Clothes 

Washers..........................................................................................................3-15

Table 3.7.7 Proposed EU Ecodesign requirements for standby and off mode..........................3-16

Table 3.8.1 CEE Criteria for Residential Clothes Washers......................................................3-17

Table 3.8.2 ENERGY STAR Criteria for Residential Clothes Washers ..................................3-18

Table 3.8.3 FEMP Recommendations for Residential Clothes Washers..................................3-18

Table 3.8.4 Consumer Tax Credits Offered for Energy Efficient Clothes Washers..................3-19

Table 3.8.5 Rebates Offered for Highly Energy-Efficient Clothes Washers in 2008................3-19

Table 3.9.1 New Privately Owned Single-Family and Multi-Family Housing Unit Starts 

in the United States from 1998–2010 .............................................................3-20

Table 3.9.2 Industry Shipments of Residential Clothes Washers 1992-2010 (Domestic 

and Import, in Thousands of Units),

................................................................3-21

Table 3.9.3 ENERGY STAR Clothes Washer Shipments and Market Share, 1998-2009 

(Domestic and Import),, ..................................................................................3-23

Table 3.9.4 Annual Value of Shipments of Household Laundry Equipment............................3-24

Table 3.10.1 Residential Clothes Washer Tub Volume, Energy Consumption, and Energy 

Efficiency Trends (Shipment Weighted Averages) ..........................................3-25

Table 3.11.1 Clothes Washer Saturation Rate for U.S. Households, 2000-2008......................3-26

Table 3.12.1 Residential Appliance Retail Prices ...................................................................3-26

Table 3.13.1 Major Appliance Manufacturing Industry Employment and Earnings ...............3-28

Table 3.13.2 Household Laundry Industry Employment and Earnings....................................3-29

Table 3.13.3 Major Appliance Manufacturing Industry Materials and Wages Cost.................3-30

Table 3.13.4 Household Laundry Industry Materials and Wages Cost ....................................3-31

Table 3.13.5 Industry Cost Structure Using SEC Data, Average 2005-2008 ...........................3-31

Table 3.14.1 Major Appliance Manufacturing Industry Inventory Levels ...............................3-33

Table 3.14.2 Household Laundry Industry Inventory Levels...................................................3-33

Table 3.14.3 Full Production Capacity Utilization Rates.........................................................3-34

Table 3.15.1 Technology Options for Residential Clothes Washers........................................3-37
3-iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.6.1 2008 Residential Clothes Washer Market Shares................................................. 3-7

Figure 3.6.2 2000–2008 Clothes Washer Market Share ........................................................... 3-8

Figure 3.6.3 2008 Core Appliance Market Shares.................................................................... 3-8

Figure 3.9.1 Single-Family and Multi-Family Housing Unit Starts, 1998-2010 ......................3-20

Figure 3.9.2 Annual Shipments of Residential Clothes Washers, 1992-2010 ..........................3-21

Figure 3.9.3 Market Share of Top-Loading and Front Loading Residential Clothes 

Washers, 2006-2008........................................................................................3-22

Figure 3.9.4 ENERGY STAR Clothes Washer Shipments and Market Share, 1998-2009.......3-23

Figure 3.9.5 Annual Shipment Value of Household Laundry Appliances, 2004-2010.............3-24

Figure 3.9.6 Imports and Exports of Residential Clothes Washers, 2005-2010 .......................3-24

Figure 3.10.1 Tub Volume, Energy Consumption, and Energy Efficiency Trends for 

Residential Clothes Washers, 1990-2008.........................................................3-25

Figure 3.12.1 Residential Clothes Washer Retail Price as a Function of MEF, December 

2009................................................................................................................3-27

Figure 3.12.2 Residential Clothes Washer Retail Prices as a Function of Location of 

Access, December 2009 ..................................................................................3-27

Figure 3.13.1 Major Appliance Industry Employment and Earnings, 1999-2009 ....................3-28

Figure 3.13.2 Household Laundry Industry Employment and Earnings, 1999-2009................3-29

Figure 3.13.3 Materials and Wages Cost as a Percentage of Shipments Value for Major 

Appliances, 1999-2009 ...................................................................................3-30

Figure 3.13.4 Materials and Wages Cost as a Percentage of Shipments Value for 

Household Laundry, 1999-2009 ......................................................................3-31

Figure 3.13.5 Appliance Industry Average Gross Margin Derived from SEC Data .................3-32

Figure 3.14.1 Major Appliances Manufacturing End-of-Year Inventory, 1999-2009 ..............3-33

Figure 3.14.2 Household Laundry Equipment Manufacturing End-of-Year Inventory, 

1999-2009.......................................................................................................3-33

Figure 3.14.3 Plant Capacity Utilization, 1998-2010 ..............................................................3-34

Figure 3.15.1 Standard-Sized Residential Clothes Washer MEFs from DOE Market 

Survey, December 2009 ..................................................................................3-49

Figure 3.15.2 Standard-Sized Residential Clothes Washer WFs from DOE Market 

Survey, December 2009 ..................................................................................3-50
3-1

CHAPTER 3. MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides a profile of the residential clothes washer industry in the United 

States. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) developed the market and technology assessment 

presented in this chapter primarily from publicly available information. This assessment is 

helpful in identifying the major manufacturers and their product characteristics, which form the 

basis for the engineering and the life-cycle cost (LCC) analyses. Present and past industry 

structure and industry financial information help DOE in the process of conducting the 

manufacturer impact analysis.

3.2 PRODUCT DEFINITIONS

DOE defines “clothes washer” under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 

1975, Pub. L. 94-163, (42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 6291–6309) as follows:

• 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, and must 

be one of the following classes: automatic clothes washers, semi-automatic clothes 

washers, and other clothes washers.

• Automatic clothes washer means a class of clothes washers which has a control system 

which is capable of scheduling a preselected combination of operations, such as 

regulation of water temperature, regulation of water fill level, and performance of wash, 

rinse, drain, and spin functions without the need for user intervention subsequent to the 

initiation of machine operation. Some models may require user intervention to initiate 

these different segments of the cycle after the machine has begun operation, but they do 

not require the user to intervene to regulate the water temperature by adjusting the 

external water faucet valves.

• Semi-automatic clothes washer means a class of clothes washer that is the same as an 

automatic clothes washer except that user intervention is required to regulate the water 

temperature by adjusting the external water faucet valves.

• Other clothes washer means a class of clothes washer which is not automatic or semiautomatic clothes washer.

(10 CFR 430.2) 
3-2

3.3 PRODUCT CLASSES

DOE separated residential clothes washers into product classes and has formulated 

separate energy conservation standards for each class. The criteria for separation into different 

product classes are: (1) type of energy used; (2) capacity; or (3) other performance-related 

features such as those that provide utility to the consumer, or others deemed appropriate by the 

Secretary that would justify the establishment of a separate energy conservation standard. (42 

U.S.C. 6295 (q))

Currently, DOE divides residential clothes washers into five product classes based on 

location of access, capacity and features, such as suds saving. For the existing energy 

conservation standards, DOE defines residential clothes washers in the following classes:

• Top-loading, compact (less than 1.6 cubic feet capacity);

• Top-loading, standard (1.6 cubic feet or greater capacity);

• Top-loading, semi-automatic;

• Front-loading; and

• Suds-saving.

In a supplemental advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) for clothes washers 

published on November 19, 1998 (hereafter, the “November 1998 Supplemental ANOPR”), 

DOE proposed to eliminate the top-loading semi-automatic and suds-saving product classes 

because they do not offer any added utility which is inherently less energy efficient and therefore 

would require protection from the energy conservation standards. 63 FR 64348. Interested parties 

did not provide any comment in response to this proposed elimination. In the final rule published 

on January 12, 2001 (hereafter, the “January 2001 Final Rule”), due to the continued absence of 

information available to analyze these classes and ensure that they could meet the proposed 

standard levels, DOE maintained these product classes but did not subject them to minimum 

energy conservation standards. 66 FR 3322.

On August 21, 2009, DOE published a framework document (hereafter, the “Framework 

Document”), in which it considered, and solicited comment on, the validity of retaining the toploading semi-automatic and suds-saving product classes. DOE is unaware of any top-loading 

semi-automatic or suds-saving clothes washers currently on the market. Also, the current DOE 

test procedure cannot measure the possible energy savings associated with suds savings. 

Interested parties generally agreed with the elimination of these two product classes, and 

therefore, DOE is proposing to eliminate these two product classes.
3-3

The Joint Stakeholder agreement (the “Joint Petition”) between manufacturers and advocatesa

(the “Joint Petitioners”) recommends splitting the current front-loading product class into two 

separate product classes based on capacity:

• Front-loading, compact (less than 1.6 cubic feet capacity)

• Front-loading, standard (1.6 cubic feet or greater capacity)

DOE is currently unaware of any front-loading clothes washers on the market that meet the

definition of a compact front-loading product class.

DOE believes the product classes proposed in the Joint Petition represent the results of extensive 

negotiations among all interested parties, including manufacturers with full knowledge of 

products on the market and potential capabilities of products not currently manufactured.

Therefore, DOE has chosen to separate residential clothes washers into the following four 

product classes:

• Top-loading, compact (less than 1.6 cubic feet capacity);

• Top-loading, standard (1.6 cubic feet or greater capacity);

• Front-loading, compact (less than 1.6 cubic feet capacity); and

• Front-loading, standard (1.6 cubic feet or greater capacity).

3.4 PRODUCT TEST PROCEDURES

Test procedures exist for clothes washers to determine energy efficiency and annual 

energy use as the basis for representation and determination of compliance with energy 

conservation standards. The U.S. government established the first Federal test procedure for 

clothes washers in 1977. In the 1990’s, DOE began revising the clothes washer test procedure 

because the existing test procedure did not cover new clothes washer technologies such as high 

spin speed and adaptive fill control, and because comments submitted by the Association of 

Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) stated that consumer habits showed a reduction in the 

use of hot water and energy. In 1997, DOE published a final rule establishing a new test 

procedure for clothes washers to more accurately establish their efficiency and energy use; the 

new test procedure became effective on January 1, 2004 (hereafter, the “1997 Final Rule.) The 

key changes made from the original to new test procedure include: (1) replacing the energy 

factor (EF) descriptor, which only calculated the energy use of the clothes washer itself, with a 

modified energy factor (MEF), which accounts for the remaining moisture content (RMC) of 

clothes leaving the washer, thereby crediting a reduction in clothes drying energy use; (2) 

specifying different water temperatures for testing; (3) specifying test cloth loads for all classes 

 

a “Agreement on Minimum Federal Efficiency Standards, Smart Appliances, Federal Incentives and Related Matters 

for Specified Appliances,” DOE Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–STD–0019, Comment 32. DOE considered the Joint 

Petitioners’ comments to supersede earlier comments by the listed parties regarding issues subsequently discussed in 

the Joint Petition.
3-4

of clothes washers; and (4) revising the average number of use cycles in a year to reflect current 

consumer usage patterns. 62 FR 45484 (August 27, 1997). In 1998, DOE published a correction 

to the 1997 Final Rule, correcting the introductory note to the new clothes washer test procedure. 

63 FR 16669 (April 6, 1998).

In 2001, as part of its energy conservation standards rulemaking for clothes washers, 

DOE amended its clothes washer test procedure, incorporating changes to the energy test cloth, 

RMC, and extractor testing. 66 FR 3330 (January 12, 2001). Again in 2003, DOE amended its 

clothes washer test procedure, including the following revisions: (1) replacing the lowest spin 

cycle speed of 50 gravitation (g) force with a spin cycle of 100 g for testing the cloth used in the 

extraction phase of the test procedure; and (2) specifying the use of additional statistical analysis 

to qualify the interactive effect between different lots of the test cloth and spin speeds to improve 

consistency with the baseline data. 68 FR 62198 (October 31, 2003). 

Standby power measurement was not incorporated into the DOE test procedure for 

residential clothes washers established by the 2003 final rule. Section 310 of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Pub. L. No. 110-142 amends Section 325 

of EPCA to require that the test procedure for residential clothes washers be amended to include 

measurement of standby mode and off mode energy use, taking into consideration the most 

current version of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 62301 

Household electrical appliances – Measurement of standby power (IEC Standard 62301) and 

IEC Standard 62087 Methods of measurement for the power consumption of audio, video and 

related equipment.

b EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, also states that the final rule for this test 

procedure shall be published no later than June 30, 2009. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)) DOE notes that 

the current version of IEC Standard 62301 is designated IEC Standard 62301, Second Edition, 

2011. The Second Edition amended the definitions of modes to include off mode(s), network 

connected standby mode(s), and disconnected mode as well as standby mode(s). DOE also notes 

that EISA 2007 amends EPCA to require that standby mode and off mode energy consumption 

be integrated into the overall energy efficiency, energy consumption, or other energy descriptor 

unless the Secretary determines that – (i) the current test procedures for a covered product 

already fully account for and incorporate standby mode and off mode energy consumption of the 

covered product; or (ii) such an integrated test procedure is technically infeasible for a particular 

covered product, in which case the Secretary shall prescribe a separate standby mode and off 

mode energy use test procedure for the covered product, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(A))

To support this rulemaking, a test procedure change to incorporate standby mode and off 

mode energy consumption in residential clothes washers was initiated in parallel with the current 

rulemaking. DOE integrated standby and off mode energy use into the revised test procedure by 

establishing an “integrated modified energy factor” (IMEF), which also includes amended 

calculations of energy use in the active mode. The revised test procedure also establishes an 

 

b IEC Standard 62087 does not cover any products for this rulemaking, and therefore was not considered.
3-5

“integrated water factor” (IWF), a metric that incorporates water usage from all cycles included 

in the energy test cycle rather than just the cold wash cycle. 77 FR 13888 (March 7, 2012).

In developing the amended rule, DOE also investigated test procedures used by countries 

that are considered leaders in reducing standby power. Those countries, which include Japan, 

Korea, and Australia/New Zealand, all follow and/or reference IEC Standard 62301. 

3.5 MANUFACTURER TRADE GROUPS

DOE recognizes the importance of trade groups in disseminating information and 

promoting the interests of the industry that they support. To gain insight into the residential 

clothes washer industry, DOE researched various associations available to manufacturers, 

suppliers, and users of such equipment. DOE also used the member lists of these groups in the 

construction of an exhaustive database containing domestic manufacturers.

DOE identified the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) as a trade group 

that supports, or has an interest in, the residential clothes washer industry. AHAM,c

3.6 MANUFACTURER INFORMATION

formed in 

1967, aims to enhance the value of the home appliance industry through leadership, public 

education and advocacy. AHAM provides services to its members including government 

relations; certification programs for room air conditioners, dehumidifiers and room air cleaners; 

an active communications program; and technical services and research. In addition, AHAM 

conducts other market and consumer research studies and publishes a biennial Fact Book. 

AHAM also develops and maintains technical standards for various appliances to provide 

uniform, repeatable procedures for measuring specific product characteristics and performance 

features.

The following section details information regarding domestic manufacturers of 

residential clothes washers, including estimated market shares (section 3.6.1), industry mergers 

and acquisitions (section 3.6.2), potential small business impacts (section 3.6.3), and product 

distribution channels (section 3.6.4).

3.6.1 Manufacturers and Market Shares

Using publicly available data (e.g., Appliance Magazine and market assessments 

performed by third parties), DOE estimates the market shares for domestic manufacturers of 

residential clothes washers. Manufacturers may offer multiple brand names. Some of the brand 

names originated from independent appliance manufacturers that have been acquired over time, 

and domestic manufacturers may use their brand on products manufactured overseas. This 

 

c For more information, visit www.aham.org.
3-6

analysis may also include off-shore manufacturers that maintain a significant domestic presence 

via a U.S. entity.

DOE estimates that there are 17 residential clothes washer manufacturers selling into the 

domestic market, of which several are foreign-owned companies with manufacturing facilities 

outside of the United States. The majority of market share is held by four major manufacturers, 

including Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool)/Maytag Corporation (Maytag), GE Consumer & 

Industrial (GE), AB Electrolux (Frigidaire), and LG Electronics (LG).

1

3.6.2

As discussed in section 

, Maytag and Whirlpool merged in 2006 but have continued to maintain both product lines 

to this date. The combined Maytag-Whirlpool entity accounts for approximately 64 percent of 

the residential clothes washer market. Together, the four main manufacturers comprise 92

percent of the residential clothes washer market. Other manufacturers include Alliance Laundry 

Systems LLC (Alliance), AM Appliance Group (formerly ASKO, Inc.), BSH Home Appliances 

Corporation (Bosch-Siemens), Equator Corporation (Equator), Fagor America, Inc. (Fagor), 

Fisher & Paykel Appliances Limited (Fisher & Paykel), Haier America Trading, LLC (Haier), 

Indesit Company (Indesit), Miele Inc. (Miele), Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Samsung), 

Staber Industries, Inc. (Staber), and Felix Storch, Inc. (Summit). Table 3.6.1 lists these 

manufacturers. Figure 3.6.1 illustrates the 2008 market shares for the domestic residential clothes 

washer market.

The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2006 Annual Survey of Manufactures reports one U.S. 

company engaged primarily in the manufacture of household laundry equipment (North 

American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 335224). In 2006, that company 

employed 13,298 workers and shipped more than $4.9 billion of products.2

Table 3.6.1 Major and Other Residential Clothes Washer Manufacturers

Major Manufacturers Other Manufacturers

Whirlpool/Maytag Alliance

GE Asko

Electrolux (Frigidaire) Bosch-Siemens

LG Equator

Fagor

Fisher & Paykel

Haier

Indesit

Miele

Samsung

Staber

Summit
3-7

Figure 3.6.1 2008 Residential Clothes Washer Market Shares3

Table 3.6.2 shows the market share for residential clothes washer manufacturers between 

2000 and 2008. Figure 3.6.2 shows this data graphically. The market share for Whirlpool and GE 

has remained relatively stable since 2000, while Electrolux and Maytag’s market share has 

decreased by 6 percent over that period. LG has grown from a negligible market share in 2006 to 

a 6-percent market share in 2008. According to ENERGY STAR, foreign manufacturers such as 

Bosch-Siemens, LG, Samsung, and Fisher & Paykel are beginning to gain traction in the U.S. 

market, expanding floor space with national appliance retailers.

4

Table 3.6.2 2000–2008 Clothes Washer Market Share5

Company

Market Share (%)

2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000

Whirlpool 64 51 51 51 51 51 51 50 50

Maytag * 16 18 19 20 21 23 22 22

GE 16 17 18 17 17 17 18 18 16

Electrolux (Frigidaire) 6 6 9 9 9 9 8 8 10

LG 6 2 - - - - - - -

Others 8 10 4 4 3 2 0 2 2

* Maytag market share for 2008 included in Whirlpool data.
3-8

Figure 3.6.2 2000–2008 Clothes Washer Market Share

3.6.2 Mergers and Acquisitions

Due to mergers and acquisitions, the home appliance industry as a whole continues to 

consolidate. While this phenomenon varies from product to product within the industry, the large 

market shares of a few companies provide evidence in support of this characterization.

According to the September 2009 issue of Appliance Magazine, Whirlpool (including 

Maytag), GE, and Electrolux comprise 85 percent of the core appliance market share. “Core 

appliances” include dishwashers, clothes dryers, freezers, ranges, refrigerators, and clothes 

washers. Figure 3.6.3 illustrates the breakdown of 2008 market shares in the core appliance 

category.

Figure 3.6.3 2008 Core Appliance Market Shares6

On August 22, 2005, Whirlpool, headquartered in Benton Harbor, Michigan, and Maytag, 

based in Newton, Iowa, announced plans to merge in a deal worth $2.7 billion.7 Maytag 

shareholders approved the merger on December 22, 2005. Shortly after announcing the merger, 

Whirlpool submitted a pre-merger notification to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ 
3-9

Antitrust Division initiated an investigation into the effects of the merger, including potential 

lessening of competition or the creation of a monopoly.

Opponents of the merger asserted that the combined companies would control as much as 

70 percent of the residential laundry market and as much as 50 percent of the residential 

dishwasher market.8 Industry analysts noted that Whirlpool’s large potential residential laundry 

market share was skewed because the company produces clothes washers for Sears, which sells 

them under their Kenmore in-house brand. Whirlpool must periodically bid with other 

manufacturers to keep the Kenmore contract, and Sears controls the pricing of the Kenmore 

units. Without Kenmore, the market share of share of a combined Maytag-Whirlpool company 

would be slightly less than 30 percent in U.S. major appliances, Whirlpool claimed.

9

In early January 2006, U.S. Senator Tom Harkin and U.S. Representative Leonard 

Boswell, both of Iowa, called upon the DOJ to block the merger, claiming it would give 

Whirlpool an unfair advantage in the home appliance industry. The Congressmen wrote that if 

the DOJ does not block the deal, the agency should at least “require that Whirlpool divest the 

washer and dryer portions of Maytag to a viable purchaser who will have the financial capability 

and desire to continue to operate that business.”10

On March 29, 2006, DOJ closed its investigation and approved the merger. DOJ claims 

“that the proposed transaction is not likely to reduce competition substantially. The combination 

of strong rival suppliers with the ability to expand sales significantly and large cost savings and 

other efficiencies that Whirlpool appears likely to achieve indicates that this transaction is not 

likely to harm consumer welfare.”11

The DOJ Antitrust Division focused its investigation on residential laundry, although it 

considered impacts across all products offered by the two companies. DOJ determined that the 

merger would not give Whirlpool excessive market power in the sale of its products and that any 

attempt to raise prices would likely be unsuccessful. In support of this claim, DOJ noted that (1) 

other U.S. brands, including Kenmore, GE, and Frigidaire, are well established; (2) foreign 

manufacturers, including LG and Samsung, are gaining market share; (3) existing U.S. 

manufacturers are below production capacity; (4) the large home appliance retailers have 

alternatives available to resist price increase attempts; and (5) Whirlpool and Maytag 

substantiated large cost savings and other efficiencies that would benefit consumers.12

Whirlpool and Maytag completed the merger on March 31, 2006. This large merger 

follows several other mergers and acquisitions in the home appliance industry. For example, 

Maytag acquired Jenn-Air Corporation (Jenn-Air) in 1982, Magic Chef, Inc. (Magic Chef) in 

1986, and Amana Appliances (Amana) in 2001. Whirlpool acquired the KitchenAid division of 

Hobart Corporation (KitchenAid) in 1986. White Consolidated Industries (WCI) acquired the 

Frigidaire division of General Motors Corporation in 1979, and AB Electrolux acquired WCI 

(and therefore Frigidaire) in 1986.
3-10

3.6.3 Small Business Impacts

DOE considers the possibility of small businesses being impacted by the promulgation of 

energy conservation standards for residential clothes washers. The Small Business Association

considers an entity to be a small business if, together with its affiliates, it employs less than a 

threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121, which relies on size standards and 

codes established by the NAICS. The threshold number for NAICS classification for 335224, 

which applies to household laundry equipment manufacturers and includes clothes washer 

manufacturers, is 1,000 employees. At this time, DOE is aware of one small manufacturer of 

residential clothes washers who would be impacted by a minimum efficiency standard. For this

small manufacturers, DOE will study the potential impacts on the small businesses in greater 

detail during the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA).

3.6.4 Distribution Channels

Understanding the distribution channels of products covered by this rulemaking is an 

important facet of the market assessment. DOE gathered information regarding the distribution 

channels for residential clothes washers from publicly available sources. This section contains 

distribution channel information for residential appliances.

For residential appliances, including residential clothes washers, the majority of 

consumers purchase their appliances directly from retailers. Table 3.6.3 identifies the types of 

retail stores through which major appliances, including residential clothes washers, are sold 

based on data from the AHAM Fact Book 2005.

13

Table 3.6.3 Major Appliance Sales by Channel (Purchased between 2001 and 2005)

14

Type of Store Appliance Purchases (%)

Department Store (such as Sears or Kohls) 34.7

Appliance Store or Consumer Electronics Store 30.9

Home Improvement Store (such as Lowe’s or Home Depot) 23.8

Discount Store (such as Wal-Mart or K-Mart) 2.0

Membership Warehouse Club/Store (such as Sam’s or Costco) 1.8

Another type of store 6.8

Home appliance retailers generally obtain products directly from manufacturers. The 

AHAM Fact Book 2003 shows that over 93 percent of residential appliances are distributed from 

the manufacturer directly to a retailer.15 A 2000 Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) report 

determined that 5–10 percent of major appliance sales were made to commercial consumers such 

as builders, contractors, government sales, and property managers through distributors or 

wholesalers.16
3-11

3.7 REGULATORY PROGRAMS

The following section details current regulatory programs mandating energy conservation 

standards for residential clothes washers. Section 3.7.1 discusses Federal energy conservation 

standards prior to EISA 2007; section 3.7.2 reviews new standards issued by EISA 2007; section 

3.7.3 provides an overview of existing State standards; sections 3.7.4 and 3.7.5 review standards 

in Canada and Mexico, respectively, that may impact the companies servicing the North 

American market; section 3.7.6 reviews international energy performance standards for 

residential clothes washers; and section 3.7.7 reviews foreign regulatory programs for standby 

power. 

3.7.1 Federal Energy Conservation Standards Prior to EISA 2007

The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1978 (NAECA) amended EPCA to 

establish the first prescriptive standards for residential clothes washers, requiring that all rinse 

cycles of clothes washers manufactured after January 1, 1988, shall include an unheated water 

option, but may have a heated water rinse option, and further required that DOE conduct two 

cycles of rulemakings to determine if more stringent standards are justified.d

Table 3.7.1

(42 U.S.C. 6295 

(g)(2) and (4)) On May 14, 1991, DOE published a final rule in the Federal Register (FR) 

establishing the first set of performance standards for residential clothes washers; the new 

standards became effective on May 14, 1994 (hereafter, the “May 1991 Final Rule”.) 56 FR 

22279. DOE conducted a second standards rulemaking for residential clothes washers, 

publishing the January 2001 Final Rule revising the energy conservation standards; the revised 

standards became effective in two phases, on January 1, 2004 and January 1, 2007. 66 FR 3314.

provides energy conservation standards for residential clothes washers established by 

the January 2001 Final Rule.

 

d DOE defines “clothes washer” under EPCA as “a consumer product designed to clean clothes, utilizing a water 

solution of soap and/or detergent and mechanical agitation or other movement, and must be one of the following 

classes: automatic clothes washers, semi-automatic clothes washers, and other clothes washers.” 10 CFR 430.2. 
3-12

Table 3.7.1 Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers Established 

by the January 2001 Final Rule

Clothes Washer Product Class Standards Effective Date

January 1, 2004 January 1, 2007

Top-loading standard and front-loading 1.04 MEF* 1.26 MEF

Top-loading compact 0.65 MEF -

*The Modified Energy Factor (MEF) is a measure of how many kilowatt-hours (kWh) are required to wash each 

cubic foot (ft3

) of washer capacity. It measures the total energy consumption of the washer and also accounts for the

amount of energy required to dry clothes based on the remaining moisture content of the clothes.

3.7.2 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Pub. L. No. 110-142, 

revised the energy conservation standards for residential clothes washers; the revised standards 

become effective on January 1, 2011. EISA 2007 further required that DOE publish a final rule 

no later than December 31, 2011 determining whether to amend the standards in effect for 

clothes washers manufactured on or after January 1, 2015. (42 U.S.C. 6295 (g)(9)) Table 3.7.2

provides the energy conservation standards for residential clothes washers established by EISA 

2007.

Table 3.7.2 Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers Established 

by EISA 2007

. Clothes Washer Product Class

Standards Effective January 1, 2011

MEF

(ft3/kWh/cycle)

WF* 

(gallons/ ft3/cycle)

Top-loading standard and front-loading 1.26 9.5

* Water Factor (WF) is measured in gallons of water required per cycle per cubic foot of washer capacity.

3.7.3 State Energy Conservation Standards

Federal standards, which preempt any State efficiency standards have existed for the 

energy consumption of residential clothes washers since 1994. However, no such standard 

existed for the water efficiency prior to those established by EISA 2007, which become effective 

January 1, 2011. On October 19, 2005, California issued minimum water conservation standards 

for residential clothes washers. On September 16, 2005, the California Energy Commission 

(CEC) issued a petition for an exemption from Federal preemption to seek to apply its own State 

regulation for residential clothes washer WF. DOE accepted written comments regarding this 

California petition until April 7, 2006. Table 3.7.3 provides the State’s proposed residential 

clothes washer water conservation standards and their respective effective dates.
3-13

Table 3.7.3 California Water Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers

Clothes Washer 

Classification

Maximum WF (gallons/ ft3/cycle)

Effective January 1, 2007 Effective January 1, 2010

Top-loading 8.5 6.0

Front-loading 8.5 6.0

On December 28, 2006, DOE issued a decision denying the California petition. (71 FR at 

78157) The denial of the petition was based on three factors. First, DOE determined that it does 

not have the statutory authority to prescribe a rule for California that would become effective by 

January 1, 2007, the first of two compliance dates contained in Title 20, section 1605.2(p)(1) of 

the California Code of Regulations. Second, DOE ruled that the CEC had not established by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the State of California has unusual and compelling water 

interests, a condition required by EPCA for DOE to grant California a waiver from Federal 

preemption. (42 USC 6297(d)(1)(B)) Finally, a preponderance of evidence showed that the 

California regulation would likely result in the unavailability of a class of residential clothes 

washers, specifically top-loading machines, in California.

The State submitted to DOE a Request for Reconsideration on January 29, 2007.

17 By 

failing to respond to the request by February 28, 2007, DOE effectively denied California’s 

Request for Reconsideration.18 On April 20, 2007, the CEC petitioned the US Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit for review of the Denial by the DOE.19 In its decision on October 28, 2009, 

the Court of Appeals overturned DOE’s denial of the waiver request and ordered DOE to 

reconsider its action, ruling that DOE’s stated justifications [for denial] “demonstrate an arbitrary 

and capricious failure meaningfully to address the CEC’s application for a waiver.”20

3.7.4 Canadian Energy Conservation Standards

The Canadian government regulates the efficiency of residential clothes washers. This 

Regulation applies to standard or compact electrically operated household clothes washers that 

are top- or front-loaded, and that have an internal control system that regulates the water 

temperature without the need for user intervention subsequent to initiation of machine operation.

Table 3.7.4 lists the current standards that went into effect January 1, 2007, along with the 

previous standards that went into effect January 1, 2004.

Table 3.7.4 Canadian Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Clothes Washers

Clothes Washer Classification Minimum MEF (L/kWh/cycle)

January 1, 2004 January 1, 2007

Vertical-axis compact (< 45 liter capacity) 18.40 18.40

Vertical-axis standard (≥ 45 liter capacity) 29.45 35.68

Horizontal-axis* 29.45 35.68

Suds-saving* NA NA

* These product classes shall be equipped with an unheated rinse water option.
3-14

3.7.5 Mexican Energy Conservation Standards

The Mexican Official Standard (NOM-005-ENER-2000) establishes maximum energy 

consumption limits for residential clothes washers sold in Mexico. In effect since 2000, 

Maximum Energy Performance Standards are based on the assumption of 416 wash cycles per 

year and a water temperature of 20 °C ± 5 °C. Table 3.7.5 shows the mechanical energy used in 

the wash stages as specified for clothes washers sold in Mexico.21

Table 3.7.5 Mexican Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Clothes Washers22

Washer Action

Washer Capacity (pounds of 

clothes)

Energy Consumption 

(kWh/year)

Impulsor

Less than 4 70

4 to less than 6 70

6 to less than 10 120

Equal to or greater than 10 120

Agitator

Less than 4 100

4 to less than 6 100

6 to less than 8 175

8 to less than 10 218

Equal to or greater than 10 250

Drum

Less than 4 120

4 to less than 6 150

Equal to or greater than 6 200

Drum with heating 

element

Less than 4 360

4 to less than 6 450

Equal to or greater than 6 600

3.7.6 International Energy Performance Standards for Residential Clothes Washers

According to the Collaborative Labeling and Appliance Standards Program (CLASP), eight other 

countries outside of North America have mandatory minimum energy performance standards for 

residential clothes washers.23 These standards, whether mandatory or voluntary, may be 

accompanied by a label. A mandatory label must include a washer’s energy consumption under a 

specified test standard. Some countries require that manufacturers affix a performance label 

without requiring that they adhere to a minimum energy performance standard. Voluntary labels 

also exist for programs such as the ENERGY STAR program in Canada. Table 3.7.6 notes the 

presence of mandatory or voluntary performance standards and labeling programs where 

applicable.
3-15

Table 3.7.6 International Energy Efficiency Standards and Labels for Residential Clothes 

Washers24

Country

Minimum Energy 

Performance Label

Mandatory Voluntary Mandatory Voluntary

Algeria X

Argentina X

Australia X X

Austria X

Brazil X X X

Canada X X X

Chile X

Colombia X X

Czech Republic X

Egypt X X

EU Member Countries X X X

Germany X

Hong Kong, China X

Indonesia X

Iran X

Israel X X

Jordan X

Malaysia X

Mexico X X X

New Zealand X

Nordic Member Countries X

People’s Republic of China X X

Peru X X

Republic of Korea X X

Russia X X

Singapore X

Slovakia X

South Africa X

Switzerland X X

Taipei X

Thailand X

Turkey X

UK X

USA X X X

Viet Nam X

3.7.7 International Standby Power Regulatory Programs

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has raised awareness of standby power through 

publications, international conferences, and policy advice to governments. In 1999, the IEA 

developed the “1-Watt Plan,” which proposed reducing standby power internationally in 
3-16

electronic devices and which advocates that all countries harmonize energy policies and adopt 

the same definition and test procedure. The IEA has advocated a 1 watt (W) requirement for all 

consumer electrical products (unless specifically excluded) in standby mode. The IEA also stated 

that IEC 62301 provides an internationally sanctioned definition and test procedure for standby 

power which is now widely specified and used.e

A number of countries have implemented regulatory approaches to standby power in 

clothes washers. Australia has announced plans to implement a mandatory horizontal 1 W 

requirement for all consumer electrical products by 2012, including top loading and front loading 

clothes washers.25 The Korea Energy Management Corporation developed their “e-standby” 

program, which currently has a mandatory labeling program for clothes washer standby power, 

as measured by IEC Standard 62301. The program is currently transitioning to a mandatory 1 W 

standard by the year 2010.26

The European Union passed the Ecodesign Directive in 2005 which calls for an 

implementing measure to reduce standby power for a specified list of energy using products, 

which include clothes washers. On December 18, 2008, the Commission of the European 

Communities published Commission Regulation (EC) No 1275/2008 containing Ecodesign 

requirements for standby and off mode electric power consumption of electrical and electronic 

household and office equipment. Table 3.7.7 presents the requirements for energy consumption 

in standby and off mode power.

27

Table 3.7.7 Proposed EU Ecodesign requirements for standby and off mode

Mode Maximum Power (Watts)

Tier 1 (effective January 07, 2010)

Off (no function) 1.0 W

Standby (only reactivation function) 1.0 W

Standby (information or status display plus reactivation function) 2.0 W

Tier 2 (effective January 07, 2013)

Off (no function) 0.5 W

Standby (only reactivation function) 0.5 W

Standby (information or status display plus reactivation function) 1.0 W

 

e For more information visit http://www.iea.org/.
3-17

3.8 VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS

DOE reviewed several voluntary programs promoting residential clothes washers in the 

United States. Many programs, including the CEE, ENERGY STAR, and FEMP, establish 

voluntary energy conservation standards for these products.

3.8.1 Consortium for Energy Efficiency

The CEEfdevelops initiatives for its North American members to promote the 

manufacture and purchase of energy efficient products and services. The goal of the organization 

is to induce lasting structural and behavioral changes in the marketplace, resulting in the 

increased adoption of energy efficient technologies. The CEE has a Residential Clothes Washer 

Initiative that encourages the purchase and use of energy and water efficient clothes washers.

Table 3.8.1 shows the three CEE Tiers for residential clothes washers as of January 1, 2011.

Table 3.8.1 CEE Criteria for Residential Clothes Washers

Level MEF WF

Tier 1 2.00 6.0

Tier 2 2.20 4.5

Tier 3 2.40 4.0

3.8.2 ENERGY STAR

ENERGY STAR, a voluntary labeling program backed by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) and DOE, identifies energy efficient products through a qualification 

process.g To qualify, a product must exceed Federal minimum standards by a specified amount, 

or if no Federal standard exists, exhibit selected energy saving features. The ENERGY STAR

program works to recognize the top quartile of products on the market, meaning that 

approximately 25 percent of products on the market meet or exceed the ENERGY STAR levels.

ENERGY STAR specifications exist for several products, including residential clothes washers.

ENERGY STAR criteria exist for top- and front-loading residential clothes washers with 

capacities greater than 1.6 cubic feet. New ENERGY STAR criteria for residential clothes 

washers, which include energy and water consumption ratings, became effective January 1, 

2011. Table 3.8.2 shows the previous and current ENERGY STAR criteria for residential clothes 

washers.

 

f For more information visit http://www.cee1.org.

g For more information visit http://www.energystar.gov.
3-18

Table 3.8.2 ENERGY STAR Criteria for Residential Clothes Washers

Clothes Washer 

Classification

Criteria Level

Jan. 1, 2001 Jan. 1, 2004 Jan. 1, 2007 July 1, 2009 Jan. 1, 2011

(Current)

Top- and front-loading 

clothes washers MEF ≥ 1.26 MEF ≥ 1.42 MEF ≥ 1.72WF ≥ 8.0

MEF ≥ 1.8

WF ≥ 7.5

MEF ≥ 2.0

WF ≥ 6.0

3.8.3 Federal Energy Management Program

DOE’s FEMPh works to reduce the cost and environmental impact of the Federal 

government by advancing energy efficiency and water conservation, promoting the use of 

distributed and renewable energy, and improving utility management decisions at Federal sites.

FEMP helps Federal buyers identify and purchase energy efficient equipment, including 

residential clothes washers.

The National Energy Conservation Act (P.L. 95-619), Executive Order 13423, and 

Federal Acquisition Regulations Subpart 23.2 and 53.223 require that Federal agencies purchase 

ENERGY STAR-qualified products. Table 3.8.3 presents the FEMP clothes washer 

recommendations as of January 1, 2011.

Table 3.8.3 FEMP Recommendations for Residential Clothes Washers

Clothes Washer Tub 

Volume MEF WF

1.6 cubic feet or greater 2.0 or more 6.0 or less

3.8.4 Manufacturer Tax Credits for Energy-Efficient Appliances

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005, Pub. L. 109-58) provides tax credits to 

manufacturers for energy-efficient residential clothes washers. These credits were intended to 

help manufacturers meet the costs of producing appliances that exceeded the Federal standards.

The total credit for residential clothes washers is equal to the applicable credit amount multiplied 

by the eligible production, subject to credit limitations. For residential clothes washers 

manufactured in 2006 or 2007 that meet the requirements of the ENERGY STAR program which 

are in effect for clothes washers in 2007, the applicable amount is $100. The eligible production 

for residential clothes washers in a calendar year is the excess of the number of residential 

clothes washers which are produced by the taxpayer in the United States during such calendar 

year over the average number of residential clothes washers which were produced by the 

taxpayer (or any predecessor) in the United States during the preceding 3-calendar year period.

(section 1334 of EPACT 2005; codified at 26 U.S.C. 42M)

 

h For more information visit http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp.
3-19

3.8.5 Consumer Tax Credits for Energy-Efficient Appliances

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Pub L. 110-343) provides tax credits for 

energy efficient appliances purchased in 2008, 2009, and 2010. The amount of the tax credit 

depends on the efficiency level of the clothes washer and the year of manufacture of the clothes 

washer. Table 3.8.4 lists the program requirements for the residential clothes washer tax credits.

(26 U.S.C. 45M)

Table 3.8.4 Consumer Tax Credits Offered for Energy Efficient Clothes Washers

Year of Manufacture

Efficiency Level 2008 2009 2010

MEF 1.72 / WF 8.0 $75 - -

MEF 1.8 / WF 7.5 $125 $125 -

MEF 2.0 / WF 6.0 $150 $150 $150

MEF 2.2 / WF 4.5 $250 $250 $250

3.8.6 Rebates for Highly Energy-Efficient Products

Electric utilities and other organizations promote the purchase of highly energy-efficient 

residential clothes washers through consumer rebates. Typically, these programs offer rebates for 

products meeting existing ENERGY STAR efficiency levels. Table 3.8.5 lists some rebates that 

were offered in 2008. Some utilities also offer incentives to retire old and inefficient appliances.

Table 3.8.5 Rebates Offered for Highly Energy-Efficient Clothes Washers in 200828

Utility/Organization* Rebate Level

Alliant Energy (Iowa and Minnesota) $100 (ENERGY STAR)

Efficiency Vermont $50 (ENERGY STAR)

Energy Trust of Oregon $75 (2.0 – 2.19 MEF)

$100 (2.2 MEF or higher)

Long Island Power Authority $50 (2.2 MEF or higher, 4.5 WF or lower)

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Northern California) $35 (CEE Tier 2)

$75 (CEE Tier 3)

Puget Sound Energy (Washington)

$50 (CEE Tier 1)

$75 (CEE Tier 2)

$100 (CEE Tier 3)

Sacramento Municipal Utility District (CA)

$100 (CEE Tier 1)

$200 (CEE Tier 2 and 3)

Additional $50-75 (WF 6.0 or lower)

Southern California Gas Company $35 (ENERGY STAR)

* The table includes a survey of a limited number of rebate programs. Additional programs may exist.
3-20

3.9 HISTORICAL SHIPMENTS

Awareness of annual product shipment trends is an important aspect of the market 

assessment and in the development of the standards rulemaking. DOE reviewed data collected by 

the U.S. Census Bureau, EPA, and AHAM to evaluate residential appliance product shipment 

trends and the value of these shipments, which were used during the shipments analysis (chapter 

9 of this TSD.)

3.9.1 New Home Starts

Trends in new home starts may directly affect shipments of certain home appliances.

While there is certainly both a replacement and remodeling market for some appliances 

including cooking products, these products are also fixtures in virtually all new homes. Multifamily unit starts can also affect shipments of residential clothes washers.

Table 3.9.1 and Figure 3.9.1 show the number of new single-family and multi-family 

housing units started in the United States from 1998–2010. Over the 5-year period from 2000–

2005, single-family home starts increased 39 percent, to 1,716,000 units annually. However, 

between 2005 and 2009, single-family home starts decreased 74 percent, to 445,000 units 

annually. Multi-family unit starts remained relatively stable during the period 1998-2005 at 

around 350,000 units annually. Between 2005 and 2009, multi-family units decreased 30.8

percent to 109,000 units annually. Both single-family and multi-family housing starts increased 

by approximately six percent in 2010 compared to 2009.

29

Table 3.9.1 New Privately Owned Single-Family and Multi-Family Housing Unit Starts in 

the United States from 1998–2010 30

Year

Single 

Unit

(1000)

MultiUnit

(1000)

Figure 3.9.1 Single-Family and Multi-Family Housing Unit Starts, 

1998–2010

1998 1271 346

1999 1302 339

2000 1231 338

2001 1273 329

2002 1359 346

2003 1499 349

2004 1611 345

2005 1716 353

2006 1465 336

2007 1046 309

2008 622 284

2009 445 109

2010 471 116

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Housing Units Started (thousands)

Single-Family and Multi-Family Housing Unit Starts

Single Unit

Multi-Unit
3-21

3.9.2 Unit Shipments

AHAM’s Fact Book 2003 and 2005 provide annual unit shipments for residential clothes 

washers from 1992 to 2005. Shipments for 2006 through 2010 were obtained from Appliance 

Magazine. Table 3.9.2 and Figure 3.9.2 below show the annual shipments of residential clothes 

washers for the period from 1992 to 2010. Shipments of residential clothes washers increased by 

69 percent from 1992 to 2006. After an extended period of steady growth, residential clothes 

washer shipments declined in 2009 to around 7.9 million units, largely coinciding with the 

decrease in new housing starts.

Table 3.9.2 Industry Shipments of Residential Clothes Washers 1992–2010 (Domestic and 

Import, in Thousands of Units) 31,32

Year

No. Clothes 

Washers

(Thousands)

Figure 3.9.2 Annual Shipments of Residential Clothes Washers, 

1992–2010

1992 5,632 

1993 5,923 

1994 6,161 

1995 6,080 

1996 6,225 

1997 6,326 

1998 6,835 

1999 7,313 

2000 7,495 

2001 7,362 

2002 7,745 

2003 8,146 

2004 8,832 

2005 9,394 

2006 9,500 

2007 9,002 

2008 8,292 

2009 7,865 

2010 7,999 

Figure 3.9.3 shows the market share of top-loading and front-loading residential clothes 

washers from 2006–2008 according to data submitted by AHAM for this rulemaking.

33 The 

market share of top-loading clothes washers has dropped from 74.2 percent in 2006 to 63.6 

percent in 2008, while the market share of front-loading clothes washers has risen from 25.8 

percent in 2006 to 36.4 percent in 2008.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

No. of Clothes Washers (thousands)

Annual Shipments of Residential Clothes Washers
3-22

Figure 3.9.3 Market Share of Top-Loading and Front-Loading Residential Clothes 

Washers, 2006–2008

ENERGY STAR market share data are an indicator of the demand for highly energyefficient appliances. Table 3.9.3 and Figure 3.9.4 show the ENERGY STAR-qualified clothes 

washer shipments and market share from 1998 to 2009 from the ENERGY STAR website.34

Sales of ENERGY STAR-qualified clothes washers grew faster than the overall total sales of 

clothes washers during the period 1998–2006. However, sales of ENERGY STAR-qualified 

clothes washers decreased by almost 50 percent from 2006 to 2008, while total sales decreased 

by only 13 percent during the same period. Part of the disproportionate decrease may be due to 

the implementation of new ENERGY STAR criteria in 2007, which increased the MEF by 21

percent and added a new WF requirement. Under the new criteria, many previously qualified 

models, particularly traditional top-loading clothes washers, no longer qualified for the 

ENERGY STAR label. Part of the disproportionate decrease may also be due to the deteriorating 

U.S. economy during that period; consumers may have opted for lower-priced, less energy 

efficient clothes washer models. ENERGY STAR sales increased sharply in 2009 to 48 percent 

of total shipments. 
3-23

Table 3.9.3 ENERGY STAR Clothes Washer Shipments and Market Share, 1998–2009

(Domestic and Import)35, 36, 37

Shipments

(thousand units)

Figure 3.9.4 ENERGY STAR Clothes Washer 

Shipments and Market Share, 1998–2009

Year

% 

ENERGY 

STAR Total

No. 

ENERGY 

STAR

1998 5.5% 6,835 376

1999 8.5% 7,313 622

2000 9.3% 7,495 697

2001a 10.3% 7,362 758

2002 16.3% 7,745 1,262

2003 23.1% 8,146 1,882

2004b 27.2% 8,832 2,402

2005 36.4% 9,394 3,419

2006 37.9% 9,500 3,601

2007c 41.6% 9,002 3,745

2008 23.7% 8,292 1,965

2009 48.3% 7,865 3,800

a) Energy Star criteria changed to MEF ≥ 1.26.

b) Energy Star criteria changed to MEF ≥ 1.42.

c) Energy Star criteria changed to MEF ≥ 1.72 and WF ≥ 8.0.

d) According to ENERGY STAR, the validity of the clothes washer data for quarter one and quarter 

three in 2007 is questionable. It is expected that the incorrect coding of previously qualified units for 

these two quarters resulted in a higher than actual market share projection. Actual ENERGY STAR 

shipments are expected to have been closer to 30%, as indicated by the dashed line in the graph.

3.9.3 Value of Shipments

Table 3.9.4 and Figure 3.9.5 provide the annual shipment value for the NAICS product 

class for household laundry (product class code 335224), which includes residential clothes 

washers and clothes dryer shipments, from 2004 to 2010 based upon data from the U.S. Census 

Bureau’s Current Industrial Reports (CIR)i

and Annual Survey of Manufacturers (ASM)j. The 

U.S. Census Bureau shipment values are expressed in nominal dollars; i.e., 2010 data are 

expressed in 2010 dollars, and 2007 data are expressed in 2007 dollars. DOE converted each 

year’s value of shipments to 2010 dollars using producer price index (PPI) data from the Bureau 

of Labor and Statistics for NAICS 335224: Household laundry equipment manufacturingk

.

 i

Available online at http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/index.html

j

Available online at http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/asm/index.html k PPI data available at http://www.bls.gov/ppi/

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Annual Sales (thousand units)

Total

ENERGY STAR
3-24

Table 3.9.4 Annual Value of Shipments of Household Laundry Equipment38

Annual Shipment Value 

($ millions)

Figure 3.9.5 Annual Shipment Value of Household 

Laundry Appliances, 2004–2010

Year Nominal 

Dollars

2010 

Dollars

2004 5,030.7 5,752.7

2005 5,268.2 5,829.8

2006 5,184.4 5,556.0

2007 5,231.6 5,446.3

2008 5,834.8 5,944.4

2009 4,820.0 4,865.9

2010 4,656.8 4,656.8

3.9.4 Imports and Exports

Each month AHAM publishes import and export data for certain home appliances, which 

includes year-to-date annual summaries. Figure 3.9.6 shows selected import/export data from 

AHAM’s Import/Export Trade Reports for December 2005–2010.

39 Imports increased in 2006 

compared to 2005, and then decreased substantially during 2007 through 2010. Exports increased 

from 2005 to 2007 and decreased through 2010.

Figure 3.9.6 Imports and Exports of Residential Clothes Washers, 2005–201040

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$ millions

Nominal Dollars

2010 Dollars

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

No. of Clothes Washers 

Exports

Imports
3-25

3.10 HISTORICAL EFFICIENCIES

The average efficiency of new residential clothes washers has increased greatly since 

1990. Table 3.10.1 and Figure 3.10.1 show the shipment-weighted trends in tub volume, energy 

consumption, and energy efficiency from 1990–2008. The data indicate the changes in efficiency 

resulting from Federal energy conservation standards that took effect in 1994 and 2004.

Table 3.10.1 Residential Clothes Washer Tub Volume, Energy Consumption, and Energy 

Efficiency Trends (Shipment Weighted Averages)41

Year

Tub 

Volume 

(ft3)

Energy 

Consumption

(kWh/cycle)

Energy 

Factor

Figure 3.10.1 Tub Volume, Energy 

Consumption, and Energy Efficiency Trends for 

Residential Clothes Washers, 1990–2008

2008 3.22 0.80 1.67

2007 3.16 0.82 1.66

2006 3.13 1.18 1.42

2005 3.08 1.13 1.37

2004* 3.05 1.22 1.35*

2003 3.01 1.97 1.83

2002 2.96 2.13 1.64

2001 2.96 2.19 1.55

2000 2.92 2.20 1.47

1999 2.89 2.17 1.47

1998 2.85 2.27 1.41

1997 2.83 2.21 1.34

1996 2.80 2.24 1.26

1995 2.72 2.22 1.23

1994 2.69 2.23 1.21

1993 2.71 2.71 1.00

1992 2.71 2.67 1.02

1991 2.72 2.68 1.01

1990 2.63 2.67 0.99

*2004 energy descriptor changed from EF to MEF; cannot be compared with previous years.

3.11 MARKET SATURATION

Appliance Magazine’s annual Portrait of the Appliance Industry presents the market 

saturation for major appliances, including clothes washers. Table 3.11.1 presents the clothes 

washer saturation rate from 2000 to 2008 as reported in the September 2008–2009 editions of 

Appliance Magazine.42 According to the data, the saturation rate of clothes washers has 

remained fairly constant at around 95 percent during this period.
3-26

Table 3.11.1 Clothes Washer Saturation Rate for U.S. Households, 2000–200843

Product 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Clothes Washers 93% 94% 94% 94% 95% 93% 95% 95% 95%

3.12 PRODUCT RETAIL PRICES

Table 3.12.1 presents the average retail prices (in nominal dollars) of residential clothes 

washers and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) of each year (1982–84 = 100). Although prices for 

automatic clothes washers increased from 1980 to 2002, the increase was at a much slower rate 

than the annual rate of inflation. Since 2002, the average retail price has decreased, resulting in a 

net decrease in average retail price between 1980 and 2005. 

Table 3.12.1 Residential Appliance Retail Prices 44

Product Average Retail Prices (Nominal $) Percent 

Change

1980 1994 2002 2005 1980–2005

Automatic Clothes Washers 386 394 426 359 -7.0%

Consumer Price Index* 82.4 148.2 179.9 195.3 137.0%

* U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index: U.S. city average. 1982–84 = 100.

.

DOE conducted an in-depth survey of consumer retail prices for residential clothes 

washers in December 2009. DOE aggregated consumer prices from three major appliance 

retailers: Sears, Home Depot, and AJMadison.com websites. The Sears and Home Depot 

websites were used for this search. DOE identified a total of 174 models (74 standard-size toploading clothes washers, 100 front-loading clothes washers), which encompassed 20 different 

brands. For models that were available in multiple colors, or at multiple retailers, DOE used the 

least expensive full price, not including retail discounts. DOE used the CECl

and ENERGY 

STARm databases to match MEF and WF data with each clothes washer model. Figure 3.12.1

and Figure 3.12.2 summarize the data collected by DOE. The figure shows that retail price is 

generally a function of location of access (i.e., top-loading or front-loading) and efficiency, 

although there is a significant overlap of retail prices for higher-efficiency top-loading and 

lower-efficiency front-loading clothes washers. The consumer retail prices for top-loading 

ranged from $319 to $1,259, with an average of $636. The consumer retail prices for frontloading ranged from $519 to $2,449, with an average of $1,041. If the four top-loading outliers 

are removed, the average front-loading price is $993. Note that these do not represent shipmentweighted averages.

 l CEC appliance efficiency database available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/database/. Data 

collected did not include retail prices for combination washer/dryer units.

m ENERGY STAR database available at 

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=clotheswash.search_clotheswashers
3-27

Figure 3.12.1 Residential Clothes Washer Retail Price as a Function of MEF, December 

2009

Figure 3.12.2 Residential Clothes Washer Retail Prices as a Function of Location of Access, 

December 2009

As discussed further in Chapter 8 of the TSD, DOE used manufacturing costs developed 

for specific standard levels in combination with manufacturer and distributor markups, sales 

taxes, and installation costs to establish the total installed cost differences between baseline and 

more efficient residential clothes washers. DOE used the above range in current retail price 

differences between top-loading and front-loading clothes washers as an indication of the 

reasonableness of the total installed cost estimates that it developed for residential clothes 

washers.
3-28

3.13 INDUSTRY COST STRUCTURE

DOE developed the household appliance industry cost structure from publicly available 

information from the ASM and Economic Census, (Table 3.13.1 through Table 3.13.4) and the 

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports filed by publicly owned 

manufacturers (summarized in Table 3.13.5).

Table 3.13.1 and Figure 3.13.1 present the major appliance manufacturing industry

(NAICS code 33522) employment levels and earnings from 1999-2009. The statistics illustrate a 

steady decline in the number of production and non-production workers in the industry. DOE 

converted the payroll data to constant 2009 dollars using the Gross Domestic Product Implicit 

Price Deflator published by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysisn. Table 3.13.1 shows that as 

industry employment levels decline, the industry payroll in constant 2009 dollars is also 

decreasing. The percent decrease in total industry employees tracks closely with the percent 

decrease in payroll for all employees.

Table 3.13.1 Major Appliance Manufacturing Industry Employment and Earnings 45

Year Production 

Workers

All 

Employees

Payroll for All 

Employees

(2009 $ Mil)

Figure 3.13.1 Major Appliance Industry 

Employment and Earnings, 1999–2009

2009 32,875 37,905 1,511.3

2008 39,208 45,152 1,791.4

2007 46,572 53,162 1,969.4

2006 49,360 56,174 2,144.3

2005 54,586 63,535 2,232.3

2004 57,660 68,213 2,362.4

2003 58,289 68,593 2,328.3

2002 59,234 70,013 2,387.3

2001 60,669 70,938 2,417.5

2000 64,417 75,055 2,533.8

1999 64,066 73,884 2,435.7

Table 3.13.2 and Figure 3.13.2 present the employments levels and payroll for just the 

household laundry portion of the major appliance industry. Statistics for both employment levels 

and payroll show steady declines over the 10-year period, with payroll and employment levels 

again showing a positive correlation.

 n Available online at http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Payroll (2009 $ million)

No. Employees

All Employees

Production Workers

Payroll
3-29

Table 3.13.2 Household Laundry Industry Employment and Earnings46

Year Production 

Workers

All 

Employees

Payroll 

for All 

Employees

(2009 $ 

Mil)

Figure 3.13.2 Household Laundry Industry 

Employment and Earnings, 1999–2009

2009 7,326 7,927 315.6

2008 8,895 9,579 366.9

2007 10,864 11,741 440.6

2006 11,669 13,298 544.9

2005 12,590 14,468 517.1

2004 12,853 15,140 552.9

2003 13,137 15,510 572.1

2002 13,460 15,878 617.3

2001 12,833 14,918 541.0

2000 13,259 15,503 568.9

1999 14,034 15,915 554.1

Table 3.13.3 and Figure 3.13.3 present the cost of materials and industry payroll as a 

percentage of value of shipments from 1999–2009. Payroll data is indicated for production 

workers as well as all employees, which includes production workers. The cost of materials as a 

percentage of value of shipments has declined from 55.7 percent to 58.8 percent over the 10-year 

period, with minor fluctuations. The cost of payroll for production workers as a percentage of 

value of shipments has declined from 10.7 percent to 6.4 percent over the 10-year period. 

Similarly, the cost of total payroll as a percentage of value of shipments has declined from 13.9

percent in 1999 to 8.3 percent in 2009.

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

$1,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

Payroll (2009 $ million)

No. Employees

All Employees

Production Workers

Payroll
3-30

Table 3.13.3 Major Appliance Manufacturing Industry Materials and Wages Cost47

Cost as a Percentage of Value of 

Shipments (%)

Figure 3.13.3 Materials and Wages Cost as a 

Percentage of Shipments Value for Major 

Appliances, 1999–2009

Year Materials

Payroll for 

Production 

Workers

Payroll for 

All 

Employeesa

2009 44.7% 6.4% 8.3%

2008 56.3% 7.4% 9.5%

2007 58.8% 8.1% 10.1%

2006 58.7% 8.5% 10.6%

2005 57.7% 8.5% 10.7%

2004 58.3% 9.3% 12.0%

2003 56.8% 9.5% 12.4%

2002 57.0% 10.2% 13.5%

2001 58.5% 10.7% 14.0%

2000 57.3% 10.8% 14.2%

1999 55.7% 10.7% 13.9%

a) Payroll for All Employees includes payroll for Production Workers

Table 3.13.4 and Figure 3.13.4 show the cost of materials and industry payroll as a 

percentage of value of shipments for the household laundry industry from 1999–2009. Material 

prices as a percentage of value of shipments have fluctuated over the 10-year period, decreasing 

from 53.9 percent in 1999 to 42.2 percent in 2009. DOE notes that fluctuations in raw material 

costs are common from year to year. The cost of payroll for production workers as a percentage 

of value of shipments has as declined from 10.5 percent to 5.5 percent over the 10-year period. 

The cost of total payroll as a percentage of value of shipments has followed the same general 

trend, decreasing from 13.3 percent in 1999 to 6.5 percent in 2009.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percentage of Value of Shipments

All Other Employees

Production Workers

Materials
3-31

Table 3.13.4 Household Laundry Industry Materials and Wages Cost 48

Cost as a Percentage of Value of 

Shipments (%)

Figure 3.13.4 Materials and Wages Cost as a 

Percentage of Shipments Value for 

Household Laundry, 1999–2009

Year Materials

Payroll for 

Production 

Workers

Payroll for 

All 

Employeesa

2009 42.2% 5.5% 6.5%

2008 47.7% 5.4% 6.3%

2007 53.2% 7.3% 8.4%

2006 52.6%b 8.5% 10.5%

2005 52.1% 7.7% 9.8%

2004 52.1% 8.4% 11.0%

2003 54.7% 9.1% 12.0%

2002 55.9% 10.3% 14.0%

2001 58.3% 9.6% 12.3%

2000 56.3% 10.1% 13.4%

1999 53.9% 10.5% 13.3%

a) Payroll for All Employees includes payroll for Production Workers

b) Cost of Materials data not available for 2006; the average value from 2005 and 2007 was used as an estimate.

Table 3.13.5 presents the industry cost structure derived from SEC 10-K reports of publicly 

owned home appliance manufacturers. DOE averaged the financial data from 2005–2008 of 

U.S.-based appliance manufacturers to obtain an industry average. Each financial statement entry 

is presented as a percentage of total revenues.

Table 3.13.5 Industry Cost Structure Using SEC Data, Average 2005–2008

Financial Statement Entry Percent of Revenues

Cost of sales 83.8%

Net income 2.7%

Selling, general and administrative 11.2%

Capital expenditure 3.1%

Research and development 2.3%

Depreciation and amortization 3.2%

Net plant, property and equipment 17.4%

Working capital 3.2%

Figure 3.13.5 presents the industry-average gross margin over the period from 2002–

2008 for the same manufacturers from which the industry cost structure is derived. The slope of 

the curve indicates the downward cost pressure facing manufacturers.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percentage of Value of Shipments

All Other Employees

Production Workers

Materials
3-32

Figure 3.13.5 Appliance Industry Average Gross Margin Derived from SEC Data

A detailed financial analysis is presented in the MIA (see chapter 13 of this TSD). This 

analysis identifies key financial inputs including cost of capital, working capital, depreciation, 

and capital expenditures. 

3.14 INVENTORY LEVELS AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION RATES

Table 3.14.1 and Figure 3.14.1 show the year-end inventory for the major appliance 

manufacturing industry. Table 3.14.2 and Figure 3.14.2 show the year-end inventory for the 

household laundry manufacturing industry. DOE used annual data from the ASM and converted 

the inventory data to 2009 dollars using the PPI. Both in dollars and as a percentage of value of 

shipments, the end-of-year inventory for the major appliance industry steadily declined between 

1999and 2005. Inventories increased beginning in 2006, corresponding to the deterioration of the 

U.S. economy during that period. Household laundry equipment manufacturing generally 

experienced this same trend, with the rise in inventories beginning in 2005.
3-33

Table 3.14.1 Major Appliance Manufacturing Industry Inventory Levels49

Year

End-of-Year 

Inventory 

(2009 $ Mil)

EOY Inventory 

as a Percentage 

of Value of 

Shipments (%)

Figure 3.14.1 Major Appliances Manufacturing 

End-of-Year Inventory, 1999–2009

2009 1,150 6.3%

2008 1,334 7.1%

2007 1,453 7.5%

2006 1,261 6.2%

2005 1,265 6.1%

2004 1,236 6.3%

2003 1,187 6.3%

2002 1,249 7.1%

2001 1,363 7.9%

2000 1,515 8.5%

1999 1,491 8.5%

Table 3.14.2 Household Laundry Industry Inventory Levels50

Year

End-of-Year 

Inventory 

(2009 $ Mil)

EOY 

Inventory as a 

Percentage of 

Value of 

Shipments (%)

Figure 3.14.2 Household Laundry Equipment 

Manufacturing End-of-Year Inventory, 1999–2009

2009 240 5.0%

2008 263 4.5%

2007 274 5.2%

2006 273 5.3%

2005 217 4.1%

2004 193 3.8%

2003 210 4.4%

2002 232 5.3%

2001 265 6.1%

2000 241 5.7%

1999 360 8.7%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

$2,000

Inventory Percent of Value of Shipments

Inventory ($ 2009 millions)

End-of-Year Inventory

% of Value of Shipments

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

$450

$500

Inventory Percent of Value of Shipments

Inventory ($ 2009 millions)

End-of-Year Inventory

% of Value of Shipments
3-34

DOE obtained full production capacity utilization rates from the U.S. Census Bureau, 

Survey of Plant Capacity from 1999–2010. Table 3.14.3 and Figure 3.14.3 present utilization 

rates for the household appliance industry. Full production capacity is defined as the maximum 

level of production an establishment could attain under normal operating conditions. In the 

Survey of Plant Capacity reports, the full production utilization rate is a ratio of the actual level 

of operations to the full production level. The full production capacity utilization rate for all 

household appliances shows fairly steady utilization between 70-78 percent from 1998–2007, 

with a significant decrease to less than 65 percent between 2008–2010.

Table 3.14.3 Full Production Capacity Utilization Rates51

Year

Plant Capacity 

Utilization Rates 

(%)

Figure 3.14.3 Plant Capacity Utilization, 1998–2010

2010 64%

2009 59%

2008 69%

2007 76%

2006 77%

2005 74%

2004 76%

2003 78%

2002 72%

2001 70%

2000 70%

1999 75%

1998 73%

3.15 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

This section provides a technology assessment for residential clothes washers. Contained 

in this technology assessment are details about product characteristics and operation (section 

3.15.1), an examination of possible technological improvements for each product (section 

3.15.2), and a characterization of the product efficiency levels currently residentially available 

(section 3.15.3).

3.15.1 Product Operations and Components

In preparation for the screening and engineering analyses, DOE prepared a brief 

description of the characteristics and operation of residential clothes washers. These descriptions 

provide a basis for understanding the technologies used to improve product efficiency.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Utilization (%)
3-35

Residential clothes washers are appliances designed to clean clothes using a solution of 

soap and/or detergent and water with mechanical agitation. Clothes washers use electricity to 

operate one or more pumps and to power an electric motor that agitates and spins the clothes.

Clothes are washed, rinsed, and spun within a tub that is inside a cabinet. Because clothes 

washers require heated water for hot and warm water cycles, a separate water heater is typically 

needed to supply hot water. Most of the energy used by clothes washers is for water heating.

Water is fed into the clothes washer through electrically operated water valves: one connected to 

a hot water supply line and a second connected to a cold water supply line.

Traditional top-loading clothes washers have an opening on the top of the cabinet, 

covered by a door, which gives access to the inner basket where the load to be washed is placed.

The inner basket is typically perforated and is surrounded by a larger outer tub which holds the 

water when the machine is running. The inner basket typically contains an agitator along a 

vertical axis, which undergoes a reversing circular motion. The motion of the agitator, which is 

powered by an electric motor, circulates the clothes vertically from the bottom to the top of the 

basket. The spinning action of the inner basket and the drain pump are also powered by the 

motor. Traditional top-loading clothes washers use more water than other types of washers, and 

therefore, consume more energy during heated wash cycles. They also typically extract less 

water from laundry during the spin cycle, which results in longer drying time and greater energy 

consumption.

Non-agitator top-loading clothes washers may have a “wash plate” rather than an agitator 

to move the clothes within the basket. These top-loading clothes washers function by partially 

filling the tub with water for wash and rinse cycles and using very high spin speeds to extract 

rinse water from the clothes during the spin cycle. These top-loading clothes washers are more 

efficient in terms of water and energy than traditional top-loading clothes washers, but their high 

spin speeds that reduce drying time (and thus dryer energy consumption) may wrinkle clothing 

more than traditional top-loading clothes washer spin speeds. These machines work best with 

low-foaming, high efficiency detergent.

Front-loading clothes washers utilize a cylindrical tub or drum rotating on a horizontal or 

nearly-horizontal axis to wash clothes. Clothes are usually loaded along the axis of the 

cylindrical drum, which has led to this type of clothes washer to be called front-loading. The 

clothes are cleaned by tumbling them in the water (i.e., clothes are lifted to the top of the drum 

by the rotation of the cylinder and then dropped into the water below.) The cylindrical drum is 

only partially filled with water for wash and rinse cycles. High spin speeds are used to extract the 

water from the clothes during the spin cycles. These clothes washers are typically more efficient 

in terms of water and energy than traditional top-loading clothe washers, but as for non-agitator 

top-loading clothes washers, their high spin speeds may wrinkle clothing. 

Although most clothes washers using a horizontal-axis rotating drum are front-loading, 

they can be designed to be top-loading as well. In a top-loading horizontal-axis design, the 

cabinet has a door at the top that opens above the washer drum. Another door that slides or 

pivots open then provides access to the inner drum.
3-36

3.15.2 Technology Options

In order to gain a deeper understanding of the technological improvements used to 

increase the efficiency of residential clothes washers, DOE identified several possible 

technologies and examined the most common improvements used in today’s market.

DOE considered technologies identified in its most recent analysis of amended energy 

conservation standards as well as from information published in recent trade publications, 

technical reports, and manufacturers’ literature. Most of the technologies listed in Table 3.15.1—

with exceptions noted below—are taken from a 1996 report prepared for DOE entitled Design 

Options for Clothes Washers.

52 Improved horizontal-axis-washer drum design was identified in 

the September 2005 edition of Appliance Magazine.

53 Plastic particle cleaning was indentified in 

the September 2008 edition of Appliance Magazine.

54 DOE has included spray rinse and 

advanced agitator technology options based on comments to the most recent standards 

rulemaking for commercial clothes washers. DOE believes that residential and commercial 

clothes washer platform designs and technologies are similar, with the main difference being that 

commercial clothes washers are built for more rugged and frequent use. Based on a review of the

International Standby Basket of Products Surveyo

, which showed a wide range of standby power 

for front-loading clothes washers surveyed in the United States, and a review of controller and 

display options available for all residential clothes washers currently available on the market,

DOE added the low-standby-power design option. DOE also added hot water circulation loop 

based on a review of technical reports. Of the technologies listed below, the current DOE test 

procedure cannot measure the possible energy savings of adaptive control systems (other than 

adaptive-water-fill control systems).

 

o International Basket of Products Survey, Funded by the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and 

Climate. Available online at: http://www.energyrating.gov.au/standbydata/app/Default.aspx
3-37

Table 3.15.1 Technology Options for Residential Clothes Washers

1. Adaptive control systems

2. Added insulation

3. Advanced agitation concepts for vertical-axis machines

4. Automatic fill control

5. Bubble action

6. Direct-drive motor

7. Electrolytic disassociation of water

8. Horizontal-axis design

9. Horizontal-axis design with recirculation

10. Hot water circulation loop

11. Improved fill control

12. Improved horizontal-axis-washer drum design

13. Improved water extraction to lower remaining moisture content

14. Increased motor efficiency

15. Low standby-power design

16. Ozonated laundering

17. Plastic particle cleaning

18. Reduced thermal mass

19. Silver ion injection

20. Spray rinse or similar water-reducing rinse technology

21. Thermostatically-controlled mixing valves

22. Tighter tub tolerance

23. Ultrasonic washing

As described in the 1996 report on Design Options for Clothes Washers, DOE at that 

time eliminated the following technologies from further analysis: bubble action, electric 

disassociation of water; ozonated laundering; reduced thermal mass; suds savings; and ultrasonic 

washing. DOE will re-examine whether the basis for eliminating these technologies from further 

analysis is still valid.

Adaptive control system

According to the current DOE test procedure (10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix J2), 

“an adaptive control system refers to a clothes washer control system which is capable of 

automatically adjusting washer operation or washing conditions based on characteristics of the 

clothes load placed in the clothes container, without allowing or requiring consumer intervention 

or actions.” This technology option uses sensors to measure the soil load to adjust the wash 

temperature, agitation and/or tumble cycle time, number of rinse cycles, spin speed, and other 

parameters. Modular design also enables packaging multiple sensors into one probe, thereby 

reducing installation costs and decreasing the potential for leak points.55 Water and energy use 

can then be tailored to the load, thereby avoiding washing the clothes more than necessary.

Although the DOE test procedure does not provide a means for determining the energy 

consumption of a clothes washer with an adaptive control system, the test procedure does allow 

for specific field test procedures to measure energy consumption.
3-38

Residential clothes washers have used fuzzy logic to weigh laundry loads and regulate 

the length of the cycle, water level, number of rinses, and drying time.

56 Specific clothes washer 

designs have incorporated fuzzy logic to optimize the washing process while conserving water 

usage. The fuzzy-logic control determines the absorbency of the items being washed at the 

earliest stage possible after the start of the washing cycle. The system determines the correct 

water quantity for clear-water washing and subsequent rinsing.

57

Added insulation

This technology option adds insulation around the outer wash tub. Because some heat 

energy is lost through the shell of the clothes washer, adding insulation around the outer tub 

slightly reduces the water temperature needed for a hot wash. However, since the wash cycle is 

relatively short and the thermal mass of the water is very high, there is very little change in water 

temperature from adding insulation. Computer simulations performed on a traditional toploading vertical-axis clothes washer for a 20-minute wash cycle at 140 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)

showed that adding 1 inch of fiberglass insulation relative to no insulation resulted in only a 1–2 

°F increase in water temperature during parts of the wash.58

Advanced agitation concepts for vertical-axis machines

Advanced agitation concepts replace the standard agitator found in traditional top-loading 

vertical-axis machines with an alternative manipulator to agitate clothes and thus mechanically 

remove soil. In the residential clothes washer market, these alternatives to agitators have taken 

different forms, including nutating plates, rotating disks, and side-mounted agitators. In some 

instances, such agitation concepts allow a vertical-axis washer to avoid the need to cover all 

clothes completely with water, rotating them in and out of the water-filled portion of the basket, 

much like horizontal-axis washers. Haier manufacturers a clothes washer in which the tub and 

pulsator spin in one direction while the inner tub and agitator spin in the opposite direction.

Whirlpool manufacturers a clothes washer with a washplate that can adjust the amount of motion 

based on fabric saturation levels. Advanced agitation systems add considerable complexity to a 

vertical-axis clothes washer, and residential clothes washers that feature these technologies are 

sold for prices comparable to horizontal-axis clothes washers. 

Since the DOE test procedure captures the amount of water that a clothes washer 

consumes, the benefits of an advanced agitation concept washer can be directly measured and 

quantified via the WF. Potential energy savings are captured by the MEF as long as a portion of 

the washing cycle consumes heated water.

Automatic fill control

This technology option incorporates advanced control technologies to sense the clothes 

load and adjust the water level accordingly. For a traditional top-loading vertical-axis machine, 

this may mean setting the water level to just submerge the clothes load. This technology option 

can overcome the tendency of consumers to manually select a water level greater than required 
3-39

for a given load. Different types of sensors are available for controlling water volume including 

liquid-level sensors, which measures water levels at the tub bottom, or thermal-based water flow 

sensors, which are also known as thermo-anemometers.59

The implementation of this feature varies. While this feature is inexpensive to implement 

in all horizontal-axis washers, vertical-axis washers do not benefit from the same advantages 

regarding drum geometry and rotation axis.p As a result, automatic fill control is typically only 

found in higher-end vertical-axis models that have electronic controls and proprietary designs, 

limiting adoption to a small percentage of the vertical-axis market. Energy is saved in either 

vertical- or horizontal-axis designs by reducing the amount of hot water used in the wash cycle.

Bubble action

Daewoo has developed an air-bubble washing machine. This machine uses a low-profile 

impeller typical in Asian-style vertical-axis washers and combines it with a six-winged, rotating 

pulsator shaped to direct water in four directions. This pulsator also distributes air bubbles in 

different directions. The bubbles are generated by a vibrating bellows, which is driven by an 

electromagnet. Bubbles are reported to increase the cleaning power of the washer in several 

ways: (1) by inducing a high-frequency pressure fluctuation near the clothes, (2) by increasing 

the dissolution of detergent, (3) by increasing the amount of dissolved oxygen which increases 

the activity of the detergent, and (4) by lowering the viscosity of the wash water.60, 61 Daewoo 

washers that utilize air-bubble washing action are available in the European market, but are not 

available to U.S. consumers.62

Sharp also developed a bubble washer in which the bubble-generating device uses neurofuzzy-logic controls. From a nozzle located at the bottom of the washer, air bubbles are 

generated by a computer-controlled pulsator and circulated upward in vertical and horizontal 

swirling motions. The controls adjust the amount of water used, so that a single-tub design that 

washes the same load size as a conventional dual-tub (inner and outer) configuration uses only.

70 percent as much water and detergent.63 Although it is mentioned on the manufacturer’s 

website, this washer is not available in the United States.

64 Sanyo released a washer in Japan in 

2002 that used an ultrasonic wave generator, along with electrodes on the side of the tub to 

electrolyze the water, as a bubble-generating device.65 Standardized and independent tests have 

yet to be conducted on the performance of the bubble-action system; therefore, the energy 

savings potential and wash performance of the bubble-action technology option is unknown.

Although bubble washing has been incorporated into residential clothes washers in 

Europe and Asia, production is still extremely limited and further commercialization in the 

United States would require manufacturers to develop entirely new platforms.

 

p Horizontal-axis washers can incorporate a fill switch in the sump to monitor water levels as the wash basket and its 

contents are rotated slowly at the beginning of the wash cycle. As dry clothes drop into the wash water, they absorb 

some of it and the water level in the sump drops. The fill switch then opens the fill valve(s) to raise the water level 

until the sump is full again. This approach does not work with vertical-axis washers because the clothes are always 

immersed in the water. Proprietary solutions have been implemented on some vertical-axis washers, however.
3-40

Direct-drive motor

This technology option is primarily intended for use in traditional top-loading verticalaxis machines. A traditional top-loading vertical-axis clothes washer uses an induction motor, a 

mechanical transmission, and sometimes a pulley belt. A direct-drive motor can replace this 

conventional motor/transmission system. Rather than using a belt and/or transmission, a motor 

could be directly connected to the agitator, thereby avoiding transmission (gearbox) losses. In the 

past, Eaton, a motor manufacturer, claimed that this will result in less mechanical energy 

required, i.e., less energy needed to run the agitator motor. This is accomplished by using a 

brushless direct-current (BLDC) motor with electronic controls.

Potential differences in cleaning performance due to the direct-drive substitution were not 

measured by Eaton. In addition, other parameters such as cycle time or spin speed were not held 

constant in a comparison test with a conventional washer. For the machines tested, Eaton found 

savings of about 140 watt-hours (Wh) per cycle, or 64 percent of motor energy use. When 

adjusted for the direct-drive standby power, this difference drops to about 35 Wh per cycle, or 16 

percent of motor energy use. The direct-drive standby power is the energy consumption when the 

machine is “off”. In the “off” mode, the direct-drive motor system has a power drain of 4.78 W.

While the current DOE test procedure does not account for standby and off mode power use, 

DOE has initiated a test procedure change in parallel with the current rulemaking to incorporate 

standby mode and off mode power.

66 Energy savings could be improved if the standby/off mode 

power loss was reduced.

In the past, some manufacturers have stated that a limiting performance factor for this 

technology option was physical size. However, GE, Haier, and Whirlpool use direct-drive motors 

on some of their vertical-axis washers.67,68,69 Fisher & Paykel also manufactures four toploading, vertical-axis direct-drive washing machines available in the U.S. market.70 Some frontloading, horizontal-axis machines also use a direct-drive motor, including models manufactured 

by LG and Whirlpool.71,72

Electrolytic disassociation of water

The goal of electrolytic disassociation of water is to reduce hot water usage by 

substituting the electrolytic production of bleaching agents for the activation of bleaching 

chemical reactions in detergents by hot water. A prototype clothes washer with electrolytic 

disassociation of water has been successfully tested.

73 Although commercial detergents perform 

better at high temperatures, the same hypochlorite concentrations obtained by adding bleaching 

agents to water can be achieved at low temperatures if the agents are produced by electrolytic 

disassociation within the machine. The bleaching action is due to the chemical reaction of the 

oxygen (derived from the chemical decomposition of the hypochlorite) with the insoluble 

organic compounds that constitute the soil in the clothes. Together they make soluble compounds 

that are dissolved in the water.
3-41

Electrolytic disassociation was tested in a laboratory electrochemical cell. Medium-soiled 

clothes and white materials were used in the test. The washing cycle test compared the energy 

consumption of electrolytic cleaning versus conventional detergents. The first test cycle, utilizing 

electrolytic action, was performed by adding four grams per liter of salt to the room-temperature 

wash water in the machine. The second test cycle was run with a commercial detergent at a wash 

water temperature of 95 °F to 113 °F. For both wash methods, a normal cycle was run. Initial 

tests showed that energy use dropped from about 2.65 kWh/cycle for a typical washing machine 

to 1.35 kWh/cycle for the new electrochemical method. The Haier WasH2o is a detergentless 

washer that uses electrolysis to separate water into ions. It is only available in China and France 

and was released in 2008.

In the past, manufacturers have stated that electrolytic disassociation is not a workable 

approach. Primary concerns are negative effects on garments resulting from the bleaching 

process and poor consumer acceptance due to their inability to control the chemistry and 

temperature in the wash portion of the cycle.

74

Horizontal-axis design

Front-loading horizontal-axis machines rotate the drum (wash basket) and clothes about a 

horizontal axis. With this design, the drum does not have to be filled with water to cover the top 

of the clothes. Therefore, horizontal-axis machines use much less water than traditional toploading vertical-axis machines. At the beginning of each wash or rinse cycle, the washer is filled 

to a specified level and the drum then rotates a few times. As dry clothes absorb the water, a 

water level sensor and the washer controller add water and keep rotating the drum slowly until 

the water level no longer changes, which signals that all clothes are saturated with water.

Thus, the water level is matched to the laundry load. Washing performance appears to be 

equal to that of vertical-axis machines. In laboratory testing, horizontal-axis machines used on 

average 40 percent less energy and 25 percent less water than traditional vertical-axis washers 

when normalized to clothes container volume. The horizontal-axis machines also had greater soil 

removal effectiveness75. Although water savings are realized with horizontal-axis machines, 

DOE assumes that detergent use remains unchanged.

76 77

In the previous residential clothes washer rulemaking, AHAM submitted comments in 

which some manufacturers stated that factors limiting performance include: (1) soil removal, (2) 

consumer interface (ergonomics), (3) tangling, (4) cycle time, (5) rinsing and (6) suds 

sensitivity78. Although these performance-limiting factors may exist, every major manufacturer 

of clothes washers offers horizontal-axis machines for sale in the United States.

Horizontal-axis design with recirculation

This technology option is a variation on the horizontal-axis technology option, using a 

small pump to recirculate water out of the sump and spray it into the drum. The small amount of 

standing water in a standard horizontal-axis washer is thus further minimized. Less hot water is 

needed per wash cycle, thereby saving energy.
3-42

In the previous residential clothes washer rulemaking, manufacturers commented that 

they have not been able to verify that a savings exists with recirculation.79 Limiting factors 

mentioned by these manufacturers include (1) soil removal, (2) tangling, (3) cycle time, (4) 

rinsing, and (5) suds sensitivity. 

In the past, Electrolux had produced models that sprayed 8 liters per minute of 

water/detergent solution into the drum by means of a supply valve above the door.80

Hot water circulation loop

This technology option uses the hot water line running through a heat exchanger to heat 

cold water for use in a clothes washer. Prototype testing of machines that heat water using a hot 

water circulation loop used significantly less to no energy for heating if supply water was 65-70 

degrees C. Previous studies have been done on clothes washers with a hot water circuit and tube 

heat exchanger built into to the bottom of the wash drum, which decreased electricity demand 

from 3.78 MJ to 0.83 MJ for a cycle. However, this design uses more water while decreasing 

energy demand. To avoid this extra water usage, a prototype was developed using a pipe in pipe 

exchanger that does not require extra water. Further improvements to this option could include 

heat recovery from wastewater, or developing detergents that clean at lower wash 

temperatures.81

Improved fill control

This technology option is defined as improving the tolerance on existing wash-water fill 

sensing, which can be accomplished by reducing tolerances of presently used pressure sensors or 

improving switch design. This technology option relates primarily to top-loading vertical-axis 

design washers, although it is sometimes applicable to front-loading horizontal-axis washers, 

depending on the fill control used on the washer design.

In a traditional top-loading vertical-axis washer, one end of an air hose is connected to an 

air chamber near the bottom of the washer tub and the other end is connected to a pressure 

switch. As water fills the tub, air in the hose and chamber is forced into a smaller volume, 

thereby increasing the air pressure. The air pressure increases until it activates a pressure switch, 

which in turn shuts off the water inlet valve. A more accurate water-level-setting system would 

avoid overfilling the wash tub, thereby reducing the amount of water and energy used. In the 

past, manufacturers have stated that they were not aware of any opportunity to reduce tolerances 

of pressure sensors, but were still able to provide cost and efficiency data for improving the fill 

control.82

Improved horizontal-axis-washer drum design

Manufacturers of horizontal-axis washers continue to research and modify existing drum 

designs to improve wash performance, reduce mass, and increase spin speeds. With each drum 

revision, manufacturers frequently make claims that their drum designs increase consumer utility 
3-43

by being gentler on clothes or by reducing the cycle time through better agitation of the clothes

in the washer. A reduction in cycle time would have a measurable impact on washer power 

consumption, just as drums that can sustain higher spin speeds can reduce the remaining 

moisture content (RMC) (see the Improved water extraction technology option below for the 

definition of RMC) and thus raise the MEF of a washer. Implementation of this technology 

option varies, with drums featuring special paddles, drum-wall textures, or similar 

enhancements.

Improved water extraction to lower remaining moisture content 

RMC is defined as:

WI

WC WI RMC ( − ) =

where WC is the weight of the test cloth immediately after completion of the washer spin cycle, 

and WI is the “bone dry” weight of the test cloth. There are several ways to reduce the RMC, 

including (1) increasing the spin speed of the wash basket for the final spin cycle, (2) changing 

the direction of rotation to more evenly distribute clothes, (3) having a longer spin cycle, and (4) 

increasing the size or number of drainage holes in the washer drum. Since mechanical water 

removal is more energy efficient than using heat to dry, energy consumption for the combined 

wash and dry process is reduced.

The DOE test procedure assumes that the improved-water-extraction feature will not be 

used for 25 percent of all wash cycles. Since this feature can be consumer selectable, clothes 

subject to wrinkling can be washed with a conventional spin-cycle option to avoid a wrinkling 

problem. Some manufacturers in the past were doubtful that RMCs of 35 percent and 30 percent 

could be practically obtained.

At the time of the 2001 TSD, laboratory testing was conducted to ascertain RMCs on 

commercially available front-loading horizontal-axis clothes washers. Measured RMCs ranged 

from 49 percent to 36 percent with a 50/50 cotton/polyester cloth load. For the same test load, a 

vertical-axis machine had a 52-percent RMC. The washers for the above testing were loaded at 3 

lb/ft3 of basket capacity.83 The DOE test procedure, however, specifies the test load as being 

closer to 4 lb/ft3 of basket capacity. Since the size of the cloth test load has an effect on the RMC 

achieved, it is unknown whether the above laboratory-tested machines can achieve their stated 

RMC values under DOE test conditions. As of the 2001 TSD, clothes washers with a certified 

RMC of up to 40 percent were available.84

RMC data are no longer required to be published because the current test procedure 

requires the publication of only the MEF and WF for clothes washers. However, RMC data can 

be found in the CEC residential clothes washer database, but this database does not cover all 

residential clothes washers on the market. DOE observed RMC values as low as 30 and 35 

percent for front-loading washers and top-loading washers, respectively, according to the DOE 
3-44

test procedure. For front-loading washers, RMC values ranged from 30 to 47 percent, with an 

average RMC of 38 percent. For top-loading washers, RMC values ranged from 35 to 61 percent, 

with an average RMC of 50 percent. 

Increased motor efficiency

About 10 percent of the total electrical energy consumed by a typical clothes washer is 

used by the electric motor. The typical washing machine has a 1⁄2 –2⁄3 horsepower motor. In the 

past, a residential clothes washer manufacturer stated that replacing a split-phase motor with a 

capacitor-start motor may increase the efficiency of the motor by 10 percent.85 Permanent 

magnet motors offer even higher efficiencies, though the benefit of a higher efficiency motor has 

to be balanced with the higher cost and the relatively small contribution to the overall energy 

consumption per wash cycle from the motor itself.

Drive system efficiency can also be increased by using a buck-boost power factor 

correction circuit (PFC). This reduces inverter complexity and cost by controlling inverter output 

voltage through changing DC bus voltage without affecting performance. Using a PFC circuit 

can improve efficiency by more than 1.5 times from that of a single-phase induction motor.86

Three-phase induction motors have also been shown to consume 50 percent less power than 

universal commutator motors through better control of motor slip.87

Low-standby-power electronic controls

Electronic controls may consume power even when the clothes washer is not performing 

its intended function. Depending on the implementation of the controller, standby power is 

required to enable the electronic controls to detect user input without the user first having to turn 

on a mechanical power switch or to enable displays, illuminate switches, etc. Reducing the 

standby power consumption of electronic controls would reduce the annual energy consumption 

of the clothes washer, but would not impact the energy consumption of the clothes washer during 

operation. Low-standby-loss electronic controls can be implemented in a wide variety of ways.

DOE is unaware of any data demonstrating energy savings associated with low-standby-power 

designs for residential clothes washers.

Ozonated laundering

Ozonated laundering systems are available for large-scale commercial or institutional 

use. The ozone, manufactured from ambient air, is injected into the water. There is some debate 

as to how the process of the ozonated cleaning exactly works. Some claim the ozone reacts with 

soluble soils, making them insoluble, after which the mechanical action of the washing separates 

the soils from the fabric. One manufacturer proposed that the energy inherent in ozone reduces 

water tension, making the water a better solvent. Energy is saved with this system because the 

water is not heated for lightly to moderately soiled laundry. In fact, colder water retains a higher 

concentration of ozone for a longer time than warmer water. For heavily soiled laundry, 

temperatures of 100–110 °F are used, which are lower than the temperatures required in a 

conventional washer. Also, since fewer chemicals are used, the rinse time is minimized, thereby 
3-45

reducing the total cycle time and water consumption. Economical ozone production is critical to 

the potential energy savings. One manufacturer estimates savings of 25 percent on “utility 

expenses” with installation of its system.88 However, in addition to the ozone generator, a new or 

reprogrammed controller would be required, adding to the cost of this technology option.

Sanyo has developed a residential clothes washer which uses ozone to disinfect and clean 

water that is held in a storage tank and used in the final rinse. This allows water to be recycled 

and reduces the amount of water required for the wash cycle. Although this clothes washer is 

currently sold in Japan, it has not yet been marketed in the United States.89

Plastic particle cleaning

This technology option uses the absorbent properties of plastic to clean clothes. The 

clothes are tumbled in with polymer granules, which absorb the dirt, for up to 30 minutes. This 

technology is currently in development by Xeros Ltd. in the United Kingdom, which hoped to 

have the technology on the market as early as 2009.q Research conducted in the United Kingdom 

has shown that this technology would require less than 2 percent of the water used by a 

conventional washing machine. The design would still require about a cup of water and detergent 

to loosen the dirt or stain in clothing. Another feature of this technology option is that the clothes 

would emerge from the clothes washer almost dry, reducing the energy required for drying the 

clothes.90 

Reduced thermal mass

This technology option uses a plastic tub specially designed to minimize the thermal 

mass that is heated by the water. Tests by manufacturers indicate that very little energy can be 

saved this way because the bulk of the thermal mass is contained in the hot water itself. One 

manufacturer compared the impact of both porcelain-enameled steel and polypropylene outer 

tubs on water temperature. Both machines were filled with 16 gallons of 140 °F water and 

agitated for 10 minutes. After 10 minutes, there was no significant difference in water 

temperature between the two machines. Calculations show that if there were no heat losses 

through the outer tub, the equilibrium temperature for the tested steel tub described above would 

be 138.9 °F. Therefore, there is little to be gained by decreasing the thermal mass of the outer 

tub.91

Plastic outer tubs are commonly used by manufacturers and can be considered as part of 

the baseline model. There is no practicable way to manufacture washing machines with plastic 

tubs with a lower thermal mass beyond the current practice.

Silver ion injection

 

q For more information, visit http://www.xerosltd.com/.
3-46

Samsung offers silver ion injection as an alternative to the traditional hot water 

sanitization cycle in its SilverCareTM line of front-loading residential clothes washers. Silver is 

electrolyzed during the wash and rinse cycles, and, according to Samsung, the released silver 

ions penetrate into the fabric, killing bacteria and sanitizing the clothes. Samsung also states that 

the silver ions eradicate bacteria and mold from inside the clothes washer, disinfecting the drum 

and other internal parts.

92

Because the silver ion injection feature can be used for sanitization in cold water, energy 

savings can be achieved compared to a hot water or steam sanitization cycle.

93 The sanitization 

of the machine may also eliminate the need for period self-cleaning cycles commonly 

recommended for front-loading clothes washers.

The long-term health effects of human and environmental exposure to nanoscale silver 

particles are unknown. In September 2007, the EPA issued a Federal Register notice in which it 

determined that clothes washers will be regulated as pesticides if the machines contain silver or 

other substances, and if they generate ions of those substances for express pesticidal purposes.94

According to this decision, a manufacturer would be required to register a clothes washer with 

EPA as a pesticide if the product is marketed with claims that it will kill bacteria on clothing.

In May 2008, a group of advocacy organizations sued the EPA asking the agency to issue 

new rules regulating products containing nanoscale silver particles. The petition claimed that

EPA failed to adequately regulate products containing or using nanoscale silver particles. The 

petition asks EPA to: (1) classify nanoscale silver as a new pesticide; (2) require detailed product

registration and data submissions under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act; 

and (3)analyze the potential environmental, health, and safety risks of nanoscale silver.95

Since EPA currently permits the sale of registered clothes washers using silver ion 

injection, DOE concludes that silver ion injection does not pose any significant adverse impacts 

on health or safety, and thus is eligible to be considered as a design option at this time.

Spray rinse or similar water-reducing rinse technology

Traditional vertical-axis clothes washers immerse the clothing completely in water during 

the wash and rinse phases of the cleaning cycle. Spray-rinse systems eliminate the immersion 

requirement by spraying rinse water into the drum while the wash basket is rotating. The 

centrifugal force of the rotating basket pins the clothes against the outer walls and subsequently 

forces the rinse liquid through the clothes. In the process, the rinsing liquid picks up remaining 

suds and transports them into the sump, from which they are drained. Since immersion or partial 

immersion is no longer necessary, less rinse water is required. When using hot rinse water, this 

reduces energy consumption by reducing the amount of hot water required for the rinse cycle.

AHAM may develop a rinse performance standard for clothes washers that could 

preclude the use of rinse-water reduction technologies. The current DOE test procedure, though, 

captures the benefit of this technology option, as any reduction in water consumption improves 

WF and any reduction in heated water consumption improves MEF. 
3-47

Thermostatically controlled mixing valves

Thermostatically controlled water valves (TCWVs) are defined by the DOE test 

procedure as “clothes washer controls that have the ability to sense and adjust the hot and cold 

supply water.” This technology option achieves energy savings by more accurately controlling 

inlet water temperature for hot and warm fills. In a typical non-thermostatically-controlled water 

inlet system, two solenoid valves are used; one valve opens for hot water fills while the other 

opens for cold water fills. Both solenoid valves are opened if a warm water setting is selected. In 

the warm wash mode, fixed fractions of hot and cold water are controlled by flow-control 

devices. For example, a manufacturer may decide to specify warm water as 50-percent hot water 

and 50-percent cold water. To reduce hot water energy use, some manufacturers have reduced 

the warm water temperature by using other ratios such as 40-percent hot and 60-percent cold.

Energy can be saved with a TCWV by either reducing the hot water temperature and/or 

reducing the warm water temperature. For example, the TCWV could be used to lower the hot 

wash temperature from 135 °F to 130 °F by mixing hot water (at 135 °F test inlet conditions) 

with cold water. Warm water temperature could be similarly reduced. The energy savings can 

vary widely depending on the test standard’s specified inlet hot water temperature and the 

selected temperature of the warm water.

The TCWV technology option has the potential to overstate the real-world energy 

savings, depending on the proximity of the water heater to the installed clothes washer. When 

tested under laboratory conditions, the clothes washer is typically close to the hot water source, 

whereas this is generally not the case in a home laundry setting. As a result of the distance 

between the hot water source and the clothes washer, there is a temperature drop due to line 

losses. Because of these line losses, a clothes washer with a TCWV may use more hot water than 

predicted on the basis of laboratory testing. Similarly, in a real-world application, savings will 

also vary with the temperature of incoming cold water. The unheated water temperature will vary 

with both geographic location and time of year. More energy would likely be saved in cases of 

warmer “cold” supply water, as a TCWV would then reduce the amount of time a hot water 

valve is open. The amount of savings is also dependent on the set point of the TCWV, the water 

heater set point, the temperature selection of the wash (hot or warm cycle), and the location of 

the sensing thermostat controlling the inlet water valves. A limiting performance factor 

mentioned by more than one manufacturer is soil removal with lower wash temperatures.

Tighter tub tolerance

This technology option reduces the annular volume between the inner wash basket and 

the outer tub. This annulus fills with water, but does not add to the clothes washer capacity.

Having less space between the inner wash basket and the outer tub reduces the amount of water 

required for a fill, thereby saving the energy required to heat that water. This option applies 

primarily to traditional top-loading vertical-axis washers. In a high-efficiency top-loading or 

horizontal-axis clothes washer, water only occupies the lower portion of the annulus. Since most 
3-48

of the annulus in a high-efficiency top-loading or horizontal-axis clothes washer is filled with air, 

a smaller annulus does not yield significant energy savings.

Other considerations are also important in determining an appropriate clearance between 

basket and tub. In the past rulemaking, residential clothes washer manufacturers stated that if the 

annulus is too small there may be problems with “suds lock”, where suds from the wash water 

remain between the inner wash basket and outer tub. Clearance is also needed to drain water 

during the spin-dry cycle and to allow for deflection of baskets with out-of-balance loads.

Increasing the spin speed of the washer basket during the spin dry cycle may also require a larger 

space between tub and basket to allow for greater deflection at higher spin speeds. For this latter 

reason, tighter tub tolerance was not combined with the improved-water-extraction technology 

option. Other limiting performance factors mentioned by residential clothes washer 

manufacturers in the past include: (1) noise, (2) vibration, and (3) sand removal.

Ultrasonic washing

The addition of mechanical energy to the wash cycle can reduce the need for hot water 

(or chemical energy) in the cleaning action of clothes washers. One potential method of 

delivering the mechanical energy is through ultrasonic vibrations that loosen and remove some 

of the dirt on the soiled clothes. Such washing machines have been produced by a Japanese firm 

and were to be marketed in the United States. One U.S. clothes washer manufacturer investigated 

the Japanese product and found that it did not successfully clean clothes. The U.S. firm stated 

that the Japanese company is an excellent manufacturer of ultrasonic transducers, but does not 

have experience with clothes washing. In 2002, Sharp Corporation unveiled a clothes washer in 

Japan with a spot washing feature, which uses an ultrasonic generator, along with electrodes on 

the side of the tub to electrolyze the water, to generate tiny air bubbles to loosen dirt or remove 

stains.96

One of the problems with ultrasonic washing is that clothes are not uniformly exposed to 

the vibrations generated by the transducers, which means that some areas may remain soiled.

Additionally, the wash solution and the submerged clothes appear to dissipate much of the 

energy without the clothes being cleaned.

3.15.3 Energy Efficiency

In preparation for the screening and engineering analyses, DOE gathered data on the 

energy efficiency of residential clothes washers available in the marketplace in December 2009.

DOE conducted an in-depth search of residential clothes washers by gathering consumer data

from three major appliance retailers: Sears, Home Depot, and AJMadison.com websites. These 

three sources are considered major retailers and are representative of the most important retail 

sales channels for residential clothes washers. DOE identified a total of 174 models (74 standardsize top-loading clothes washers, 100 front-loading clothes washers), which encompassed 20 

different brands. For models that were available in multiple colors, or at multiple retailers, DOE 

used the least expensive full price, not including retail discounts. DOE used the CEC and 

ENERGY STAR databases to match MEF and WF data with each clothes washer model.
3-49

While this section is not intended to provide a complete characterization of the energy 

efficiency of all residential clothes washers currently available and in use, it does provide an 

overview of the vast majority of units available currently on the market. Figure 3.15.1 displays 

the distribution of standard-sized (capacity of 1.6 ft.3 or higher) residential clothes washers as a 

function of MEF. Figure 3.15.2 displays the distribution of standard-sized (capacity of 1.6 ft.3 or 

higher) residential clothes washers as a function of WF.

 Figure 3.15.1 Standard-Sized Residential Clothes Washer MEFs from DOE Market 

Survey, December 2009
3-50

Figure 3.15.2 Standard-Sized Residential Clothes Washer WFs from DOE Market Survey, 

December 2009

Figure 3.15.1 illustrates the difference in MEF between top-loading and front-loading 

residential clothes washers. While the majority of top-loading units have an MEF below 1.80, 

there are an increasing number of high-efficiency top-loading units with MEFs between 1.80 and 

2.29. All of the clothes washers with an MEF above 2.3 are front-loading units.

Figure 3.15.2 illustrates the difference in WF between top-loading and front-loading 

residential clothes washers. All of the residential clothes washers with a WF greater than 8.0 are 

top-loading units, whereas all of the clothes washers with a WF less than 4.0 are front-loading. 

The majority of clothes washers with a WF between 4.0 and 8.0 are front-loading.
3-51

REFERENCES

 1 “The Share-of-Market Picture for 2008.” Appliance Magazine, September 2009.

2 U.S. Census Bureau. 2006 Annual Survey of Manufactures, Sector 31. Release Date 18 Nov 

2008. http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed 30 April 2009.

3 “The Share-of-Market Picture for 2008.” Appliance Magazine, September 2009.

4 ENERGY STAR. 2008 “Clothes Washer Product Snapshot”. Prepared by D&R 

International, Ltd. On behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy, May 2008. Available online 

at: www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=manuf_res.pt_appliances. (Accessed September 4, 

2008.)

5 “The Share-of-Market Picture” Appliance Magazine, September 2005–2009.

6 Appliance Magazine, September 2009. Op. cit.

7 Maytag. 2005. “Whirlpool Corporation and Maytag Corporation Sign Definitive Merger 

Agreement.” Maytag Press Release, August 22, 2005.

8 P. Hussmann. 2006. “Justice to Extend Maytag-Whirlpool Merger Review.” Newton Daily 

News Online, February 14, 2006.

9 W. Ryberg. 2006. “Purchase may face antitrust trouble.” Des Moines Register, August 20, 

2005.

10 Appliance Magazine. 2006. “Harkin, Boswell want Maytag sale blocked.” Appliance 

Magazine, January 15, 2006. 

www.appliancedesign.com/Articles/Latest_News/8c86218cb13d8010VgnVCM100000f932a8

c0. (Accessed 15 December 2009.)

11 U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. DOJ). 2006. Department of Justice Antitrust Division 

Statement on the Closing of its Investigation of Whirlpool’s Acquisition of Maytag, March 

29, 2006.

12 Ibid.

13 Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) Fact Book 2005.

14 Ibid.

15 AHAM Fact Book 2003.
3-52

 

16 CEEE. 2000. National Residential Home Appliance Market Transformation Strategic Plan. 

December, 2000.

17 DOE Docket No. EE-RM-PET-100, California’s Request for Reconsideration, submitted by 

the California Energy Commission (CEC), January 29, 2007. Available online at: 

www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/clotheswashers/cec_reconsideration_request.pdf

18 CEC. 2007. Notice of Civil Suit Under 42 USC Sections 6295(g)(2), 6297(d), and 6305(a)(2), 

Challenging DOE’s Denial of California’s Clothes Washer Waiver Petition, April 20, 2007. 

Available online at: www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/clotheswashers/2007-04-

20_NOTICE_OF_CIVIL_SUIT.PDF. (Accessed March 11, 2010).

19 CEC. 2007. Petition for Review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, April 20, 

2007. Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/clotheswashers/2007-04-

20_PETITION_FOR_REVIEW.PDF

20 California Energy Commission v. DOE, No. 07-71576 (9th Cir. 2009) Available online at: 

http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/clotheswashers/2009-10-

28_Ninth_Circuit_Opinion.pdf

21 Official Mexican Standard NOM-005-ENER-2000, “Energy efficiency of household electric 

washing machines. Limits, testing and labeling method.” (document in Spanish) Accessed 

online at 

http://www.conae.gob.mx/work/sites/CONAE/resources/LocalContent/4523/7/NOM005ENE

R2000.pdf (Accessed December 15, 2009).

22 Ibid.

23 Collaborative Labeling and Appliance Standards Program. 2008. “Standards and Labeling 

Worldwide Summary for Clothes Washers.” Available online at 

http://www.clasponline.org/clasp.online.worldwide.php?product=11. Accessed December 16, 

2009.

24 Ibid.

25 Tiele, Simone. 2008. Australia’s Approach to Standby Power. Department of the 

Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Australia, April 2, 2008. Available online at: 

http://www.iea.org/textbase/work/workshopdetail.asp?WS_ID=352. (Accessed August, 

2008)

26 Yungrae, K. 2008. New Energy Efficiency Policy Tool: Standby Warning Label. Korea 

Energy Management Corporation, April 2, 2008. Available online at: 
3-53

 

http://www.iea.org/textbase/work/workshopdetail.asp?WS_ID=352. (Accessed August, 

2008.)

27 Commission of the European Communities. 2008. “Commission Regulation (EC) No. 

1275/2008 of 17 December 2008 implementing Directive 2005/32/EC of the European 

Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for standby and off 

mode electric power consumption of electrical and electronic household and office 

equipment.” December 18, 2008. Available online at http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:339:0045:0052:EN:PDF (Accessed 

December 2009)

28 Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency. 2008. “Incentives for Clothes 

Washers/Dryers.” September 22, 2008. Available online at: http://www.dsireusa.org/

(Accessed September 22, 2008)

29 U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. “ New Privately Owned Housing Units Started, Annual Data.” 

Accessed online at http://www.census.gov/const/startsan.pdf (Accessed December 16, 2009).

30 Ibid.

31 AHAM Fact Book 2003 and 2005.

32 “The Share-of-Market Picture” Appliance Magazine, September 2007-2009.

33 Department of Energy. 2009. AHAM Data Submittal. “Table A-1: Residential Clothes 

Washer Shipments.” DOE Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019.

34 ENERGY STAR Annual Sales Data. 2009. Available online at 

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=manuf_res.pt_appliances (Accessed December 18, 

2009).

35 ENERGY STAR. 2008 “Clothes Washer Product Snapshot”. Prepared by D&R 

International, Ltd. On behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy, May 2008. Available online 

at: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=manuf_res.pt_appliances. (Accessed September 

4, 2008.)

36 AHAM Fact Book 2005.

37 “ENERGY STAR Update on Appliances and Water Heaters.” 2010 ENERGY STAR Partner 

Meeting. Steve Ryan & Kristen Taddonio (US EPA). October 6, 2010 Available online at 

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/downloads/meetings/2010/Update%20on%20Appl%2

0and%20Water%20Heaters.pdf
3-54

 38 U.S. Census Bureau. 1997-2008. “Table 1. Value of Shipments of Major Household 

Appliances by Product Class.” Current Industrial Reports: 1997-2008. Issued annually. 

http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/historical_data/ma335f/

39 AHAM. 2009. Import/Export Trade Reports – December 2005-2008 (preliminary year end). 

Available online at: 

http://www.aham.org/industry/ht/d/Items/cat_id/5573/cids/425,522,5573/pid/5574 (Accessed 

December 16, 2009).

40 Ibid.

41 AHAM Fact Book. 2005.

42 “The Share-of-Market Picture” Appliance Magazine, September 2007-2009.

43 Ibid.

44 AHAM Fact Book. 2005.

45 U.S. Census Bureau. 1997-2007. Statistics.

46 Ibid.

47 Ibid.

48 Ibid.

49 Ibid.

50 Ibid.

51 U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Plant Capacity: 2006 to 1994.

52 P. Biermayer et al.. 1996. Design Options for Clothes Washers. Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory (LBNL), Berkeley, CA, LBL-47888, October 1996.

53 Appliance Magazine, September 2005. 

54 L. Bonnema. 2008. “Playing with Water,” 61st Annual Laundry Appliances Report –

Appliance Magazine, September 2008. Available online at 

http://www.appliancemagazine.com/zones/consumer/04_laundry/editorial.php?article=2055

&zone=4&first=1 (Accessed September 22, 2008.)
3-55

 55 Zimmerman, Bernd. “Appliance sensors become hot stuff.” Machine Design. Vol. 77, No. 

20, pp. 13-18. May 19, 2005. 

56 Appliance Manufacturer, April 1995, p. 27.

57 Appliance Manufacturer, February 1995, p. E-58.

58 Science Applications Inc. 1977. Energy Efficiency Program for Clothes Washers, Clothes 

Dryers and Dishwashers, SAI-77-839, La Jolla, CA, pp. 4–45.

59 Zimmerman, B. 2005. Op. cit.

60 “Big Plans for Tiny Bubbles.” Appliance Manufacturer, December 1994, p. 32.

61 “Sorting Through Laundry.” Appliance Manufacturer, September 1994, p. 35.

62 Daewoo Product Literature. Available online at

http://www.daewoo-electronics.de/eu/products/living_washing_prod.asp?idprod=235

(Accessed March 5, 2010)

63 I. Turiel, et al. 1995. Evaluation of Advanced Technologies for Residential Appliances and 

Residential and Commercial Lighting. LBNL, Berkeley, CA, LBL-35982, January 1995.

64 Sharp Product Timeline. Available online at

http://sharp-world.com/corporate/info/his/chronology/p10.html (Accessed March 5, 2010)

65 D. Normille. 2002. "Ultrasound turns clothes ‘ultraclean’." Global Design News –Design 

News, March 25, 2002. Available online at http://www.designnews.com/article/911-

Ultrasound_turns_clothes_ultraclean_.php (Accessed September 18, 2008.)

66 S. Kristic et al. 1993. “Direct Comparison: Assessing the Energy Efficiency Impact of a 

Transmissionless Motor/Drive System for Conventional Clothes Washers.” Proceedings of 

the 44th Annual International Appliance Technical Conference, May 1993, p.101.

67 GE Product Literature. Available online at

http://products.geappliances.com/ApplProducts/Dispatcher?REQUEST=RESULTSPAGE&C

ATEGORY=CA0096&CATEGORY=CA0095&SITEID=GEA. (Accessed March 5, 2010)

68 Haier Product Literature. Available online at 

http://www.haieramerica.com/en/category/Home_Appliances/Laundry/Washers (Accessed 

September 12, 2008.)
3-56

 69 Whirlpool Product Literature. Available online at 

http://www.whirlpool.com/catalog/category.jsp?parentCategoryId=113&categoryId=115 

(Accessed September 12, 2008.)

70 Fisher & Paykel Product Literature. Available online at 

http://www.fisherpaykel.com/product/laundry/clotheswashers (Accessed March 5, 2010.)

71 LG Electronics Product Literature. Available online at

http://us.lge.com/download/product/file/1000003879/WM2688Hss.pdf (Accessed March 5, 

2010.)

72 Whirlpool Product Literature. Op. cit.

73 R. Bertolino. 1982. “Washer with electrolytic water dissociation”, Conference on Energy 

Conservation in Buildings. Proceedings. D. Reidel Publishing Company (October).

74 Ibid.

75 ADL. 1995. Laboratory Testing of Clothes Washers, pp 3-8, December, 1995, EPRI Report 

No. TR-105098.

76 A. Cahn. 1994. The Laundering Process, handout presented at the Workshop on Home 

Laundry Energy Standards Regulatory Issues, Washington, D.C., November 11, 1994.

77 Procter & Gamble. 1995. Comments on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, DOE 

Docket No. EE RM-94-403, comment #9, January 20, 1995.

78 AHAM. 1995. Comments on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. DOE Docket No. 

EE RM-94-403, comment #27, May 8, 1995.

79 Ibid.

80 “New for ’93.” Electrolux Product Literature, Domotechnica.

81 Persson, Tomas. “Dishwasher and Washing machine Heated by a Hot Water Circulation 

Loop.” Applied Thermal Engineering. Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 120-128. January 2007. 

82 Biermayer et al. 1996. Op. cit.

83 ADL. 1995. Op. cit.

84 Biermayer et al. 1996. Op. cit.

85 AHAM. 1995. Op. cit.
3-57

 

86 Hoghani, J.S. and Heidari, M. “High Efficient Low Cost Induction Motor Drive for 

Residential Applications.” 2006 International Symposium of Power Electronics, Electrical 

Drives, Automation and Motion. IEEE. pp. 1399-1402. May 26, 2006.

87 Bourgeois, J.-M. “Energy Saving Motor Controls for Washing Machines.” Electronik. Vol. 

50, No. 12, pp. 58-61. July 12, 2001. 

88 EPRI. 1996. Ozone Laundering: A Better Wash Process for Commercial Laundries. 

Technical Brief RP2890, March 1996.

89 Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. 2006. “Sanyo Announces the World-First Drum Type Washing 

Machine with ‘Air Wash’ Function,” News Release, February 2, 2006. Available online at 

http://www.sanyo.com/news/2006/02/02-1en.html#03 (Accessed September 2, 2008.)

90 L. Bonnema. 2008. Op. cit.

91 U.S. DOE. 1990. Op. cit.

92 Samsung 2010. “Silver Nano Health System – Frequently Asked Questions.” Samsung 

website. Accessed March 4, 2010. 

http://ww2.samsung.co.za/silvernano/silvernano/wash_faq_popup.html

93 “Ions and Free Radicals.” Appliance Magazine, September 2007. Accessed online at 

http://www.appliancemagazine.com/editorial.php?article=1820&zone=1&first=1

94 EPA Announcement. “Pesticide Registration: Clarification for Ion Generating Equipment.” 

September 21, 2007. Accessed online at http://www.epa.gov/oppad001/ion_gen_equip.htm.

95 Monica, John C. “EPA Sued Over Nanoscale Silver.” Nanotechnology Law Report. May 3, 

2008. Accessed online at http://www.nanolawreport.com/2008/05/articles/epa-sued-overnanoscale-silver.

96 D. Normile. 2002. Op. cit.