# Technical Support Document: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products: Dishwashers, Clothes Washers, and Clothes Dryers including Environmental Assessment (DOEIEA-0386) Regulatory Impact Analysis

July 1989

U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary, Conservation and Renewable Energy Building Equipment Division Washington, D.C. 20585

### ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR THREE TYPES OF CONSUMER PRODUCTS: DISHWASHERS, CLOTHES WASHERS 

### AND CLOTHESDRYERS

1

### INTRODUCTIONAND SUMMARY This environmental assessment (EA) evaluates the environmental impacts resulting from new or amended energy-efficiency,standards for dishwashers, clothes washers and clothes dryers as mandated by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (1). A complete description of the Engineering and Economic Analysis of the proposed standards may be found elsewhere in the Technical Support Document (TSD) (2). All eleven of the scenarios for product design changes described in the Engineering Analysis of the TSD are analyzed in the environmental assessment in the form of levels of pollutant reduction. Level 1 represents the least amount of pollutant reduction, while higher numbered levels represent increasingly more stringent standards, with correspondingly greater reductions in pollutants. Values for energy savings that result from product design changes are taken from the TSD. These energy savings are based on recent dataon actual usage rather thanDOE test procedures. The main environmental concern addressed is emissions from fossil fueled electricity generation. Each of the design options for dishwashers, clothes washers and clothes dryers result in decreased electricity use and, therefore, reduced power plant emissions. The proposed efficiency standards will decrease air pollution by decreasing future energy demand. The greatest decreases in air pollution

, will be in sulfur oxides (listed in equivalent weight of sulfur dioxide, or SO2). Some design options for dishwashers also reduce water consumption, resulting in lower in-house emissions from fuel-burning water heaters. Although the quantity of raw materials used per appliance will remain relatively constant, in most scenarios increased initial cost is expected to slightly decrease the number of appliances sold, resulting in small decreases in raw materials used. This demand decrease is estimated by the Consumer Impact Analysis in the TSD. The main effect of decreased appliance production is the

### SO2 emitted in steel production. The decrease is small, however, in comparison tothe SO2decreases from fuel burning avoided at power plants. Thecontribution from steel production is not included in the estimates for net SO2 decreases resulting from design changes in these three products. The design changes are described fully in the Technical Support Document. For dishwashers, the design changes analyzed are: improved food filter, improved motor efficiency, and improved 

### fill control. For clothes- washers, the design changes are: eliminate warm rinse, thermostatic mixing valves, improved motor efficiency, and plastic tub. For clothes dryers, the design changes are: temperaturetermination, moisture termination, recycle exhaust, and insulation. When the most efficient scenarios for each product are combined, the maximum decrease of SO2 emissions is 0.45% of SO2 in the U.S. power plant emissions for the year 2005. That represents a total of 77,000 tons of SO2 abated for that year, 54% coming from the clothes dryers standard (level 4), 31% 

### from the clothes washers standard (level 4) and 15% from the dishwashers standard (level 3). 

### Combining the most efficient scenarios of each product, the maximum decrease in NO2 emissions is equal to0.54% of the U.S. power plant emissions for the year 2005. This represents 51,000 tons of NO2 abated for that year, 52% coming from the clothes dryers standard level 4, 33% from the clothes washers standard level 4 and 15% from the dishwashersstandard level 3. 

### Another consequence of the candidate standardswould be a reduction of carbon dioxide (C02) emissions. C02 from fossil fuel burning is considered an environmental hazard because it contributes to the "greenhouse effect" by trapping heat from the sun that has been absorbed by the Earth and emitted 

### as infrared radiation. This "greenhouse effect" 

### is expected gradually to raise the
mean global temperature. Combining the most energy efficient scenariosfor each of the three products, results in a total reduction of COP in 2005 of 4,800 thousand tons of carbon, which represents 0.28% of the projected total U.S. emissionsfor thatyear. Other environmental effects, such 

### as effects on particulate emissions, related to a standards-induced decrease in electricity generation would be nlinor compared to effectson decreases in SO,, NO?, and CO,. For example, in 1984, power plants contributed only 7% of U.S. total particulate emissions 

### as compared to contributionsof 83% and 34% tototal SO2 and NO, emissions, respectively (3). "

### Reduced hot water use will decrease the amount of gas or oil burned within some homes, thereby decreasing combustion effects on indoor air quality. Indoor air problems are usually due to a combination of factors, including a tight house envelope, insufficient ventilation for cooking appliances, presence of sources such as 

### cigarette smokers or formaldehyde containing products, and radon diffusion from soil. 

### In comparison to the above factors, and because fuel-burning water heaters are normally vented tothe outside, the projected changes in water heater use have little effect on indoor air quality.

2 

### METHODS OF ESTIMATING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The greatest impacts of the proposed standards would be the result of generating less electricity. The main environmental effects of power plants on air and water quality result from emissions of sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx),and carbon dioxide (Cot). Thesymbols SO2and NO2 represent all emissions of 

### SO; and NOx expressed in the equivalent weights of SO2 and NO2, respectively. Carbon dioxide emissions are commonly expressed in tons of carbon. 

### A second source of these pollutants is 

### fuel-burning household water heaters. The proposed standards would also reduce these emissions. Since water heaters are normally vented to the outside, the sum of the power plant and in-house emissions are reported. Furthermore, reduced water consumption for dishwasherswill result in a lower volume of waste water to be treated and in a reduced need for fresh water. Table 

### 3.1 U.S. C02,SO2and NO2 Emissions
SO, .NO2 US US Power Plant US Power Plant


### Year

# I Emissions 

### lo6 Tons Emissions lo6

### Tons Emissions 

### lo6 Tons 

### 1995 1

### GOO 17.25 8.25 2000 1680 18.00 8.79 2005 1750 17.50 9.62 2010 1820 17.10 10.23 2015 1900 16.13 10.65The estimates of emissions of SO2 and NO2 are also expressed 

### as a percentage of U.S. power plant emission for the year under consideration. The estimates of emissions of C02are expressed as a percentage of U.S. total emission. Table 3.1 summarizestheU.S. emissions for the three compounds (4).

2.1 

### Sulfur andNitrogen OxideEmissions For each of the scenarios analyzed, emissions abated from fossil fuel-burning power plants are estimated. In analyzing the impacts of design changes to dishwashers, clothes washers and dryers, lower sulfur emissions resulting from decreased steel production are not considered. 

### As mentioned earlier in this report, these decreases in steel production result from 

### a reduction in the number of appliances sold. No changes in the amount of steel used per unit are expected. Analysis of the impacts resulting from several design options for dishwashers, clothes washers and dryers includes the consideration of SO2, NO2 and C02from in-home combustion of gas and oil. Estimates of energy saved by reduced electricity generation are taken from the TSD. Primary energy saved from electricity generation at the margin is allocated among the categories of coal on the one hand, and gas plus oil on the other, by the ratios of 0.53 and 0.47, respectively, as estimated in supporting material for the Electric Utility Analysis, also in the TSD. This disaggregation into coal and oil-plus-gas is depicted in Figure 1 for dishwashers. In order to capture the effects of cleaner-burning power plants in future years, emission rates for power plant fuel burning are calculated from projected emissions data and the projected quantities of the corresponding fuels used, 

### as described in a report by Placet, et al. Gas and oil are combined because, from an electric utility perspective, they are often interchangeable. Linear interpolation and extrapolation are used to derive emissions rates for years not covered in the report. 

## - The values for reduction of SO2and NO2 emissions from in-home gas and oil combustion are produced by multipiying in-home fuel savings for gas and oil by the corresponding emission rates. Emissions factors for water heaters were only available for natural gas (5). For oil-fired water heaters, the oil-fired space heater emission factorswere used as default values (6). All of these emission factors are consistent with theoretical emission factorsfrom another source (7).2.2 

### Carbon DioxideEmissions Values for C0, abated are the sum of the CO, savings from coal-, gas-, and oil-fired power plants and, for dishwashers and clothes washers, the CO, emissions from in-home combustion of gas and oil. The energy saved from electricity generation is apportioned between coal and gas or oil asin the calculation of SO, and NO, emissions. In addition, gas and oil are disaggregated into relative shares of 0.70 and 0.30, respectively. These shares are the averages of the relative quantities of these fuels tobe used for electricity generation in the years 1990through 1995, as estimated by the North American Electric Reliability Council (8). The energy values of the fuels saved are translated into tons of carbon using carbon/Btu values from the 

### Carbon Dioxide Review (9).The data for a more accurate method of estimating relative gas and oil shares concerning order of dispatch in the various NERC regions are not available. This disaggregation into fuel shares should therefore be taken only as a rough representation of power plant fuel choices on the margin.

3 

### RESULTS

3.1 

### DISHWASHERS Decreases in the amounts of CO,, SO, and NO, emitted at trial standards levels 1 through 3 are summarized in Tables 3.2 through 3.4. The figures in the tablesinclude reductions in emissions from in-house Gater heaters.(spent)) nla uo!ll!Jpent) 

### Figure 1. 

### Electricity Savings 

### Due toStandards on Dishwashers- - -- -- Table3.2Reduction of Pollutantsfor DishwashersLevel 1 C02Reduction (lo3Tonsof Carbon) Abated from Abated from Abated from Net Percent of US Year CoalUse GasUse OilUse Change Emissions

Cumulative C02reduction, 1993-2015 =8,023thousand tonsof C

SO2Reduction (Tonsof SO,) Abated from Abated from Net Percent of USSO, Year CoalUse Gas/Oil Use Change Power PlantEmissions

CumulativeSO2reduction, 1993-2015 =113,561tons

NOPReduction (Tonsof NO2) Abated from Abated from Net Percent of US NO2 Year CoalUse Gas/Oil Use Change PowerPlantEmissions

CumulativeNO2 reduction, 1993-2015 =78,505tons



### 7Table3.3Reduction of Pollutants forDishwashers Level 2 COPReduction (lo3 Tonsof Carbon) Abated from Abated from Abated from Net Percentof US Year CoalUse GasUse Oil Use Change Emissions

Cumulative C02reduction, 1993-2015 = 10,997thousand tonsof C

SO2 Reduction (Tonsof SO2) Abated from Abated from Net Percent of US SO, Year CoalUse Gas/Oil Use Change PowerPlantEmissions

Cumulative SO2reduction, 1993-2015 = 165,308tons

NO, ~eduction (Tonsof NO,) Abated from Abated from Net Percent of USNO, Year CoalUse Gas/Oil Use Change PowerPlantEmissions

CumulativeNO2reduction, 1903-2015 = 111,807 tonsTable3.4Reduction of Pollutantsfor Dishwashers Level 3 C02Reduction (lo3Tonsof Carbon) Abated from Abated from Abated from Net Percent of US Year CoalUse GasUse OilUse Change Emissions

CumulativeCO, reduction, 1993-2015 = 13,832thousand tonsof C

SO, Reduction (Tonsof SO,) Abated from Abated from Net Percent of US SO, Year CoalUse Gas/Oil Use Change Power PlantEmissions

Cumulative SO2reduction, 1993-2015 =203,500 tons

NO2Reduction (Tonsof NO,) Abated from Abated from Net Percent of US NO, Year CoalUse Gas/Oil Use Change Power PlantEmissions

Cumulative NO, reduction, 1993-2015 = 139,243tons3.1.1 

### Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Sulfur dioxide emissions would be decreased by a cumulative total of 203,500 

### tons between 1093 

### and 2015 

### in theLevel 3 

### scenario. In theyear 19'95, 

### decreases in sulfur dioxide represent roughly 0.03% 

### of the 

### SO2 emissions estimated to come from power plants in that year. In the year 2005, 

### decreases in 

### SO2 emissions represent about 0.07% 

### of the 

### SO2emissions estimated to come from power plants in that year if 

### standards are not established. The savings peak around 2005 

### then decrease as 

### the existing stocksof dishwashers turnsover. Level 3 

### design changes to dishwashers would result in 

### an estimated decrease in 

### NO2 emissions of 139,000 

### tons between 1993 

### and 2015. 

### NO2 decreases would represent 0.03% 

### and 0.08% 

### of the 

### NO2 emissions estimated to come from power plants in the years 1995 

### and 2005, 

### respectively.
3.1.2 

### Carbon Dioxide Emissions The cumulative reduction in 

### C02 emissions from Level 3 

### design changes is 14,000 

### thousand tons of carbon. For the year 2005, 

### the estimated 

### C02reduction is 777 

### thousand tons of carbon or about 0.05% 

### of estimated 

### U.S. total 

### C02emissionsfor 2005.


### 3.1.3 

### Water Savings The new dishwasher standards would also save water. The following table summarizes the cumulative amount of water (in 10' 

### gallons) consumed at each design level during theperiod 1993-2015.



### StandardLevel Baseline 1

- 2 3

- 

### Water Consumed 3086 2889 2882 2810 

### Water Saved 197 204 

## - 276



### Level I, 

### improved food filter, has the highest water savings potential. Level 2, 

### improved motor efficiency, has no direct potential for additional water reduction. The decrease shown in the table corresponds to'a lower number of appliances sold under this scenario. Level 3 

### shows water use savings from the use of an improved 

### fill control.3.2 CLOTHES WASHERS Decreases in the amounts of C02, SO2 and NOz emitted at trial standards levels 1 through 4 are summarized in Tables 3.5 through 3.8
3.2.1 

### Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Sulfur dioxide emissions would be decreased by a cumulative total of 434,000 tonsbetween 1993and 2015 in the Level 4 scenario. In theyear 1995, decreases'in sulfur dioxide will represent about 0.05% of the 

### SO, 

# - emissions estimated tocome from power plants in that year. In the year 2005, decreases in 

### SO2 emissions will represent about 0.14% of the SO2emissions estimated to come from power plants in thatyear if standards are not established. Level 4 design changes to clothes washers would result in an estimated decrease in 

### NO2emissions of 305,000tonsbetween 1993and 2015. 

### NO2 decreases would represent 0.07% and 0.18% of the 

### NO2 emissions estimated tocome from power plants in the years 1995and 2005, respectively.
3.2.2 Carbon Dioxide Emissions The cumulative reduction in 

### C02 emissions from Level 4 design changes is 31,000 thousands tonsof carbon. For the year 2005, the estimated 

### CO, reduction " is 1700 thousands tons of carbon or about 0.10% of estimated 

### U.S. total 

### C02 emissions in 2005.-- -- Table3.5 Reduction of Pollutantsfor Clothes WashersLevel 1 C02Reduction (lo3Tonsof Carbon) Abated from Abated from Abated from Net Percent of US Year Coal Use GasUse Oil Use Change Emissions

Cumulative C02reduction, 1993-2015 = 14,454thousand tonsof C

SO2Reduction (Tonsof SO2) Abated from Abated from Net Percent of US SO2 Year Coal Use Gas/Oil Use Change Power PlantEmissions 1995 3789 621 4411 0.03% 2000 8916 1559 10475 0.06% 2005 8882 1933 10815 0.06% 2010 7250 1693 8943 0.05% 2015 5264 1363 6627 0.04%
Cumulative SO, reduction, 1993-2015 = 191,612tons

NO2 Reduction (Tons of NO,) Abated from Abated from Net Percent of US NO, Year Coal Use Gas/Oil Use Change Power Plant Emissions

Cumulative

### NO2reduction, 1993-2015 =136,944tonsTable 3.6 Reduction of Pollutantsfor Clothes Washers Level 2 COPReduction (lo3Tonsof Carbon) Abated from Abated from Abated from Net Percentof 

### US Year Coal Use GasUse OilUse Change Emissions

CumulativeC02reduction, 1993-2015 =24,864 thousand tonsof C

SO2Reduction (Tonsof SO2) Abated from Abated from Net Percent of US SO2 Year CoalUse Gas/Oil Use Change Power Plant Emissions

CumulativeSO2reduction, 1993-2015 =327,954tons

NO2 ~eduction (Tonsof NO2) Abated from Abated from Net Percent of US NO2 Year Coal Use Gas/Oil Use Change PowerPlant Emissions

CumulativeNO2 reduction, 1993-2015 =235,312 tonsTable 3.7 Reduction of Pollutants for Clothes WashersLevel 3 C02Reduction (lo3Tonsof Carbon) Abated from Abated from Abated from Net Percent of US Year CoalUse Gas Use Oil Use Change Emissions

Cumulative COPreduction, 1993-2015 =28,813thousand tonsof C

SO2Reduction (Tonsof SO2) Abated from Abated from Net Percent of US SO2 Year Coal Use Gas/Oil Use Change Power PlantEmissions

Cumulative SO2reduction, 1903-2015 =396,498 tons

NO2 Reduction (Tonsof NO2) Abated from Abated from Net Percent of US NO, " Year CoalUse Gas/Oil Use Change Power PlantEmissions

Cumulative NO2 reduction, 1903-2015 =279,400 tons

14Table 3.8 Reduction of Pollutantsfor ClothesWashersLevel4 C02Reduction (lo3Tonsof Carbon) Abated from Abated from Abated from Net Percentof US Year CoalUse GasUse Oil Use Change Emissions

Cumulative C02reduction, 1993-2015 =31,205thousand tonsof C

SO2Reduction (Tonsof SO2) Abated from Abated from Net Percent of US SO2 Year Coal Use Gas/Oil Use Change Power Plant Emissions

Cumulative SO2reduction, 1993-2015 =434,353tons

NO2Reduction (Tonsof NO,) Abated from Abated from Net Percentof USNOp Year CoalUse Gas/Oil Use Change PowerPlant Emissions

CumulativeNO2reduction, 1993-2015 =301,640tons3.3 

### CLOTHES

### DRYERS



# - Decreases in the amounts of C02, SO2 and NO, emitted at trial standards levels 1through 4 aresummarized in Tables 3.9 through 3.12.
3.3.1 

### Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions Sulfur dioxide emissions would be decreased by 

### a cumulative total of 694,000 tons between 1993and 2015 in theLevel 4-scenario. Intheyear 1995, decreases in sulfur dioxide will represent about 0.07% of the SO, emissions estimated to come " from power plants in that year. In the year 2005, decreases in SO2,emissionswill represent about 0.24% of the SO2emissions estimated to come from power plants in that year if standards arenot established. Level 4 design changes to clothes dryerswould result in an estimated decrease in NO2 emissions of 446,000 tons between 1993 and 2015. NO2 decreases would represent 0.08% and 0.28% of the NO2 emissions estimated to come from power plants in theyears 1995and 2005, respectively.
3.3.2 

### Carbon Dioxide Emissions The cumulative reduction in C02emissions from Level 4 design changes is 40,000 thousands tonsof carbon. For theyear 2010, the estimated C02reduction is 2400 thousands tons of carbon or about 0.13% of estimated total 

### U.S. C02 emissions.Table 3.9Reduction of Pollutants for ClothesDryers Level 1 CO, Reduction (lo3Tonsof Cop) Abated from Abated from Abated from Net Percent of US Year CoalUse GasUse OilUse Change Emissions

p p p p p p CumulativeCO, reduction, 1993-2015 = 11,360thousand tonsof C

SO2 Reduction (Tonsof SO2) Abated from Abated from Net Percent of US SO, Year CoalUse Gas/Oil Use Change Power PlantEmissions

CumulativeSO, reduction, 1993-2015 =205,905tons

NO2Reduction (Tonsof NO2) Abated from Abated from Net Percent of US NO, Year Coal Use Gas/Oil Use Change Power PlantEmissions

CumulativeNO2 reduction, 1993-2015 = 130,146 tonsTable 3.10 Reduction of Pollutantsfor Clothes DryersLevel 2 CO, Reduction (lo3 Tonsof C02) Abated from Abated from Abated from Net Percent of US Year CoalUse GasUse Oil Use Change Emissions

Cumulative C02reduction, 1993-2015= 19,867thousand tons of C

SO2Reduction (Tonsof SO2) Abated from Abated from Net Percent of US SO2 Year CoalUse Gas/Oil Use Change Power Plant Emissions

Cumulative SO2reduction, 1993-2015 =359,843 tons

NO2 Reduction (Tonsof NO2) Abated from Abated from Net Percent of US NO,



## - Year Coal Use Gas/Oil Use Change Power Plant Emissions

Cumulative NO2reduction, 1903-2015 =227,482 tons


### 18Table 3.11 Reduction of Pollutants forClothes Dryers Level 3 COB Reduction (lo3 Tonsof C02) Abated from Abated from Abated from Net Percent of US Year CoalUse GasUse Oil Use Change Emissions

Cumulative C02reduction, 1993-2015 =24,455 thousand tonsof C

SO2Reduction (Tonsof SO2) Abated from Abated from Net Percent of US SO, Year Coal Use Gas/Oil Use Change Power PlantEmissions

Cumulative SO, reduction, 1993-2015 =435,674 tons

NO2 Reduction (Tonsof NO2) Abated from

. Abated from Net Percent of US NO, Year CoalUse Gas/Oil Use Change Power PlantEmissions

CumulativeNO2 reduction, 1903-2015 =277,029 tonsTable 3.12 Reduction of Pollutantsfor Clothes Dryers Level 4 

### C02Reduction (lo3 Tonsof C02) Abated from Abated from Abated from Net Percent of US Year Coal Use GasUse OilUse Change Emissions

CumulativeCO, reduction, 1993-2015 =40,018 thousand tons of C

SO, Reduction (Tonsof SO,) Abated from Abated from Net Percent of US SO, Year Coal Use Gas/Oil Use Change Power Plant Emissions

Cumulative SO, reduction, 1993-2015=693,956tons

NO, Reduction (Tonsof NO,) Abated from Abated from Net Percent of US NO, Year Coal Use Gas/Oil Use Change Power Plant Emissions

CumulativeNO2reduction, 1993-2015=445,541 tons4 

### EVALUATION OF

### ENVZRONMENTALIMPACTS
4.1 

### Effects ofAcid Precipitation Sulfurdioxide is the major contributor to acid precipitation in theU.S. After a series of reactions with atmospheric gases and water, SO, forms sulfuric acid. More than half of the domestic SO2emitted 

### as a result of human activities comes from coal burned in power plants. The next greatest contributor to acid precipitation is nitrogen dioxide. One-third of the domestic NO2 emitted from human activities comesfrom electricity generating facilities (4). Attaching values toincremental changes in acid precipitation is difficult. The effects of acid deposition on a given lake or forest depend on a variety of factors, including distance from pollutant source, buffering capacity, surrounding topography, rate of snow melt, soil or sediment type, etc. Acid precipitation can have negligible effects in buffered natural systems-those containing substances that take up or react with acids-until the buffering capacity is used up. Continued acid precipitation brings water and forest ecosystems closer to their buffering capacity limits, which can greatly affect living systems. Allowing a body of water to return to its natural state of alkalinity (bufferingcapacity) may require tens to thousands of years. In attempting to quantify the effectsof acid precipitation, it 

### is therefore important to consider cumulative effects that may not currently be obvious. Some effects on humans resulting from adding acid to ecosystems are: decreases in fishing productivity, forest productivity, farming productivity, recreational opportunities, and the degradation of susceptible buildings and monuments. The impacts of implementing any of the candidate standards on the abatement of SO, and NO2 would be relatively small (10). Implementing the most efficientstandards for each product would reduce, between 1993and 2015, 0.33% and 0.42% of cumulative U.S. power plant emissions of SO2 and NO2, respectively. In the year of highest abatement, 2005, such standardswould reduce 

### U.S. SO2 and NO, power plant emissionsby 0.45% and 0.54%, respectively. This is not considered significant in the context of total SO, 

# - and NO2 emissions, and would not have a significant impact on acid rain precipitation.4.2

### Perspectives on Changesin CarbonDioxide Emissions Atmospheric 

### C02is relatively transparent to incoming solar energy (shortwave radiation) but impedes outgoing solar energy, which 

### is in the form of heat (long-wave radiation). The net result of elevated 

### C02 concentrations is a trapping of heat near the Earth's surface. This trapping of heat, referred to as the "greenhouse effect", raises the mean global temperature. Because of human activity, the 

### C02concentrations in the atmosphere have increased from 290 parts per million (ppm) before the industrial era to about 345 ppm in 1985 (11). Expected results of a global temperature change are: perturbed air and ocean currents, perturbed precipitation patterns, changes in the gaseous equilibrium between the atmosphere and the biosphere, and the melting of some of the ice now covering polar lands and oceans followed by a rise in sea level (12). A doubling of the pre-industrial levels of 

### C02is projected to occur in the late part of the next century (11). The process of controlling 

### C02concentrations is dependent on two factors: lead times involved in changing current trends in fossil fuel use and lag times in environmental systems. If the goal were to keep 

### C02 concentrations from exceeding 500 ppm, even a growth rate in fossil fuel use of 1.5% per year (compared to a growth rate of 2.3% in 1980) could not continue much beyond the end of this century 

### (9). The impacts of implementing any of the candidate standards on the abatement of 

### C02would be relatively small. Implementing the most efficient standards for each product would reduce, between 1993and 2015, 0.21% of cumulative 

### U.S. emissions of 

### C02. In the year of highest abatement, 2005, such standards would reduce 

### U.S. C02emissions by 0.28%. This is not considered significant in the context of total 

### C02emissions, and would not have a significant impact on global warming.5 

### REFERENCES

1. NAECA 1987. National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, Public Law 100-12
2. U.S. Department of Energy. 1988. "Technical Support Document: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products: Dishwashers, Clobhes Washers, and Clothes DryersJ',Draft Report prepared by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (November).

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. "National Air Pollution Emission Estimates, 1940-1984", EPA-45014-85-014.
4. Placet M., D.G. Streets, E.R. Williams. 1986. "Environmental Trends 

### Associated with the Fifth National Energy Policy Plan," Argonne National Laboratory.

5. Cole J.T., 

### Zowaski T.S. 1985. "Emissions from Residential Gas Fired Appliances", 

### GasResearch Institute.

6. Surprenant N.F., R.R. Hall, 

### K.T. McGregor, A.F. Werner. 1079. "Emissions kssessment of Conventional Stationary Combustion Systems, Vol. 1, 

### Gas & Oil-Fired Residential Heating Sources",EPA60017-70-020.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors"EP-42 Part 1.
8. North American Electric Reliability Council. 1985. "1085 Electric Power Supply and Demand For 1984to 1994".
9. Clark, William C. 1982. "Carbon Dioxide Review", Oxford University Press, New York N.Y., pp. 357, 338.

10. Oppenheimer, 

### bl. 1983. "The Relationship of Sulfur Emissions to Sulfate in Precipitation", Atmospheric Environment,Vol. 17.11. 

### Ramanathan V. 1988. 

### "The Greenhouse Theory of Climate Change: 

### A Test by anInadvertent 'GlobalExperiment", ScienceVol. 240.
12. 

### U.S. Council on Environmental Quality. 1981. 

### "Fossil Fuels and the Effect of Increasing Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide", Global Energy Futures and the CarbonDioxideProblem, Government Printing Office.