6450 01-P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

[Docket Number EERE

– 2011

– BT

– STD

– 0060]

RIN: 1904-AC64

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential

Dishwashers

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended,

prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain

commercial and industrial equipment, including residential dishwashers

. EPCA also

requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to determine whether amended standards

would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would save a

significant amount of energy. In this direct final rule, DOE is adopting amended energy

conservation standards for residential dishwashers

. DOE has determined that the

amended energy conservation standards for these products would result in significant

conservation of energy, and are technologically feasible and economically justified. A

1notice of proposed rulemaking that proposes identical energy efficiency standards is

published elsewh ere in today’s Federal Register . If DOE receives adverse comment and

determines that such comment may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct

final rule, this final rule will be withdrawn and DOE will proceed with the proposed rule.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is [INSERT DATE 120 DAYS AFTER DATE

OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] unless adverse comment is

received by [INSERT DATE 110 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN

THE FEDERAL REGISTER] . If adverse comments are received that DOE determines

may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the final rule, a timely withdrawal of

this rule will be published in the Federal Register . If no such adverse comments are

received, compliance with the amended standards established for residential dishwashers

in today’s final rule will be required on January 1, 2013

. [INSERT DATE 1 YEAR

AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]

.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking is available for review at

www.regulations.gov , including Federal Register notices, framework documents, public

meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting materials. All

documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. The online docket

contains all public documents associated with this proceeding, including all previous

Federal Register notices and supporting documents. Not all documents listed in the index

may be publicly available, however, such as information that is exempt from public

disclosure.

2A link to the docket web page can be found at: [INSERT WEB PAGE LINK

(THIS WEB PAGE WILL CONTAIN A LINK TO THE DOCKET FOR THIS NOTICE

ON THE REGULATIONS.GOV SITE) ]. The regulations.gov web page contains

instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards

at (202) 586-2945 or by email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov

.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen L. Witkowski, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Ind ependence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7463. E-mail:

Stephen.Witkowski@ee.doe.gov

.

Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202)

586-7796. E-mail: Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov

.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Direct Final Rule and Its Benefits

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

B. Impact on Manufacturers

C. National Benefits

3D. Conclusion

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

1. EISA 2007 Standards

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Residential Dishwashers

3. Issues on which DOE seeks Comment

4. Test Procedure History

III. General Discussion

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

B. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

C. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

2. Significance of Savings

D. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

b. Life-Cycle Costs

c. Energy Savings

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

g. Other Factors

2. Rebuttable Presumption

IV. Methodology and Discussion

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. General

2. Products Included in this Rulemaking

3. Product Classes

4. Non-Regulatory Programs

5. Technology Options

B. Screening Analysis

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Baseline Efficiency Levels

2. Higher Efficiency Levels

3. Proprietary Designs

4. Reverse Engineering

D. Markups Analysis

E. Energy and Water Use Analysis

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. Product Cost

2. Installation Cost

3. Annual Energy Consumption

4. Energy Prices

45. Energy Price Projections

6. Water and Wastewater Prices

7. Maintenance and Repair Costs

8. Product Lifetime

9. Discount Rates

10. Compliance Date of Amended Standards

11. Base-Case Efficiency Distribution

12. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis

13. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Period

G. National Impact Analysis

– National Energy Savings and Net Present Value Analysis

1. Shipments

2. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case and Standards Cases

3. Total Installed Cost per Unit

4. National Energy and Water Savings

5. Net Present Value of Consumer Benefit

H. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

a. Phase 1, Industry Profile

b. Phase 2, Industry Cash Flow Analysis

c. Phase 3, Sub-Group Impact Analysis

2. GRIM Analysis

a. GRIM Key Inputs

b. GRIM Scenarios

3. Manufacturer Interviews

J. Employment Impact Analysis

K. Utility Impact Analysis

L. Emissions Analysis

M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

1. Social Cost of Carbon

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions

b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in Past Regulatory Analyses

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions

2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions

V. Analytical Results

A. Trial Standard Levels

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results

b. Impacts on Employment

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity

5d. Impacts on Sub-Groups of Manufacturers

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

3. National Impact Analysis

a. Significance of Energy Savings

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits

c. Impacts on Employment

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy

7. Other Factors

C. Conclusion

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Residential Dishwashers

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Standards

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

M. Congressional Notification

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Direct Final Rule and Its Benefits

Title III, Part B 1 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the

Act), Pub. L. 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), established the Energy

Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. Pursuant to

EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard that DOE prescribes for

certain products, such as residential dishwashers, shall be designed to achieve the

maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and

1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.

6economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended

standard must result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In

accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this notice, DOE is

adopting amended energy conservation standards for residential dishwashers. The

amended standards, which are established in terms of maximum annual energy use and

maximum per-cycle water consumption

, are shown in Table I.1. These amended

standards apply to all products listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into,

the United States on or after January 1, 2013. [INSERT DATE 1 YEAR AFTER DATE

OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]

.

Table I.1 Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Dishwashers (Compliance Starting 2013)

Product Class Compliance Date: January [INSERT DATE 1 , 201 3 YEAR AFTER

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]

Maximum Annual Energy Use * Maximum Per

- Cycle Water Consumptio n
1. Standard ( ≥8 place settings plus 6 serving pieces ) 307 kWh/year 5.0 gallons/cycle

2. Compact (<8 place settings plus 6 serving pieces) 222 kWh/year 3.5 gallons/cycle

* A nnual energy use

, expressed in kilowatt

- hours (kWh) per year, is calculated as : the sum of the annual standby electrical energy in kWh and the product of (1) the representative average dishwasher use cycles per year and (2) the sum of machine electrical energy consumption per cycle in kWh, the total water energy

con sumption per cycle in kWh , and, for dishwashers having a truncated normal cycle, the drying energy consumption divided by 2 in kWh

. A truncated normal cycle is defined as the normal cycle interrupted to eliminate the power

- dry feature after the termination of the last rinse option

.

These standard levels were submitted jointly to DOE by groups representing

manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, and consumer groups. This

collective set of comments, titled “Agreement on Minimum Federal Efficiency Standards,

Smart Appliances, Federal Incentives and Related Matters for Specified Appliances” (the

7“Joint Petition” 2 ), recommends specific energy conservation standards for residential

dishwashers that, in the commenters’ view, would satisfy the EPCA requ irements in 42

U.S.C. 6295(o).

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.2 Table I .2 presents DOE’s evaluation of the economic impacts of today’s

standards on consumers of residential dishwashers, as measured by the average life-cycle

cost (LCC) savings and the median payback period.

Table I.2 Impacts of Today’s Standards on Consumers of Residential Dishwashers

Product Class Average LCC Savings ( 2010 $ ) Median Payback Period ( years )

Standard $3 11.8 Compact $12 0.3

B. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to

the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2012 through

2047). Using a real discount rate of 8.5 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for

manufacturers of dishwashers is $637.5 million in 2010 $. Under today’s standards, DOE

expects that manufacturers may lose up to 13.3 percent of their INPV, which is

approximately $84.6 million. Additionally, based on DOE’s interviews with the

manufacturers of dishwashers, DOE does not expect any plant closings or significant loss

of employment as a result of today’s standards

.

2 DOE Docket No. EERE

– 2011

– BT

– STD

– 0060 , Comment 1.

8C. National Benefits

DOE’s analyses indicate that today’s standards would save a significant amount

of energy and water in 2013

– 2047 ―an estimated 0. 07 quads of cumulative energy, and

0.14 trillion gallons of water

. In addition, DOE expects the energy savings from today’s

standards to eliminate the need for approximately 0.001 gigawatts (GW) of generating

capacity by 2047. Comment [A1]: Change recommended by OIRA.

The cumulative national net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and

savings of today’s standards in 2010 $ ranges from $ 0. 08 billion (at a 7-percent discount

rate) to $0. 46 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated

total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs

for products purchased in 2013

– 2047, discounted to 2011 2012

.

In addition, today’s standards would have significant environmental benefits. The

energy savings would result in cumulative greenhouse gas emission reductions of

approximately 4.06 million metric tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from 2013 through

2047. During this period, the standards would also result in emissions reductions 3 of

approximately 3.54 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NO X ) and zero tons of mercury

(Hg). 4

3 DOE calculates emissions reductions relative to the most recent version of the Annual Energy Outlook ( AEO ) Reference case forecast. As noted in TSD chapter 15, this forecast accounts for regulatory emissions reductions from in-place regulations at the time of preparation of the AEO, including the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR, 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), but not the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR, 70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005)). Subsequent regulations, including the recently finalized CAIR replacement rule, the Cross-State Air Pollution rule issued on July 6, 2011, will appear in the forecast for future rulemakings.

4 Results for NO X and Hg are presented in short tons. One short ton equals 2000 lbs.

9The value of the CO 2 reductions is calculated using a range of values per metric

ton of CO 2 (otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) developed by a

recent interagency process. The derivation of the SCC values is discussed in section

IV.M

. DOE estimates that the net present monetary value of the CO 2 emissions

reductions is between $ 16 and $242 million, expressed in 2010$ and discounted to

2011 2012 . DOE also estimates that the net present monetary value of the NO X emissions

reductions, expressed in 2010$ and discounted to 20112012 , is $ 0 .5 to $5.02.8 million at

a 7-percent discount rate, and $ 0.9 to $ 9. 5 .2 million at a 3-percent discount rate. 5 Comment [A2]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.

Table I.3 summarizes the national economic costs and benefits expected to result

from today’s standards for residential dishwashers.

5 DOE is aware of multiple agency efforts to determine the appropriate range of values to use in evaluating the potential economic benefits of reduced Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await further guidance regarding consistent valuation and reporting of Hg emissions before it monetizes Hg emissions reductions in its rulemakings.

10Table I.3. Summary of National Economic Benefits and Costs of Residential Dishwasher Energy Conservation Standards

Category Present Value

Million 2010$ Discount

Rate

Benefits

Operating Cost Savings 600 7%

1341 3%

CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $4.9/t)* 16.09 5%

CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $22.3/t)* 79.49 3%

CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $36.5/t)* 133.5 2.5%

CO 2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $67.6/t)* 242.5 3%

NO X Reduction Monetized Value ( at $ 4 50 2,537 /ton )* )** 0.49 2.76 7%

0.93 5.24 3%

NO X Reduction Monetized Value (at $4, 623 /ton)* 5.03 7%

9.54 3%

Total Benefits† 683 7%

1426 3%

Costs

Incremental Installed Costs 522 7%

881 3%

Net Benefits

Including CO 2 and NO X † 161 7%

545 3%

* The CO 2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9, $22.3, and $36.5 per metric ton (t) are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.6/t represents the 95 th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. Comment [A3]: Change recommended by OIRA. Comment [A4]: Change recommended by OIRA.

Comment [A5]: Change recommended by OIRA.

Comment [A6]: Change recommended by OIRA.

** The range of results for incremental product costs reflects the range of product price forecasts discussed

in section IV.G.3.

** The value represents the average of the low and high NO X values used in DOE’s analysis. Comment [A7]: Change recommended by OIRA. † Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount

rate , and the average of the low and high NO X values used in DOE’s analysis.

.

The benefits and costs of today’s standards, for products sold in 2013

– 2047, can

also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the Comment [A8]: Change recommended by OIRA.

11sum of (1) the annualized national economic value, expressed in 2010$, of the benefits

from operating the product (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less

energy, minus increases in equipment purchase and installation costs, which is another

way of representing consumer NPV, plus (2) the annualized monetary value of the

benefits of emission reductions, including CO 2 emission reductions. 6

Although adding the value of consumer savings to the values of emission

reductions provides a valuable perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the

national operating cost savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur

as a result of market transactions, while the value of CO 2 reductions is based on a global

value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and CO 2 savings are performed

with different methods that use quite different time frames for analysis. The national

operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of residential dishwashers shipped in

2013

– 2047. The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of future

climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of one metric ton of carbon dioxide

in each year. These impacts continue well beyond 2100.

6 DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present value in 2011 2012 , the year used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the time-series of costs and benefits using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO 2 reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as shown in Table I.3.From the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual

payment over a 30 -year period, starting in 2013, that yields the same present value. This payment includes benefits to consumers which accrue after 2047 from the dishwashers purchased from 2013 to 2047. Costs incurred by manufacturers, some of which may be incurred prior to 2013 in preparation for the rule, are indirectly included as part of incremental equipment costs. The extent of these costs and benefits depends on the projected price trends of dishwashers because consumer demand of dishwashers is a function of dishwasher prices. The fixed annual payment is the annualized value. Although DOE calculated annualized values, this does not imply that the time-series of cost and benefits from which the annualized values were determined is a steady stream of payments.

12Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of today’s standards are shown in

Table I.4. (All monetary values below are expressed in 2010$.) The results under the

primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs

other than CO 2 reduction, for which DOE used a 3-percent discount rate along with the

SCC series corresponding to a value of $22.3/ton in 2010, the cost of the standards for

dishwashers in today’s rule is $ 46 mi llion per year in increased equipment costs, while

the benefits are $53 million per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $3.9 million

in CO 2 reductions, and $0.24 million in reduced NO X emissions. In this case, the net

benefit amounts to $11 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits

and costs and the SCC series corresponding to a value of $22.3/ton in 2010, the cost of

the standards for dishwashers in today’s rule is $ 44 million per year in increased

equipment costs, while the benefits are $66 million per year in reduced operating costs,

$3.9 million in CO 2 reductions, and $0.26 million in reduced NO X emissions. In this case,

the net benefit amounts to $27 million per year.

13Table I.4. Annualized Benefits and Costs of Amended Standards for Residential

Dishwashers Sold in 2013

– 2047*

Discount Rate Primary

Estimate * Low Net

Benefits

Estimate * High Net

Benefits

Estimate *

Monetized ( million 20 10 $/year )

Benefits

Operating Cost Savings 7% 53 48 59

3% 66 59 75

CO 2 Reduction at $4.9/t** 5% 1.1 1.0 1.3

CO 2 Reduction at $22.3/t** 3% 3.9 3.5 4.7

CO 2 Reduction at $36.5/t** 2.5% 6.1 5.4 7.2

CO 2 Reduction at $67.6/t** 3% 12.0 10.8 14.2

NO X Reduction at $2,537/ton** 7% 0.24 0.23 0.27

3% 0.26 0.24 0.30

Total† 7% plus CO 2
range 54 to 65 49 to 59 60 to 73

7% 57 52 64

3% plus CO 2
range 68 to 78 60 to 70 76 to 89

3% 70 63 80

Costs

Incremental Product Costs 7% 46 44 43

3% 44 41 40

Total Net Benefits

Total† 7% plus CO 2
range 8 to 19 6 to 16 17 to 30

7% 11 8 20

3% plus CO 2
range 24 to 35 19 to 29 37 to 49

3% 27 22 40

* The results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2047 from the dishwashers purchased from

2013 through 2047. Costs incurred by manufacturers, some of which may be incurred prior to 2013 in preparation for the rule, are indirectly included as part of incremental equipment costs. The extent of the costs and benefits will depend on the projected price trends of dishwashers, because the consumer demand for dishwashers is a function of dishwasher prices. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the AEO2011 Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental product costs reflect a medium decline rate for projected product price trends in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate for projected product price trends in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate for projected product price trends in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.G.3.

14** The CO 2 values represent global values (in 20 10 $) of the social cost of CO 2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9, $22.3, and $36. 5 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.6 per

ton represents the 95 th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. The

value for NO X (in 20 10 $) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis.

† Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3-percent discount rate, which is $2 2. 3/t in 2010 (in 20 10 $). In t he rows labeled as “7% plus CO 2 range” and “3% plus CO 2 range, ” the operating cost and NO X benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are add ed to the full range of CO 2 values.

D. Conclusion

Based on the analyses culminating in this final rule, DOE found the benefits to the

nation of the standards (energy savings, water savings, favorable consumer LCC savings

and payback period

, positive NPV of consumer benefit, and emission reductions)

outweigh the burdens (profit margin impacts that could result in a reduction in INPV and

increased operational risk for manufacturers). DOE has concluded that the standards in

today’s final rule represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is

technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant

conservation of energy. DOE further notes that residential dishwashers achieving these

standard levels are already commercially available.

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying today’s

final rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the

establishment of standards for residential dishwashers.

15A. Authori ty

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the

Act), Pub. L. 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified) established the Energy

Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, 7 a program

covering most major household appliances (collectively referred to as “covered

products”), which includes the residential dishwashers th at are the subject of this

rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(6)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for

these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(1)), and direct ed DOE to conduct two cycles of

rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(4)) DOE

also notes that under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), DOE must periodically review its energy

conservation standards for covered products

.

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE’s energy conservation program for covered products

consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing; (2) labeling; (3) the establishment of Federal

energy conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is primarily responsible for labeling, and DOE

implements the remainder of the program. Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE

is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or

estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6293) Manufacturers

of covered products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for

certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation

standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding

the energy use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly,

7 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.

16DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. Id

. The DOE test procedure for residential

dishwashers currently appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part

430, subpart B, appendix C

.

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing amended standards for

covered products. As indicated above, any amended standard for a covered product mus t

be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is

technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))

Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant

conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) In deciding whether an amended standard

is economically justified, DOE must determin e whether the benefits of the standard

exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after

receiving comments on the proposed standard and considering, to the greatest extent

practicable, the following seven factors:

1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the

products subject to the standard;

2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the

covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial

charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from

the imposition of the standard;

173. The total projected amount of energy, or as applicable, water, savings likely to

result directly from the imposition of the standard;

4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to

re sult from the imposition of the standard;

5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the

Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

6. The need for national energy and water conservation; and

7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. (42 U.S.C.

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)

– (VII))

EPCA allows DOE to issue a final rule (hereinafter referred to as a “direct final

rule”) establishing an energy conservation standard on r eceipt of a statement submitted

jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view

(including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency

advocates) as determined by the Secretary, that contains recommendations with respect to

an energy conservation standard that are in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C.

6295(o). A notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) that proposes an identical energy

efficiency standard must be published simultaneously with the final rule, and DOE must

provide a public comment period of at least 110 days. 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). Not later

than 120 days after issuance of the direct final rule, if one or more adverse comments or

an alternative joint recommendation are received relating to the direct final rule, the

Secretary must determine whether the comments or alternative recommendation may

provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or other applicable

18law. If the Secretary makes such a determination, DOE must withdraw the direct final

rule and proceed with the simultaneously published notice of proposed rulemaking. DOE

must publish in the Federal Register the reason why the direct final rule was withdrawn.

Id

.

Furthermore, EPCA

, contains wh at is known as an “anti

- backsliding” provision,

which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases

the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency

of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe a n

amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of

the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States

of any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including

reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as

those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))

EPCA also establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically

justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a

product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three

times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive

as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. See 42

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii).

19Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) specifies requirements when promulgating a

standard for a type or class of covered product that has two or more subcategories. DOE

must specify a different standard level than that which applies generally to such type or

class of products for any group of covered products that have the same function or

intended use, if products within such group

– (A) consume a different kind of energy

from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) have a

capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or

class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard than applies or

will apply to the other products within that type or class

. Id . In determining whether a

performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE

must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a feature and other

factors DOE deems appropriate. Id . Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an

explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C.

6295(q)(2))

Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State laws or

regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C.

6297(a)

– (c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular

State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth

under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d)).

Any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated

after July 1, 2010, must ad dress standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C.

206295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after that

date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C.

6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into the standard, or, if that

is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C.

6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B) ) The standards established in today’s direct final rule address standby

and off mode energy use.

DOE notes that it is also required to amend its test procedures to integrate

measures of standby mode and off mode energy consumption into the overall energy

efficiency, energy consumption, or other energy descriptor for each covered product

unless the current test procedure already fully accounts for and incorporates standby and

off mode energy consumption or such integration is technically infeasible. (42 U.S.C.

6295(gg)(2) ) DOE is currently considering amendments to the test procedure at appendix

C to incorporate measures of off mode energy consumption in addition to the existing

measures of standby mode energy use. 75 FR 75290 (Dec. 2, 2010); 76 FR 58346 Sept.

20, 2011)

DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued

on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281, Jan. 21, 2011). Executive Order 13563 is supplemental

to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory

review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies

are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a

reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits

21and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on

society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other

things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in

choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net

benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other

advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify

performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that

regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct

regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior,

such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can

be made by the public.

DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to use the

best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as

accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance

costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE believes that today’s direct final rule is

consistent with these principles, including that, to the extent permitted by law, agencies

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs

and select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that

maximize net benefits.

22Consistent with EO 13563, and the range of impacts analyzed in this rulemaking,

the energy conservation standards adopted herein by DOE achieve maximum net

benefits.

B. Background

1. EISA 2007 Standards

EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, prescribed energy conservation standards for

residential dishwashers manufactured on or after January 1, 2010

. 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)

The se standards are set forth in Table II.1.

Table II .1 Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Dishwashers Established by EISA 2007

Product Class Annual Energy Use ( kWh/year ) Per

- Cycle Water Consumption ( gallons/cycle )

Standard 355 6.5 Compact 260 4.5

The EPCA amendments in EISA 2007 also require DOE to publish a final rule no

later than January 1, 2015 determining whether to amend the standards in effect for

dishwashers manufactured on or after January 1, 2018. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)(B)(i) )

Today’s final rule fulfills this statutory requirement.

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Residential Dishwashers

The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), Pub. L.

100-12 (March 17, 1989), amended EPCA and required that dishwashers be equipped

with an option to dry without heat. NAECA further required that DOE conduct two

23cycles of rulemakings to determine if amended standards are justified. (42 U.S.C.

6295(g)(1) and (4))

On May 14, 1991, DOE issued a final rule establishing performance standards for

dishwashers to complete the first required rulemaking cycle (56 FR 22250)

. Compliance

with the new standards, codified at 10 CFR 430.32(f), was required on May 14, 1994.

DOE then conducted a second standards rulemaking for dishwashers

. DOE issu ed

an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) on November 14, 1994 to consider

amending the energy conservation standards for clothes washers, dishwashers, and

clothes dryers. 59 FR 56423. Subsequently, DOE published a Notice of Availability of

the Rulemaking Framework for Commercial Clothes Washers and Residential

Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, and Cooking Products

. 71 FR 15059 (Mar. 27, 2006). On

November 15

, 2007, DOE published a second ANOPR (hereafter, the November 2007

ANOPR) addressing energy conservation standards for these products. 72 FR 64432. On

December 19, 2007

, Congress enacted EISA 2007, which, among other things,

established maximum energy and water use levels for residential dishwashers

manufactured on or after January 1, 2010. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)) DOE codified the

statutory standards for these products in a final rule published March 23, 2009. 74 FR

12058.

EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, further requires that DOE publish a final rule

no later than January 1, 2015, to determine whether to amend the standards in effect for

24dishwashers manufactured on or after January 1, 2018. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)(B)(i) )

This rulemaking fulfills this statutory requirement.

On July 30 , 2010, DOE received the Joint Petition, a comment submitted by

groups representing manufacturers (the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

(AHAM), Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool), General Electric Company (GE),

Electrolux, LG Electronics, Inc. (LG), BSH Home Appliances (BSH), Alliance Laundry

Systems (ALS), Viking Range, Sub-Zero Wolf, Friedrich A/C, U-Line, Samsung, Sharp

Electronics, Miele, Heat Controller, AGA Marvel, Brown Stove, Haier, Fagor America,

Airwell Group, Arcelik, Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman Ice, Indesit, Kuppersbusch, Kelon,

and DeLonghi); energy and environmental advocates (American Council for an Energy

Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), Natural

Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), Alliance for Water

Efficiency (AWE), Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC), and Northeast

Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP)); and consumer groups (Consumer Federation of

America (CFA) and the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC)) (colle ctively, the “Joint

Petitioners”). The Joint Petitioners recommended specific energy conservation standards

for residential dishwashers that, in their view, would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42

U.S.C. 6295(o). Earthjustice submitted a comment affirming its support for the Joint

Petition. (Earthjustice, No. 2 at p. 1) 8

8 A notation in the form “Earthjustice, No. 2 at p. 1” identifies a written comment that DOE has receivedand has included in the docket of the standards rulemaking for residential dishwashers (Docket No. EERE2011

- BT -STD-0060). This particular notation refers to a comment (1) submitted by Earthjustice, (2) in document number 2 in the docket of that rulemaking, and (3) appearing on page 1 of document number 2.

25After careful consideration of the Joint Petition containing a consensus

recommendation for amended energy conservation standards for residential dishwashers,

the Secretary has determined that this “Consensus Agreement” has been submitted by

interested persons who are fairly representative of relevant points of view on this matter.

Congress provided some guidance within the statute itself by specifying that

representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates are

relevant parties to any consensus recommendation. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)) As

delineated above, the Consensus Agreement was signed and submitted by a broad crosssection of the manufacturers who produce the subject products, their trade associations,

and environmental, energy efficiency and consumer advocacy organizations. Although

States were not signatories to the Consensus Agreement, they did not express any

opposition to it. Moreover, DOE does not read the statute as requiring absolute agreement

among all interested parties before the Department may proceed with issuance of a direct

final rule. By explicit language of the statute, the Secretary has discretion to determine

when a joint recommendation for an energy or water conservation standard has met the

requirement for representativeness ( i.e. , “as determined by the Secretary”). Accordingly,

DOE will consider each consensus recommendation on a case-by-case basis to determine

whether the submission has been made by interested persons fairly representative of

relevant points of view.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the Secretary must also determine whether a

jointly-submitted recommendation for an energy or water conservation standard is in

accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. This

26determination is exactly the type of analysis that DOE conducts whenever it considers

potential energy conservation standards pursuant to EPCA. DOE applies the same

principles to any consensus recommendations it may receive to satisfy its statutory

obligation to ensure that any energy conservation standard that it adopts achieves the

maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and

economically justified and will result in significant conservation of energy. Upon review,

the Secretary determined that the Consensus Agreement submitted in the instant

rulemaking comports with the standard-setting criteria set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).

Accordingly, the consensus agreement levels were included as trial standard level (TSL)

2 in today’s rule for residential dishwashers, the details of which are discussed at relevant

places throughout this document. The definition of the TSLs considered in this direct

final rule is discussed in section V.A.

In sum, as the relevant criteria under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) have been satisfied, the

Secretary has determined that it is appropriate to adopt amended energy conservation

standards for residential dishwashers through this direct final rule.

As required by the same statutory provision, DOE is also simultaneously

publishing a NOPR which proposes the identical standard levels contained in this direct

final rule and is providing for a 110-day public comment period. DOE will consider

whether any comment received during this comment period is sufficiently “adverse” as to

provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule and continuation of this

rulemaking under the NOPR. Typical of other rulemakings, it is the substance, rather than

27the quantity, of comments that will ultimately determine whether a direct final rule will

be withdrawn. To this end, the substance of any adverse comment(s) received will be

weighed against the anticipated benefits of the Consensus Agreement and the likelihood

that further consideration of the comment(s) would change the results of the rulemaking.

DOE notes that to the extent an adverse comment had been previously raised and

addressed in the rulemaking proceeding, such a submission will not typically provide a

basis for withdrawal of a direct final rule.

3. Issues on which DOE seeks Comment

As stated previously, in promulgating today’s direct final rule pursuant to 42

U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE carefully considered the Joint Petition submitted to DOE, which

contained a consensus recommendation for amended energy conservation standards for

residential dishwashers. For the reasons stated in this direct final rule, the Secretary

determined that the “Consensus Agreement” was submitted by interested persons who are

fairly representative of relevant points of view on this matter. The Secretary also

determined, for the reasons set forth in this direct final rule, that the standards contained

in the Consensus Agreement comport with the standard-setting criteria set forth under 42

U.S.C. 6295(o). Therefore, the Secretary promulgates this direct final rule establishing

the amended energy conservation standards for residential dishwashers.

As required by EPCA, DOE is also simultaneously publishing a NOPR and

providing for a 110-day public comment period. 42 U.S.C. 4295(p)(4). Should DOE

determine to proceed with the NOPR, or to gather additional data for future energy

28conservation standards activities for residential dishwashers, DOE will consider any

comments and data received on the direct final standards. Although comments are

welcome on all aspects of this rulemaking, DOE is particularly interested in comments on

the following:

(1) Impacts of the standards that may lessen or improve the utility or performance

of the covered products. These impacts may include increased cycle times to

wash dishware, ability to achieve good wash performance (e.g., cleaning,

rinsing) and drying performance, increase in noise, and other potential

impacts. As discussed in section IV.I.3, manufacturers noted in interviews

that any potential utility impacts may be more significant at efficiency levels

above those adopted in today’s direct final rule. DOE also seeks information

on utility impacts at higher efficiency levels and will consider such

information in any future rulemaking for dishwashers

.

(2) The 2013 compliance date for the proposed standards and whether this

compliance date adequately considers the typical dishwasher model design

cycle for manufacturers.

(3) Whether repair costs for residential dishwashers would increase at the

efficiency levels indicated in today’s rule due to any changes in the design and

materials and components used in order to comply with the new efficiency

standards.

(4) Where there would be any anticipated changes in the consumption of

co mplementary goods (e.g., dishwasher detergent, rinse aid) that may result

from the proposed standards.

29(5) The 215 cycles per year estimate of consumer usage for residential

dishwashers, as well as the estimated 1-hour cycle time, which includes all

cycles available on the unit.

(6) The product lifetime for dishwashers assumed in the analysis and the method

used to derive the mean age of 15 years.

DOE has prepared a technical support document (TSD) in support of this direct

final rule. The TSD, which is available at the rulemaking website, 9 provides an overview

of the activities DOE undertook in developing standards for residential dishwashers. It

presents and describes in detail each analysis DOE performed, including descriptions of

inputs, sources, methodologies, and results. These analyses are as follows:

 A market and technology assessment addresses the scope of this rulemaking,

identifies the dishwasher product classes, characterizes the markets for the

products, and reviews techniques and approaches for improving their efficiency.

 A screening analysis reviews technology options to improve the efficiency of

residential dishwashers and weighs those option s against DOE’s four prescribed

screening criteria.

 An engineering analysis develops the relationship between increased

manufacturer price and increased efficiency.

 A markups analysis establishes markups for converting manufacturer prices to

customer product costs.

9 The rulemaking website for residential dishwashers is located at www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/dishwashers.html Comment [A9]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.

30 An energy use analysis generates energy-use estimates for residential

dishwashers as a function of efficiency levels.

 A life -cycle cost analysis calculates the effects of standards on individual

customers and compares the life-cycle costs (LCC) and payback period (PBP) of

products with and without higher efficiency standards.

 A shipments analysis forecasts shipments with and without higher efficiency

standards.

 A national impact analysis forecasts the national energy savings (NES), and the

national net present value of total consumer costs and savings, expected to result

from specific, potential energy conservation standards for residential

dishwashers.

 A consumer subgroup analysis discusses the effects of standards on different

subgroups of consumers.

 A manufacturer impact analysis discusses the effects of standards on the finances

and profitability of product manufacturers.

 An employment impact analysis discusses the indirect effects of standards on

national employment.

 A utility impact analysis discusses the effects of standards on electric and gas

utilities.

 An environmental assessmentAn emissions analysis discusses the effects of

standards on three pollutants

— sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides (NO

x ), and

mercury

— as well as carbon dioxide emissions. Comment [A10]: Change recommended by

OIRA.

31 A regulatory impact analysis discusses the impact of non-regulatory alternatives

to efficiency standards.

3. 4. Test Procedure History

As discussed in section II.A, the DOE test procedure for residential dishwashers is

found at Title 10 of the CFR, part 430, subpart B, appendix C. DOE originally

established its test procedure for dishwashers in 1977. 42 FR 39964 (Aug. 8, 1977). In

1983, DOE amended the test procedure to revise the representative average-use cycles to

more accurately reflect consumer use and to address dishwashers that use 120 degrees

Fahrenheit ( °F ) inlet water. 48 FR 9202 (March 3, 1983). DOE amended the test

procedure again in 1984 to redefine the term “water heating dishwasher.” 49 FR 46533

(Nov. 27, 1984). In 1987, DOE amended the test procedure to address models that use 50

°F inlet water

. 52 FR 47549 (Dec. 15, 1987). In 2001, DOE revised the test procedure’s

testing specifications to improve testing repeatability, changed the definitions of

“compact dishwasher” and “standard dishwasher,” and reduced the average number of

use cycles per year from 322 to 264. 66 FR 65091, 65095

– 97 (Dec. 18, 2001). In 2003,

DOE again revised the test procedure to more accurately measure dishwasher efficiency,

energy use, and water use. The 2003 dishwasher test procedure amendments included the

following revisions: (1) the addition of a method to rate the efficiency of soil-sensing

products; (2) the addition of a method to measure standby power; and (3) a reduction in

the average-use cycles per year from 264 to 215

. 68 FR 51887, 51899

– 903 (August 29,

2003). The current version of the test procedure includes provisions for determining

estimated annual energy use (EAEU), estimated annual operating cost (EAOC), energy

32factor (EF) expressed in cycles per kilowatt-hour (kWh), and water consumption

expressed in gallons per cycle

. 10 CFR 430.23(c). As discussed in section II.A

, DOE is

currently considering amendments the test procedure to incorporate measures of off mode

energy consumption in addition to the existing measures of standby mode energy use.

III. General Discussion

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides

covered products into product classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or other

performance-related features that justifies a different standard

. In making a determination

whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider

such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE

determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))

Existing energy conservation standards divide residential dishwashers into two

product classes based on the capacity, i.e. , the number of place settings and serving

pieces that can be loaded in the product.

 Standard (capacity equal to or greater than eight place settings plus six

serving pie ces)

 Compact (capacity less than eight place settings plus six serving pieces)

33The Joint Petition proposes energy conservation standard levels for standard and

compact product classes based on the same capacity definitions. (Joint Petition, No. 1 at

p. 11) In this final rule, DOE maintains the existing standard and compact product classes

for residential dishwashers. Based on a survey of products available on the market, DOE

determined that compact dishwasher provide unique utility in their countertop or drawer

configurations.

B. Technological Feasibility

1. General

In each standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on

information gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that could

improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the

rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology

options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other

interested parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving efficiency

are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in commercially

available products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. 10 CFR 430,

subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i).

After DOE has determined that particular technology options are technologically

feasible, it further evaluates each technology option in light of the following additional

screening criteria: (1) practicability to manufacture, install, or service; (2) adverse

impacts on product utility or availability; and (3) adverse impacts on health or safety.

34Section IV.B of this notice discusses the results of the screening analysis for residential

dishwashers, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those

that are the basis for the TSLs in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening

analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the direct final rule TSD.

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class of covered

product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum

reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C.

6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum

technologically feasible (“max

- tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for residential

dishwashers, using the design parameters for the most efficient products available on the

market or in working prototypes. (See chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD .) The maxtech levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C.2 of

this final rule.

C. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

DOE used its national impact analysis (NIA) spreadsheet model to estimate

energy savings from amended standards for the products that are the subject of this

rulemaking. 10 For each TSL, DOE forecasted energy savings beginning in the year that

manufacturers would be required to comply with amended standards, and ending in 2047

.

DOE quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy

10 The NIA spreadsheet model is described in section IV.G of this notice.

35cons umption between the standards case and the base case. The base case represents the

forecast of energy consumption in the absence of amended mandatory efficiency

standards, and considers market demand for more efficient products.

The NIA spreadsheet model calculates the electricity savings in site energy

expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh). Site energy is the energy directly consumed by

appliances at the locations where they are used. DOE reports national energy savings on

an annual basis in terms of the aggregated source (primary) energy savings, which is the

savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site energy. (See chapter 10

of the direct final rule TSD). To convert site energy to source energy, DOE derived

annual conversion factors from the model used to prepare the Energy Information

Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2011 ( AEO2011 ).

2. Significance of Savings

As noted above, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) prevents DOE from adopting a standard

for a covered product unless such standard would result in “significant” energy savings.

Although the term “significant” is not defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington , 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985),

indicated that Congress intended “significant” energy savings in this context to be

savings that were not “genuinely trivial.” The energy savings for all of the TSLs

con sidered in this rulemaking (presented in section V.3.a) are nontrivial, and, therefore,

DOE considers them “significant” within the meaning of section 325 of EPCA.

36D. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

As noted in section II.A, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in

determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed

each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

In determining the impacts of an amended standard on manufacturers, DOE first

uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. This step

includes both a short-term assessment

— based on the cost and capital requirements during

the period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the

regulation

— and a long-term assessment over a 30-year analysis period. The industrywide impacts analyzed include industry net present value (INPV), which values the

industry on the basis of expected future cash flows; cash flows by year; changes in

revenue and income; and other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE

analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts

on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic

manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for

standards to result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes

into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other regulatory

requirements on manufacturers.

37For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in

life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) associated with new or amended

standards

. The LCC, which is specified separately in EPCA as one of the seven factors to

be considered in determining the economic justification for a new or amended standard,

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), is discussed in the following section. For consumers in

the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the economic impacts

throughout the forecast period applicable to a particular rulemaking.

b. Life-Cycle Costs

The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including its installation)

and the operating expense (including energy, maintenance, and repair expenditures)

discounted over the lifetime of the product. The LCC savings for the considered

efficiency levels are calculated relative to a base case that reflects likely market trends in

the absence of amended standards. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as

product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs,

product lifetime, and consumer discount rates. In its analysis, DOE assumed that

consumers will purchase the considered products in the first year of compliance with

amended standards

.

To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such as product

lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached

to each value. Using this approach

, DOE identifies the percentage of consumers

estimated to receive LCC savings or experience an LCC increase, in addition to the

38average LCC savings associated with a particular standard level. In addition to

identifying ranges of impacts, DOE evaluates the LCC impacts of potential standards on

identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a national

standard.

c. Energy Savings

Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement

for imposing an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires DOE, in determining the

economic justification of a standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that

are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) DOE

uses the NIA spreadsheet results in its consideration of total projected energy savings.

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

In establishing classes of products, and in evaluating design options and the

impact of potential standard levels, DOE develop ed standards for residential dishwashers

that would not lessen the utility or performance of those products. (42 U.S.C.

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) The TSL adopted in today’s direct final rule will not r educe the

utility or performance of the dishwashers under consideration in this rulemaking.

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is likely to result

from standards. It also directs the Attorney General of the United States (Attorney

General) to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result

39from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60

days of the publication of a direct final rule and simultaneously published proposed rule

,

together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C.

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) DOE published the proposed rule containing energy

conservation standards identical to those set forth in today’s direct final rule and

transmitted a copy of today’s direct final rule and the accompanying TSD to the Attorney

General, requesting that the Department of Justice (DOJ) provide its determination on

this issue. DOE will consider DOJ’s comments on the rule in determining whether to

proceed with the direct final rule. DOE will also publish and respond to DOJ’s comments

in the Federal Register in a separate notice.

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

The energy savings from new or amended standards are likely to provide

improvements to the security and reliability of the nation’s energy system. Reductions in

the demand for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability

of the nation’s electricity system . DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how

standards may affect the nation’s needed power generation capacity

.

Energy savings from today’s standards also are likely to result in environmental

benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases

associated with energy production. DOE reports the environmental effects from today’s

standards, and from each TSL it considered, in the environmental assessment emissions

analysis contained in chapter 15 in the direct final rule TSD and in section V.B.6 of this

40notice. DOE also reports estimates of the economic value of emissions reductions

resulting from the considered TSLs.

g. Other Factors

EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is

economically justified, to consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be

relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) In developing this direct final rule, DOE has

also considered the submission of the Joint Petition, which DOE believes sets forth a

statement by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view

(including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency

advocates) and contains recommendations with respect to an energy conservation

standard that are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (Although States were not

signatories to the Consensus Agreement, they did not express any opposition to it.) DOE Comment [A11]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.
has encouraged the submission of consensus agreements as a way to bring diverse

interested parties together, to develop an independent and probative analysis useful in

DOE standard setting, and to expedite the rulemaking process. DOE also believes that

standard levels recommended in the Consensus Agreement may increase the likelihood

for regulatory compliance, while decreasing the risk of litigation.

2. Rebuttable Presumption

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a rebuttable

presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the

additional cost to the consumer of a product that meets the standard is less than three

41times the value of the first year ’s energy savings resulting from the standard, as

calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure

. DOE’s LCC and PBP analyses

generate values used to calculate the effect potential amended energy conservation

standards would have on the payback period for consumers. These analyses include, but

are not limited to, the 3-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttablepresumption test. In addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that

considers the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the nation, and the

environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis

serve as the basis for DOE’s evaluation of the economic justification for a potential

standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary

determination of economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation

is discussed in section IV.F.11 of this direct final rule and chapter 8 of the direct final

rule TSD.

IV. Methodology and Discussion

DOE used two spreadsheet tools to estimate the impact of today’s direct final rule.

The first spreadsheet calculates LCCs and PBPs of potential new energy conservation

standards. The second provides shipments forecasts and then calculates impacts of

potential energy conservation standards on national energy savings and net present value.

The two spreadsheets are available online at: [INSERT URL]. The Department also

ass essed manufacturer impacts, largely through use of the Government Regulatory

Impact Model (GRIM).

42Additionally, DOE estimated the impacts on utilities and the environment of

energy conservation standards for residential dishwashers. DOE used a version of EIA’s

National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) for the utility and environmental analyses.

The NEMS model simulates the energy sector of the U.S. economy. EIA uses NEMS to

prepare its Annual Energy Outlook , a widely known baseline energy forecast for the

Un ited States. For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy Modeling

System: An Overview , DOE/EIA

– 0581 (98) (Feb.1998), available at:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/forecasting/058198.pdf

.

The version of NEMS used for appliance standards analysis, which makes minor

modifications to the AEO version, is called NEMS-BT. 11 NEMS-BT offers a

sophisticated picture of the effect of standards, because it accounts for the interactions

among the various energy supply and demand sectors and the economy as a whole.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. General

When beginning an energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE develops

information that provides an overall picture of the market for the products concerned,

including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, and market characteristics.

This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments based primarily on

publicly available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology

11 EIA approves the use of the name “NEMS” to describe only an AEO version of the model without any modification to code or data. Because the present analysis entails some minor code modifications and runs the model under various policy scenarios that deviate from AEO assumptions, the name “NEMS

- BT” refers

to the model a s used here. (BT stands for DOE’s Building Technologies Program.)

43assessment for this rulemaking include products covered by the rulemaking, quantities

and types of products sold and offered for sale, retail market trends, product classes and

manufacturers

, regulatory and non-regulatory programs

, and technology options that

could improve the energy efficiency of the product(s) under examination. See chapter 3

of the direct final rule TSD for further discussion of the market and technology

assessment.

2. Products Included in this Rulemaki ng

DOE defines “dishwasher” under EPCA as “a cabinet -like appliance which with

the aid of water and detergent, washes, rinses, and dries (when a drying process is

included) dishware, glassware, eating utensils, and most cooking utensils by chemical,

mechanical and/or electrical means and discharges to the plumbing drainage system.”

(10 CFR 430.2) DOE considers this definition to encompass built-in, portable, and

countertop dishwashers.

3. Product Classes

Existing energy conservation standards divide residential dishwashers into two

product classes based on capacity: (1) standard; and (2) compact. As mentioned

previously in section III.A, DOE is maintaining these product classes for this rulemaking.

4. Non-Regulatory Programs

As part of the market and technology assessment, DOE reviews non-regulatory

programs promoting energy efficient residential appliances in the United States. Non44regulatory programs that DOE considers in its market and technology assessment include

ENERGY STAR and the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) Super-Efficient Home

Appliance Initiative (SEHA).

ENERGY STAR is a voluntary labeling program administered jointly by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DOE. ENERGY STAR identifies energy

efficient products through a qualification process. 12 To qualify, a product must exceed

Federal minimum standards by a specified amount, or if no Federal standard exists, a

product must exhibit select energy-saving features. ENERGY STAR specifications

currently exist for residential dishwashers.

The CEE SEHA program develops initiatives for its North American members to

promote the manufacture and purchase of energy efficient products and services. 13 The

program establishes efficiency tiers beyond the DOE energy conservation standards and

the ENERGY STAR specifications. Currently, CEE has set two efficiency tiers above the

ENERGY STAR specification for standard dishwashers, and one efficiency tier above the

ENERGY STAR specification for compact dishwashers.

5. Technology Options

As part of the market and technology assessment, DOE developed a list of

technologies to consider for improving the efficiency of residential dishwashers, as

shown in Table IV .1 Table IV .1

. These technologies encompass all those DOE believes

12 For more information, please visit www.energystar.gov

. 13 For more information, please visit www.cee1.org

.

45would improve energy efficiency and are technologically feasible, most of which were

identified for the November 2007 ANOPR. 72 FR 64432, 64451 (Nov. 15, 2007)

. In

addition to those technology options identified in the November 2007 ANOPR, DOE also

considered the use of control strategies to decrease energy and water consumption. This

technology option is a change in the product’s operation. For instance, a manufacturer

may lower the temperature of a wash or rinse cycle to decrease the amount of internal

water heating required. Often, decreases in water temperatures or water use are combined

with longer cycles to limit the impact on wash performance.

Table IV .1 Initial Technology Options for Residential Dishwashers 1. Condenser drying 2. Control Strategies

3. Fan/jet drying

4. Flow

- through heating 5. Improved fill control 6. Improved food filter 7. Improved motor efficiency 8. Improved spray

- arm geometry
9. Increased insulation

10. Low

- standby

- loss electronic controls

11. Microprocessor controls and fuzzy logic, including adaptive or soil

- sensing controls 12. Modified sump geometry, with and without dual pumps

13. Reduced inlet

- water temperature 14. Supercritical carbon dioxide washing 15. Ultrasonic washing

16. Variable washing pressures and flow rates

B. Screening Analysis

DOE uses the following four screening criteria to determine which technology

options are suitable for further consideration.

461) Technological feasibility . DOE will consider technologies incorporated in

commercial products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible.

(The technological feasibility of options was discussed in the preceding

section as part of the market and technology assessment.)

2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service . If mass production and

reliable installation and servicing of a technology in commercial products

could be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the

time the standard comes into effect, then DOE will consider that technology

practicable to manufacture, install, and service.

3) Adverse impacts on product utility or product availability . If DOE determines

a technology would have significant adverse impact on the utility of the

product to significant subgroups of consumers, or would result in the

unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristics

(including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are

substantially the same as products generally available in the United States at

the time, it will not consider this technology further.

4) Adverse impacts on health or safety . If DOE determines that a technology will

have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not consider this

technology further.

(10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, (4)(a)(4) and (5)(b)).

47Technologies that pass through the screening analysis are referred to as “design

options” in the engineering analysis. Details of the screening analysis are provided in

chapter 4 of the direct final rule TSD.

Based on the preliminary determinations made in the November 2007 ANOPR

(72 FR 64432, 64454

– 55 (Nov. 15, 2007)), and further analysis of the initial technology

options, DOE retained the design options shown in Table IV .2 Table IV.2 for its

subsequent analyses. These remaining design options met all of the screening criteria

listed above.

Table IV .2 Design Options Retained for Engineering Analysis 1. Condenser drying

2. Control Strategies 3. Fan/jet drying

4. Flow

- through heating 5. Improved fill control 6. Improved food filter 7. Improved motor efficiency 8. Improved spray

- arm geometry
9. Increased insulation

10. Low

- standby

- loss ele ctronic controls 11. Microprocessor controls and fuzzy logic, including adaptive or soil

sensing controls 12. Modified sump geometry, with and without dual pumps 13. Variable washing pressures and flow rates

C. Engineering Analysis

In the engineering analysis, DOE evaluates a range of product efficiency levels

and their associated manufacturing costs. The purpose of the analysis is to estimate the

incremental manufacturer production costs (MPCs) associated with increasing efficiency

48levels above that of the baseline model in each product class. The engineering analysis

considers technologies not eliminated in the screening analysis, designated as design

options, in developing cost-efficiency curves, which subsequently are used for the LCC

and PBP analyses.

DOE has identified the following three methodologies for generating the

manufacturing costs needed for the engineering analysis: (1) the design-option approach,

which provides the incremental costs of adding to a baseline model design options that

will improve its efficiency; (2) the efficiency-level approach, which provides the relative

costs of achieving increases in energy efficiency levels, without regard to the particular

design options used to achieve such increases; and (3) the cost-assessment (or reverseengineering) approach, which provides “bottom

- up” manufacturing cost assessments for

achieving various levels of increased efficiency, based on detailed data regarding costs

for parts and material, labor, shipping/packaging, and investment for models that operate

at particular efficiency levels.

DOE conducted the engineering analyses for the standard product class in this

rulemaking using the efficiency-level approach, combined with the cost-assessment

approach, to develop a manufacturing cost for each efficiency level. DOE chose this

approach because the efficiency levels considered in the engineering analysis are

attainable using technologies currently available on the market for residential

dishwashers. This approach involved physically disassembling commercially available

49products, consulting with outside experts, reviewing publicly available cost and

performance information, and modeling equipment costs.

Given the data available for the compact product class, DOE used the designoption approach to develop the cost-efficiency relationship

. There are very few, disparate

platforms ( i.e. , countertop units and dishdrawers) available on the market for this product

class. Therefore, DOE developed the cost-efficiency relationship by estimating the

incremental costs of adding specific design options to a baseline model that would

provide sufficient improvement in efficiency to achieve the higher efficiency leve ls

considered for the analysis

. DOE weighted the costs at each efficiency level by market

share of each platform.

To provide interested parties with additional information about DOE’s

assumptions and results and the ability to perform independent analyses for verification,

DOE associated each efficiency level with specific technologies that manufacturers might

use. Chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD describes the methodology and results of the

efficiency level analysis used to derive the cost-efficiency relationships.

1. Baseline Efficiency Levels

The baseline efficiency levels for both the standard and compact product classes

are based on the current DOE energy conservation standards for annual energy use and

per-cycle water consumption

. These standards took effect for residential dishwashers

50manufactured on or after January 1, 2010. (42 U.S.C. 6295 (g)(10)) Table IV .3 Table IV .3

below shows the baseline efficiency level for each residential dishwasher product class.

Table IV .3 Baseline Efficiency Levels for Residential Dishwasher Analysis

Product Class Annual Energy Use ( kWh/year ) Per

- Cycle Water Consumption ( gallons/cycle )

Standard 355 6.5 Compact 260 4.5

2. Higher Efficiency Levels

DOE considered efficiency levels higher than baseline levels based on

specifications prescribed by ENERGY STAR and CEE’s Super -Efficient HomeAppliances Initiative. The highest efficiency levels were defined by the maximum

available technology that DOE could identify on the market. (DOE did not identify any

working prototypes that were more efficient than the maximum available technology on

the market. ) Where the increments between adjacent efficiency levels were large, DOE

proposed to add an intermediate “ gap- fill” level. Efficiency Level 2 for standard

dishwashers and Efficiency Level 1 for compact dishwashers correspond to the efficiency

levels proposed in the Consensus Agreement discussed in section II.B.2. Table IV .4 Table

IV.4 and Table IV .5 Table IV .5 show the efficiency levels analyzed in today’s direct final

rule, based on annual energy use and per-cycle water consumption.

51Table IV .4 Efficiency Levels for Standard Residential Dishwasher Analysis

Level Efficiency Level Reference

Source Efficiency Level

Annual Energy

Use (kWh/year) Per

- Cycle Water Consumption

(gal/cycle)

Baseline DOE Standard 355 6.5

EL 1 ENERGY STAR ( effective August 11 , 20 09 ) 324 5.8

EL 2 CEE Tier 1/Consensus Agreement 307 5.0

EL 3 CEE Tier 2 / Upcoming ENERGY STAR (effective January 20, 2012) 295 4.25

EL 4 Gap Fill* 234 3.8

EL 5 Maximum Available* 180 1.6 *Source: ENERGY STAR-qualified dishwashers as of January 30, 2011.

Table IV .5 Efficiency Levels for Compact Residential Dishwasher Analysis

Level Efficiency Level Description Annual Energy Use*

(kWh/year) Per

- Cycle

Water Consumption

(gal/cycle)

Baseline DOE Standard 260 4.5

EL 1 Cons ensus Agreement / Upcoming ENERGY STAR (effective January 20, 2012) 222 3.5

EL 2 Maximum Available * 154 2.1 *Source: ENERGY STAR-qualified dishwashers as of January 30, 2011.

3. Proprietary Designs

In its engineering and economic analyses DOE considers all design options that

are commercially available or present in a working prototype, including proprietary

designs and technologies. DOE will consider a proprietary design in the subsequent

analyses only if the achieved efficiency level can also be reached using other

nonproprietary design options. If the proprietary design is the only approach available to

achieve a given efficiency level, then DOE will reject that efficiency level to avoid

impacts on competition that would likely result. DOE solicited comment on any

52proprietary design options during its manufacturer interviews, and although

manufacturers mentioned several technologies that are currently in development, these

technologies are not required to meet the efficiency levels considered in this analysis.

Therefore, DOE believes that all efficiency levels in today’s direct final rule can be Comment [A12]: Change recommended by

OIRA.
achieved without the use of proprietary designs.

4. Reverse Engineering

Based on product teardowns and cost modeling, DOE developed overall costefficiency relationships for the standard and compact product classes. Table IV .6 Table

IV.6 and Table IV .7 Table IV.7 show DOE’s estimates of incremental manufacturing

cost s for improvement of dishwasher efficiency above the baseline. Chapter 5 of the

direct f inal rule TSD provides details on DOE’s engineering analysis and development of

the cost-efficiency curves.

Table IV .6 Cost-Efficiency Relationship for Standard Residential Dishwashers

Efficiency

Level Annual Energy

Use (kWh/year) Per

- Cycle

Water Consumption

(gal/cycle) Incremental Manufacturing Cost ( 2010$ )

(2010$) ($/kWh/yr) ($/gal/cycle)

Baseline 355 6.5

- - -

EL 1 324 5.8 $ 19.87 18.27 $0.59 $26.10

EL 2 307 5.0 $31.82 $0.66 $21.21

EL 3 295 4.25 $69.23 $1.15 $30.77

EL 4 234 3.8 $75.18 $0.62 $27.85

EL 5 180 1.6 $82.95 $0.47 $16.93 Comment [A13]: Column additions recommended by OIRA.

Inserted Cells

Inserted Cells

53Table IV .7 Cost-Efficiency Relationship for Compact Residential Dishwashers

Efficiency

Level Annual Energy

Use (kWh/year) Per

- Cycle

Water Consumption

(gal/cycle) Incremental Manufacturing Cost ( 2010$ )

(2010$) ($/kWh/yr) ($/gal/cycle)

Baseline 260 4.5

- - -

EL 1 222 3.5 $1.00 $0.03 $1.00

EL 2 154 2.1 $12.11 $0.11 $5.05 Comment [A14]: Column additions recommended by OIRA.

Inserted Cells

Inserted Cells

D. Markups Analysis

The markups analysis develops appropriate markups in the distribution chain to

convert the estimates of manufacturer cost derived in the engineering analysis to

consumer prices. At each step in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of

the product to cover business costs and profit margin. For dishwashers, the main parties

in the distribution chain are manufacturers and retailers.

DOE developed an average manufacturer markup by examining the annual

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports filed by publicly traded

manufacturers primarily engaged in appliance manufacturing and whose combined

product range includes residential dishwashers.

For retailers, DOE developed separate markups for baseline products (baseline

markups) and for the incremental cost of more efficient products (incremental markups).

Incremental markups are coefficients that relate the change in the manufacturer sales

price of higher-efficiency models to the change in the retailer sales price. DOE relied on

54econ omic data from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate average baseline and incremental

markups. 14

Chapter 6 of the direct final rule TSD provides details on DOE’s development of

markups for dishwashers.

E. Energy and Water Use Analysis

DOE’s energy and water use analysis estimated the range of energy and water use

of dishwashers in the field, i.e. , as they are actually used by consumers. The energy and

water use analysis provided the basis for other analyses DOE performed, particularly

assessments of the energy and water savings and the savings in consumer operating costs

that could result from DOE’s adoption of amended standards.

DOE determined a range of annual energy and per-cycle water consumption of

dishwashers by multiplying the per-cycle energy use and per-cycle water use of each

considered design by the number of cycles per year in a representative sample of U.S.

households.

DOE estimated the per-cycle energy use by subtracting the annual energy use

associated with standby power from the total annual energy use and dividing the result by

the national average number of dishwasher cycles per year. DOE used data provided by

AHAM on the total annual dishwasher energy use and the standby power use for each

considered efficiency level.

14 U.S. Census, 2002 Business Expenditure Survey (BES), Electronics and Appliance Stores sectors

55DOE analyzed per-cycle energy consumption based on two components: (1)

water-heating energy, and (2) machine (motor) and drying energy. The largest component

of dishwasher energy consumption is water-heating energy use, which is the energy

required to heat the inlet water to the temperature for dishwashing. The machine energy

consists of the motor energy (for water pumping and food disposal) and drying energy

consists of energy to dry cleaned dishes.

DOE estimated the per-cycle water-heating energy consumption based on DOE’s

dishwasher test procedure (which refers to this quantity as “water energy consumption”).

DOE estimated this energy consumption for dishwashers that operate with a nominal inlet

water temperature of 120 oF, the most common situation in U.S. homes. For a dishwasher

using electrically heated water, the water energy consumption, expressed in kWh per

cycle, is equal to the water consumption per cycle times a nominal water heater

temperature rise of 70 oF times the specific heat of water (0.0024 kWh per gallon per

oF). 15 For a dishwasher using gas-heated or oil-heated water, the calculation is the same,

but also incorporates a nominal water heater recovery efficiency of 0.75. 16

The per-cycle machine and drying energy was determined by subtracting the percycle water-heating energy consumption from the per-cycle total energy consumption.

15 The nominal water heater temperature rise of 70 oF assumes an average water heater inlet temperature of

50 oF, which was believed to be as specified as the national average when in the dishwasher test procedure was specified.

.. 16 The recovery efficiency indicates how efficient a water heater is at heating water. The DOE test procedure for dishwashers specifies a recovery efficiency of 0. 75 for gas-fired water heating, which is representative of gas water heaters currently in the housing stock. Comment [A15]: Footnote changes recommended by OIRA.

Comment [A16]: Footnote recommended by

OIRA.

56DOE determined the standby annual energy consumption by multiplying the

energy use in standby mode per hour by the hours the dishwasher is in standby mode

,

which is the difference between the number of hours in a year and the active hours, which

is equal to the number of dishwasher cycles per year where a multiplied by cycle time,

which is estimated to be one hour. 17 Comment [A17]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.

Comment [A18]: Footnote changes recommended by OIRA.

DOE estimated the per-cycle water use by efficiency level in its engineering

analysis, as described in chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD.

To estimate the number of cycles per year in a representative sample of U.S.

households, DOE analyzed data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA)’s

2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), which was the most recent such

survey available at the time of DOE’s analysis. 18 RECS is a national sample survey of

housing units that collects statistical information on the consumption of and expenditures

for energy in housing units along with data on energy-related characteristics of the

housing units and occupants. Of the more than 4,800 households in RECS, almost 2,500

have dishwashers. For each household using a dishwasher, RECS provides data on the

number of dishwasher cycles in the following bins: (1) less than once per week, (2) once

per week, (3) 2

– 3 times per week, (4) 4-6 times per week, (5) at least once per day. DOE

converted the above to annual values and created a triangular or uniform distribution for

17 The one-hour cycle time is an estimate of the typical cycle time for a dishwasher. Actual cycle times

vary based on test measurements conducted for the November 2007 ANOPR wash selection, load, and

model of dishwasher.

. 18 For information on RECS, see www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/

.

57each bin. DOE randomly assigned a specific numerical value from within the appropriate

bin to each household in the dishwasher sample. The average number of cycles per year

derived from the RECS 2005 data is 174.

DOE also analyzed a review of survey data , available at , 19 to estimate the average

number of dishwasher cycles per year for today’s rule

. This

. In the review, survey data

was on consumers’ dishwasher usage habits were collected from a number of sources

including several dishwasher manufacturers, detergent manufacturers, energy and

consumer interest groups, independent researchers, and government agencies. Th ese data

were also used to develop the 2003 dishwa sher test procedure amendments, which

included a reduction in the average use cycles per year

, from 264 to 215 cycles per

year. 20

. 21 Because the survey is data are more comprehensive than the RECS data, for

today’s rule DOE chose an average usage of 215 cycles per year as the most

representative value for average dishwasher use.

To estimate the annual number of cycles for each RECS household in the

dishwasher sample, DOE multiplied the assigned specific numerical value derived from

RECS by the ratio of 215 cycles to 174 cycles

. (the RECS average). The resulting range

of values used in the LCC analysis is consistent with the average use in the DOE

dishwasher test procedure.

19 Available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/survey_data.pdf

20 68 FR 51887 (August 29, 2003).

21 68 FR 51887 (August 29, 2003). The 215 value was based on the review ’s recommendation that the number of average-use cycles per year be reduced into the range of 200 to 233 cycles. Comment [A19]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.

58Table IV .8 Table IV .8 shows the estimated average annual energy and water use

for each efficiency level analyzed for standard dishwashers.

Table IV .8 Standard Dishwashers: Average Annual Energy and Water Use by Efficiency Level

Efficiency

Level Annual Energy Use Annual

Water

Use Water Heating* Machine + Drying Standby † Total

kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year gal/year

Baseline 234.8 120.2 0.0 355 1398

1 209.5 94.8 19.7 324 1247

2 180.6 111.9 14.5 307 1075

3 153.5 127.0 14.5 295 914

4 137.3 82.2 14.5 234 817

5 57.8 107.7 14.5 180 344

* Shown for the case of electrically heated water

. † Standby annual energy use based on a dishwasher cycle length of one hour.

Standby hours = 8766 876 0 hours

– ( 215 cycles x 1 hour = 8551 ) = 85 4 5 hours.

Table IV .9 Compact Dishwashers: Average Annual Energy and Water Use by Efficiency Level

Efficiency Annual Energy Use Annual

Water

Use Water Heating* Machine + Drying Standby † Total

Level kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year gal/year

Baseline 162.5 77.8 19.7 260 968

1 126.4 75.9 19.7 222 753

2 75.9 63.6 14.5 154 452

* Shown for the case of electrically heated water.

† Standby annual energy use based on a dishwasher cycle length of one hour.

Standby hours = 8760 hours

– (215 cycles x 1 hour) = 8545 hours.

Chapter 7 of the direct final rule TSD provides details on DOE’s energy and water

use analysis for dishwashers.

59F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts on

individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for dishwashers. The

LCC is the total consumer expense over the life of a product, consisting of purchase and

installation costs plus operating costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair).

To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating costs to the time of

purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the product. The PBP is the estimated

amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost

(including installation) of a more efficient product through lower operating costs. DOE

calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost (normally higher) due to a

more stringent standard by the change in average annual operating cost (normally lower)

that results from the standard.

For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the PBP and the change in LCC

relative to an estimate of the base-case appliance efficiency levels. The base-case

estimate reflects the market in the absence of new or amended energy conservation

standards, including the market for products that exceed the current energy conservation

standards.

For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE calculated the

LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of housing units. For the analysis for

today’s rule, DOE developed household samples from the 2005 RECS. For each sample

household, DOE determined the energy consumption for the dishwasher and the

60appropriate electricity price. By developing a representative sample of households, the

analysis captured the variability in energy consumption and energy prices associated with

the use of residential dishwashers.

Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost of the product

—

which includes manufacturer costs, manufacturer markups, retailer and distributor

markups, and sales taxes

— and installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating

expenses include annual energy consumption, energy and water prices and price

projections, repair and maintenance costs, product lifetimes, discount rates, and the year

that compliance with standards is required. DOE created distributions of values for

product lifetime, discount rates, and sales taxes, with probabilities attached to each value,

to account for their uncertainty and variability.

The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC and PBP, which incorporates

Crystal Ball (a commercially available software program), relies on a Monte Carlo

simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability into the analysis. The Monte Carlo

simulations randomly sample input values from the probability distributions and

dishwasher user samples. The model calculated the LCC and PBP for products at each

efficiency level for 10,000 housing units per simulation run.

Table IV .10 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive inputs to the

LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow provide further discussion.

Details of the spreadsheet model, and of all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are

61contained in chapter 8 and its appendices of the direct final rule TSD (see Table 8.1.1 for

a summary of inputs).

62Table IV .10 Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis*
Inputs Source/Method

Product Cost Derived by multiplying manufacturer cost by manufacturer and retailer markups and sales tax, as appropriate. Used historical data to derive a price scaling index to forecast product costs.

Installation Costs Baseline installation cost determined

with data from RS Means. Assumed no change with efficiency level. Annual Energy and

Water Use The sum of the total per

- cycle annual energy and water use multiplied by the number of cycles per year and the standby annual energy use. Average number of cycles based on ADL field

data. Variability: Based on the 2005 RECS normalized to the average number of cycles. Energy and Water

Prices Electricity: Based on EIA’s Form 861

data for 2010. Variability: Regional energy prices determined for 13 regions.

Water: Based on 2010 AWWA/Raftelis Survey. Variability: By census region. Energy and Water Energy: Forecasted using Annual En ergy Price Trends Outlook 2011 ( AEO2011) price

forecasts. Water: Forecasted using BLS historic water price index information. Repair and

Maintenance Costs Assumed no change with efficiency

level.

Product Lifetime Estimated using survey results from RECS (1990, 1993, 1997, 2001, 2005) and the U.S. Census American Housing Survey (2005, 2007), along with historic data on appliance shipments. Variability: Characterized using Weibull probability distributions.

Discount Rates Approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase the considered appliances, or might be affected indirectly. Primary data source was the

Federal Reserve Board’s SCF** for 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004 and

2007. Compliance Date 201 8 †

63* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD. ** Survey of Consumer Finances. † For TSL 2, DOE used 2013 as the compliance date.

1. Product Cost

To calculate consumer product costs, DOE multiplied the manufacturer selling

prices developed in the engineering analysis by the supply-chain markups described

above (along with sales taxes). DOE used different markups for baseline products and

higher-efficiency products, because DOE applies an incremental markup to the increase

in MSP associated with higher-efficiency products.

Examination of historical price data for a number of appliances that have been

subject to energy conservation standards indicates that an assumption of constant real

prices and costs may overestimate long-term trends in appliance prices. Economic

literature and historical data suggest that the real costs of these products may in fact trend

downward over time according to “learning” or “experience” c urves. Experience curve

analysis focuses on entire industries (often operating globally) and aggregates over many

causal factors that may not be well characterized. Experience curve analysis implicitly

includes factors such as efficiencies in labor, capital investment, automation, materials

prices, distribution, and economies of scale at an industry-wide level. 22 Since market

competition is very effective, learning in one plant or firm rapidly diffuses to other firms

as well, leading to industry-wide effects. Comment [A20]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.

22 Newell, R.G., 2000. Incorporation of Technological Learning into NEMS Buildings Modules. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC.

64On February 22, 2011, DOE published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA, 76

FR 9696) stating that DOE may consider improving regulatory analysis by addressing

equipment price trends. In the NODA, DOE proposed that when sufficiently long-term

data are available on the cost or price trends for a given product, it would analyze the

available data to forecast future trends.

Many commenters were supportive of DOE moving from an assumption-based

equipment price trend forecasting method to a data-driven methodology for forecasting

price trends. Other commenters were skeptical that DOE could accurately forecast price

trends given the many variables and factors that can complicate both the estimation and

the interpretation of the numerical price trend results and the relationship between price

and cost. DOE evaluated the concerns expressed about its proposed approach for

incorporating experience in its forecasts of product prices and determined that retaining

an assumption-based approach of a constant real price trend was not consistent with the

historical data for residential dishwashers. Therefore, DOE developed a range of potential

price trends that was consistent with the available data.

For the default price trend for this final rule, DOE estimated an experience rate

for residential dishwashers based on an analysis of long-term historical data. DOE

derived a dishwasher price index from 1988 to 2010 using Producer Price Index (PPI)

data for miscellaneous household appliances from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS).

(PPI data specific to residential dishwashers were not available.) An inflation-adjusted

price index was calculated using the GDP price deflator for the same years. This proxy

65for historic price data was then regressed on the quantity of dishwashers produced, based

on a corresponding series for total shipments of dishwashers.

To calculate an experience rate, a least-squares power-law fit was performed on

the dishwasher price index versus cumulative shipments

. (including imports). DOE then

derived a price factor index, with the price in 2010 equal to 1

, to forecast prices in the

year of compliance for amended energy conservation standards in the LCC and PBP

analysis, and for the NIA, for each subsequent year through 2047. The index value in

each year is a function of the experience rate and the cumulative production through that

year. To derive the latter, DOE used projected shipments from the base case projections

made for the NIA (see section IV.G.1 of this notice)

. The average annual rate of pric e Comment [A21]: Change recommended by

OIRA.

decline in the default case is 1.27 percent. By 2047, which is the end date of the forecast

period, the price is forecasted to drop 38 percent relative to 2010. For the baseline

model, the average price decreases from $630 in 2010 to $392 in 2047 (values given in

2010$)

. DOE’s forecast of product prices for dishwashers is described in further detail in

appendix 8-E of the direct final rule TSD.

For the NIA, DOE also considered several alternative price trends as sensitivity

cases (see section IV.G. 3 for a description). In recognition of the uncertainty regarding

estimation of future product price trends, DOE will continue to review the relevant

literature and seek to continually improve and refine its methodology through research,

enhancements to its models and by seeking public input. DOE will also work to ensure

the robustness of its data sets as a means to ensure the reliability of its projections. Comment [A22]: Change recommended by

OIRA.

662. Installation Cost

Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and

parts needed to install the product. DOE used data from the 2010 RS Means Plumbing

Cost data book to estimate the baseline installation cost. DOE found no evidence that

installation costs would be impacted with increased efficiency levels.

3. Annual Energy Consumption

For each sampled household, DOE determined the energy consumption for a

dishwasher at different efficiency levels using the approach described above in section

IV.E.

4. Energy Prices

DOE derived average annual energy prices for 13 geographic areas consisting of

the nine U.S. Census divisions, with four large states (New York, Florida, Texas, and

California) treated separately. For Census divisions containing one of those large states,

DOE calculated the regional average excluding the data for the large state.

DOE calculated average residential electricity prices for each of the 13

geographic areas using data from EIA’s Form EIA

- 861 database (based on “Annual

Electric Power Industry Report”). 23 DOE calculated an average annual regional

residential price by: (1) estimating an average residential price for each utility (by

dividing the residential revenues by residential sales); and (2) weighting each utility by

23 Available at: www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html

67the number of residential consumers it served in that region. The final rule analysis used

the data for 2009, the most recent data available.

DOE calculated average residential natural gas prices for each of the 13

geographic areas using data from EIA’s “Natural Gas Monthly.” 24 DOE calculated

average annual regional residential prices by: (1) estimating an average residential price

for each State; and (2) weighting each State by the number of residential consumers. The

direct final rule analysis used the data for 2010.

5. Energy Price Projections

To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the average regional

energy prices discussed in the preceding section by the forecast of annual average

residential energy price changes in the Reference case from AEO2011 , which has an end

year of 2035. 25 To estimate price trends after 2035, DOE used the average annual rate of

change in prices from 2020 to 2035.

6. Water and Wastewater Prices

For today’s direct final rule, DOE obtained data on water and wastewater prices

for 2010 from the Water and Wastewater Rate Survey conducted by Raftelis Financial

Consultants and the water utility association, AWWA. The survey, which analyzes each

industry separately, covers approximately 308 water utilities and 228 wastewater utilities.

The water survey includes, for each utility, the cost to consumers of purchasing a given

24 Available at: http://www.eia.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/natural_gas_monthly/ngm.html

. 25 U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2011 . Washington, DC. April 2011.

68volume of water or treating a given volume of wastewater. The data provide a division of

the total consumer cost into fixed and volumetric charges. DOE’s calculations use only

the volumetric charge to calculate water and wastewater prices, because only this charge

is affected by a change in water use. Average water and wastewater prices were estimated

for each of four census regions. Each RECS household was assigned a water and

wastewater price depending on its census region location.

DOE also used price information for households that use well water and a septic

tank from the National Ground Water Association, as well as national cost data on

residential septic systems from the National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association

(NOWRA).

C hapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD provides more detail about DOE’s approach

to developing water and wastewater prices.

7. Maintenance and Repair Costs

Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing components that have

failed in an appliance; maintenance costs are associated with maintaining the operation of

the product. Typically, small incremental increases in product efficiency produce no, or

only minor, changes in repair and maintenance costs compared to baseline efficiency

products.

69DOE does not have any data indicating increases in requested information from

manufacturers during interviews as to whether maintenance and repair costs associated

with the are a function of efficiency levels within each of the level and product classes

considered in its analysis class. Manufacturers responded that these costs would not

increase with efficiency

. Therefore, DOE did not assume that more efficient dishwashers

would have greater repair or maintenance costs.

8. Product Lifetime

Because the lifetime of appliances varies depending on utilization and other

factors, DOE develops a distribution of lifetimes from which specific values are assigned

to the appliances in the samples. DOE conducted an analysis of residential dishwasher

lifetimes in the field based on a combination of shipments data and RECS 2005 data on

the ages of the dishwashers reported in the household stock. As described in chapter 8 of

the direct final rue TSD, the analysis yielded an estimate of mean age for residential

dishwashers of approximately 15 years. It also yielded a survival function that DOE

incorporated as a probability distribution in its LCC analysis. See chapter 8 of the direct

final rule TSD for further details on the method and sources DOE used to develop

product lifetim es.

9. Discount Rates

In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate to households

to estimate the present value of future operating costs. DOE estimated a distribution of

residential discount rates for dishwashers

. based on consumer financing costs and Comment [A23]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.

70opportunity cost of any uses of their funds, including investments in more-efficient

appliances. Comment [A24]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.

To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE identified all

debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase dishwashers, including household

assets that might be affected indirectly. It estimated the average percentage shares of the

various debt or asset classes for the average U.S. household using data from the Federal

Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) for 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001,

2004, and 2007. Using the SCF and other sources, DOE then developed a distribution of

rates for each type of debt and asset to represent the rates that may apply in the year in

which amended standards would take effect. DOE assigned each sample household a

specific discount rate drawn from one of the distributions. The average rate across all

types of household debt and equity, weighted by the shares of each class, is 5.1 percent.

DOE used the sam e approach for today’s direct final rule. See chapter 8 in the direct final

rule TSD for further details on the development of consumer discount rates.

10. Compliance Date of Amended Standards

In the context of EPCA, the compliance date is the future date when parties

subject to the requirements of a new or amended standard must comply. EPCA, as

amended by EISA 2007, requires that DOE publish a final rule no later than January 1,

2015, to determine whether to amend the standards in effect for dishwashers

manufactured on or after January 1, 2018

. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)(B)) Where

appropriate, DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for dishwashers as if consumers would

71purchase new products in 2018

. As discussed in section II.B.2, TSL 2, which corresponds

to the Consensus Agreement level for standard dishwashers, has a compliance date of

Jan. 1, 2013. Thus, for TSL 2, DOE used 2013 as the compliance year.

11. Base-Case Efficiency Distribution

To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be affected by a

standard at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s LCC analysis considered the projected

distribution of product efficiencies that consumers purchase under the base case ( i.e. , the

case without new energy efficiency standards). DOE refers to this distribution of product

of efficiencies as a base-case efficiency distribution. DOE relied on data submitted by

AHAM to estimate the base-case efficiency distributions for dishwashers in the LCC and

PBP analysis. These data provide shares of shipments by efficiency level for 2002

– 2005

and 2008

– 2010. For standard dishwashers, the data from AHAM show significant

increase in the share of ENERGY STAR products in both periods. To project the

efficiency distributions in the compliance year, DOE considered these trends and the

potential effect of the new ENERGY STAR level as of July 2011.

To estimate the base-case efficiency distribution of standard-sized dishwashers

for 2013 and 2018, DOE relied on data submitted by AHAM for the current rulemaking.

These data provide shares of shipments by efficiency level for 2002

– 2005 and 2008

–

2010. These data show significant increase in the share of ENERGY STAR products in

both periods. To predict the market shares for each efficiency level in 2013 and 2018,

DOE considered the shares and market trends present in the AHAM data and assumed

72these trends would continue in a manner consistent with the decline in average energy

use

.

For compact dishwashers, AHAM data for efficiency distributions were not

available. Thus, DOE first considered 2010 market data from the NPD Group, Inc. 26

These data show that nearly all shipments for both standard and compact dishwashers are

at the baseline efficiency level. For the compact class ba se -case distribution, however,

there we re only two types of compact dishwashers in the NPD data set: “countertop” and

“portable.” DOE is not aware of any portable dishwashers currently on the market in the

United States that would be classified as compact size based on the number of place

settings. Further, there are no compact dishdrawer platforms included in the NPD dataset,

which DOE believes represent a sizeable fraction of compact dishwasher shipments. As a

result, DOE estimated compact base-case efficiencies from its research on the number of

models available at each efficiency level. Of the eight compact dishwashers listed in the

FTC database for manufacturer certifications in 2010, four are dishdrawer models with

similar performance. Therefore, DOE allocated half of shipments to the dishdrawer

platform that meets candidate standard level (CSL) 2. DOE further estimated, based on

the number of countertop models and underlying platforms contained within the CEC and

FTC databases, that half of remaining shipments (25 percent of total compact dishwasher

shipments) would meet CSL 1, while the remaining 25 percent of compact shipments are

at the baseline.

26 NPD Group, Inc. offers marketing research services, industry tracking, data collection, and analysis. For more information, please visit: www.npdgroup.com

. Comment [A25]: Change recommended by

OIRA.

73The estimated shares for the base-case efficiency distribution for dishwashers are

shown in Table IV .11 Table IV .11 . See chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD for further

information on the derivation of the base-case efficiency distributions. For standard- sized

dishwashers, DOE also considered an alternative base-case efficiency distribution that

uses a different set of historical data. This distribution is described in appendix 8-F of the

direct final rule TSD. Comment [A26]: Change recommended by

OIRA.

Table IV .11 Dishwasher Base-Case Efficiency Distribution by Product Class in 2013

CSL Efficiency Level ( kWh ) Standard ( % of shipments ) Compact ( % of shipments )

Baseline 355 3.8 25.0

1 324 32.3 25.0

2 307 28.0 50.0

3 295 16.4

4 234 13.8

5 180 5.6

12. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis

The payback period is the amount of time it takes the consumer to recover the

additional installed cost of more efficient products, compared to baseline products,

through energy cost savings. Payback periods are expressed in years. Payback periods

that exceed the life of the product mean that the increased total installed cost is not

recovered in reduced operating expenses.

The inputs to the PBP calculation are the total installed cost of the product to the

customer for each efficiency level and the average annual operating expenditures for each

74efficiency level. The PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, except

that discount rates are not needed.

13. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Period

As noted above, EPCA, as amended, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a

standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the

consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level

will be less than three times the value of the energy (and, as applicable, water) savings

during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as

calculated under the test procedure in place for that standard. (42 U.S.C.

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered efficiency level, DOE determined the value of the

first year’s energy and water savings by calculating the quantity of those savings in

accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure, and multiplying that amount by the

average energy and water price forecast for the year in which compliance with the

amended standard would be required. The results of the rebuttable payback period

analysis are summarized in section V.B.1.c of this notice.

G. National Impact Analysis

– National Energy Savings and Net Present Value Analysis

The national impact analysis (NIA) assesses the national energy savings (NES)

and the national net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and savings that would

be expected to result from new or amended standards at specific efficiency levels.

(“Consumer” in this context refers to consumers of the product being regulated.) DOE

calculates the NES and NPV based on projections of annual appliance shipments, along

75with the annual energy consumption and total installed cost data from the energy use and

LCC analyses. 27 For the present analysis, DOE forecasted the energy savings, operating

cost savings, product costs, and NPV of consumer benefits for products sold from 2018

through 2047. 28

DOE evaluates the impacts of new and amended standards by comparing basecase projections with standards-case projections. The base-case projections characterize

energy use and consumer costs for each product class in th e absence of new or amended

energy conservation standards. DOE compares these projections with projections

characterizing the market for each product class if DOE adopted new or amended

standards at specific energy efficiency levels ( i.e. , the TSLs or standards cases) for that

class. For the base-case forecast, DOE considers historical trends in efficiency and

various forces that are likely to affect the mix of efficiencies over time. For the standards

cases, DOE also considers how a given standard would likely affect the market shares of

efficiencies greater than the standard.

DOE uses an MS Excel spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and the

national consumer costs and savings from each TSL. The TSD and other documentation

that DOE provides during the rulemaking help explain the models and how to use them,

and interested parties can review DOE’s analyses by changing various input quantities

27 For the NIA, DOE adjusts the installed cost data from the LCC analysis to exclude sales tax, which is a

transfer.

28 For TSL 2, which assumes a compliance date in 2013, DOE forecasted the impacts for products sold from 2013 through 2047. Comment [A27]: Footnote recommended by

OIRA.

76within the spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical values (as opposed to

probability distributions) as inputs.

For the results presented in today’s notice, DOE used projections of energy prices

and housing starts from the AEO2011 Reference case. As part of the NIA, DOE analyzed

scenarios that used inputs from the AEO2011 Low Economic Growth and High

Economic Growth cases. Those cases have higher and lower energy price trends

compared to the Reference case, as well as higher and lower housing starts, which result

in higher and lower appliance shipments to new homes. NIA results based on these cases

are presented in appendix 10-C of the direct final rule TSD.

Table IV .12 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA analysis

for the direct final rule. Discussion of these inputs and methods follows the table. See

chapter 10 of the direct final rule TSD for further details.

77Table IV .12 Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact Analysis Inputs Method Shipments Annual shipments from shipments

model. Compliance Date

of Standard 201 8 .*

Base

- Case

Forecasted

Efficiencies Efficiency distributions are

forecasted based on historical efficiency data.

Standards

- Case

Forecasted

Efficiencies Used a “roll

- up” scenario.

Annual Energy Consumption per

Unit Annual weighted

- average values are a function of energy use at each

CSL.

Total Installed Cost per Unit Annual weighted

- aver age values

are a function of cost at each CSL. Incorporates forecast of future product prices based on historical

data. Annual Energy Cost per Unit Annual weighted

- average values as a function of the annual energy consumption per unit and energy prices. Repair and

Maintenance Cost per Unit Annual values do not change with efficiency level.

Energy Prices AEO2011 forecasts (to 2035) and extrapolation through 2047

. Energy Site

- to

Source

Conversion

Factor Varies yearly and is generated by

NEMS

- BT.

Discount Rate Three and seven percent real.

Present Year Future expenses discounted to

2011 2012 , when the final rule will be published.

* For TSL 2, the compliance date is 2013.

781. Shipments

Forecasts of product shipments are needed to calculate the national impacts of

standards on energy and water use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows. DOE

develops shipment forecasts based on an analysis of key market drivers for residential

dishwasher s. In DOE’s shipments model, shipments of products are driven by new

construction and stock replacements. The shipments model takes an accounting approach,

tracking market shares of each product class and the vintage of units in the existing stock.

Stock accounting uses product shipments as inputs to estimate the age distribution of inservice product stocks for all years. The age distribution of in-service product stocks is a

key input to calculations of both the NES and NPV, because operating costs for any year

depend on the age distribution of the stock. DOE also considers the impacts on shipments

from changes in product purchase price and operating cost associated with higher energy

efficiency levels.

New housing forecasts and market saturation data comprised the two primary

inputs for DOE’s estimates of new construction shipments. “New housing” includes

newly-constructed single-family and multi- family units (referred to as “new housing

completions”) and mobile home placements. For new housing completions and mobile

home placements, DOE used actual data through 2008, and adopted the projections from

AEO2011 for later years.

DOE calibrated the shipments model against historical dishwasher shipments. In

general, DOE estimated replacements using a product retirement function developed

79from product lifetime. DOE based the retirement function on a uniform probability

distribution for the product lifetime that was developed in the LCC analysis . The

shipments model assumes that no units are retired below a minimum product lifetime and

that all units are retired before exceeding a maximum product lifetime.

DOE applied a price elasticity parameter to estimate the effect of standards on

dishwasher shipments. DOE estimated the price elasticity parameter from a regression

analysis that used purchase price and efficiency data specific to residential clothes

washers, refrigerators and dishwashers during 1980 –2002. The estimated “relative price

elasticity” incorporates the impacts from purchase price, operating cost , and household Comment [A28]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.

income , and it also

. Based on evidence that the price elasticity of demand is significantly

different over the short run and long run for other consumer goods (i.e., automobiles), 29

DOE assumed that the relative price elasticity declines over time. DOE estimated Comment [A29]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.
shipments in each standards case using the relative price elasticity along with the change

in the relative price between a standards case and the base case.

For details on the shipments analysis, see chapter 9 of the direct final rule TSD.

2. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case and Standards Cases

A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency forecasted for the

base case (without new or amended standards) and each of the standards cases. Section

IV.F.11 describes how DOE developed a base-case energy efficiency distribution (which

29 S. Hymans. Consumer Durable Spending: Explanation and Prediction, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1971. Vol. 1971, No. 1, pp. 234-239.

80yields a shipment-weighted average efficiency) for each of the considered product classes

for the first year of the forecast period. To project the trend in efficiency for standardsized dishwashers over the entire forecast period, DOE utilized the historical trend in

shipment-weighted average efficiency from 2002 to 2010 as provided by AHAM and

considered the potential effect of programs such as ENERGY STAR. The historical trend

demonstrates that the shipment-weighted average annual energy use decreased by almost

90 kWh from 2002 to 2010, reaching 309 kWh. DOE fit an exponential function to the

2002 to 2010 data that indicated that the base-case shipment-weighted average annual

energy use will asymptotically approach a value of 290 kWh by 2025 and remain at that

level. For standard-sized dishwashers, DOE also considered an alternative base-case

efficiency trend that was estimated using a different set of historical data. This trend is

described in appendix 10-D of the direct final rule TSD.

The historical record suggests that the likely market response to new or amended

standards is that lower efficiency baseline models will roll up to the standard efficiency

level, and some products will exceed the minimum requirements. To estimate efficiency

trends in the standards cases, DOE has used “roll

- up” and/or “shift” scenarios in its

stan dards rulemakings. Under the “roll

- up” scenario, DOE assumes: (1) product

efficiencies in the base case that do not meet the standard level under consideration

would “roll

- up” to meet the new standard level; and (2) product efficiencies above the

standard level under consideration would not be affected. Under the “shift” scenario,

DOE re-orients the distribution above the new minimum energy conservation standard. Comment [A30]: Change recom mended by

OIRA.

81DOE determined that a roll-up scenario is most appropriate to establish the

distribution of efficiencies for the year that compliance with revised dishwasher standards

would be required and

. For subsequent years

. Similar, DOE assumed that efficiency

would continue to improve in each standards case at the same rate as estimated for the

base case, the shipment-weighted average annual energy use remains at the 2025 until the

max-tech efficiency level for the remainder of the forecast period.

is reached. The details of DOE’s approach to forecast efficiency trends are described in

chapter 10 of the direct final rule TSD.

3. Total Installed Cost per Unit

As discussed in section IV.F.1, DOE developed a dishwasher price trend based on

an experience rate for miscellaneous household appliances. It used this trend to forecast

the prices of dishwashers sold in each year in the forecast period. DOE applied the same

values to forecast prices for each product class at each considered efficiency level.

To evaluate the effect of uncertainty regarding the price trend estimates, DOE

investigated the impact of different product price forecasts on the consumer net present

value for the considered TSLs for residential dishwashers. In addition to the default price

trend, DOE considered two product price sensitivity cases: (1) a high price decline case

based on an exponential fit using PPI data for 1991 to 2010; (2) a low price decline case

based on an experience rate derived using PPI and shipments data for 1991 to 2000. The

derivation of these price trends and the results of these sensitivity cases are described in Comment [A31]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.

82appendix 10- D of the direct final rule TSD B of the direct final rule TSD. In the high price

decline case, the NPV is significantly higher than in the default case. In the low price

decline case, the NPV is slightly lower than in the default case. The rank order of the

TSLs is the same in all of the cases

. Comment [A32]: Change recommended by

OIRA.

4. National Energy and Water Savings

For each year in the forecast period, DOE calculates the national energy and water

savings for each standard level by multiplying the stock of products affected by the

energy conservation standards by the per-unit annual energy savings. Cumulative energy

and water savings are the sum of the NES for each year.

To estimate the national energy savings expected from appliance standards, DOE

uses a multiplicative factor to convert site energy consumption (at the home) into primary

or source energy consumption (the energy required to convert and deliver the site

energy). These conversion factors account for the energy used at power plants to generate

electricity and losses in transmission and distribution. The conversion factors vary over

time because of projected changes in generation sources ( i.e. , the power plant types

projected to provide electricity to the country). The factors that DOE developed are

marginal values, which represent the response of the system to an incremental decrease in

consumption associated with appliance standards. For today’s rule, DOE used annual

s ite

- to -source conversion factors based on the version of NEMS that corresponds to

AEO2011 , which provides energy forecasts through 2035. For 2036

– 2047, DOE used

conversion factors that remain constant at the 2035 values.

83Section 1802 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) directed DOE to

contract a study with the National Academy of Science (NAS) to examine whether the

goals of energy efficiency standards are best served by measuring energy consumed, and

efficiency improvements, at the actual point of use or through the use of the full-fuelcycle, beginning at the source of energy production. (Pub. L. No. 109-58 (August 8,

2005)). NAS appointed a committee on “Point

- of -Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement

Approaches to Energy Efficiency Standards” to conduct the study, which was completed

in May 2009. The NAS committee defined full-fuel-cycle energy consumption as

including, in addition to site energy use: energy consumed in the extraction, processing,

and transport of primary fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas; energy losses in thermal

combustion in power generation plants; and energy losses in transmission and

distribution to homes and commercial buildings.

In evaluating the merits of using point- of -use and full-fuel-cycle (FFC) measures,

the N AS committee noted that DOE uses what the committee referred to as “extended

site” energy consumption to assess the impact of energy use on the economy, energy

security, and environmental quality. The extended site measure of energy consumption

includes the energy consumed during the generation, transmission, and distribution of

electricity but, unlike the full-fuel-cycle measure, does not include the energy consumed

in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels. A majority of the NAS

committee concluded that extended site energy consumption understates the total energy

consumed to make an appliance operational at the site. As a result, the NAS committee

84recommended that DOE consider shifting its analytical approach over time to use a fullfuel-cycle measure of energy consumption when assessing national and environmental

impacts, especially with respect to the calculation of greenhouse gas (GHG ) emissions.

The NAS committee also recommended that DOE provide more comprehensive

information to the public through labels and other means, such as an enhanced website.

For those appliances that use multiple fuels ( e.g. , water heaters), the NAS committee

indicated that measuring full-fuel-cycle energy consumption would provide a more

complete picture of energy consumed and permit comparisons across many different

appliances, as well as an improved assessment of impacts.

In response to the NAS committee recommendations, DOE issued a notice of

proposed policy for incorporating a full-fuel cycle analysis into the methods it uses to

estimate the likely impacts of energy conservation standards on energy use and

emissions. 75 FR 51423 (Aug. 20, 2010). After consideration of the comments received

on In its proposed final Statement of Policy, DOE has decided to use FFC measures of

energy use and GHG and other emissions in the national impact analyses and

environmental assessments included in future energy conservation standards

rulemakings. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011). DOE will continue to rely upon NEMSbased estimates of primary stated that it intends to calculate FFC energy and emission

impacts , but intends to use by applying conversion factors generated by the DOE

Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and

Energy Use in Transportation ( GREET ) model to convert the NEMS-based results

currently used by DOE. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011). Additionally, DOE will review

85alternative approaches to estimating these estimates into estimates of factors and may

decide to use a model other than GREET to estimate the FFC energy and emission

impacts in any particular future appliance efficiency standards rulemaking

.

5. Net Present Value of Consumer Benefit

The inputs for determining the net present value (NPV) of the total costs and

benefits experienced by consumers of considered appliances are: (1) total annual installed

cost, (2) total annual savings in operating costs, and (3) a discount factor. DOE calculates

net savings each year as the difference between the base case and each standards case in

total savings in operating costs and total increases in installed costs. DOE calculates

operating cost savings over the life of each product shipped during the forecast period.

In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future years by a

discount factor to determine their present value. For today’s direct final rule, DOE

estimated the NPV of appliance consumer benefits using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent

real discount rate. DOE uses these discount rates in accordance with guidance provided

by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to Federal agencies on the development

of regulatory analysis. 30 The discount rates for the determination of NPV are in contrast

to the discount rates used in the LCC analysis, which are designed to reflect a consumer’s

perspective. The 7-percent real value is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of

return to private capital in the U.S. economy. The 3-percent real value represents the

30 OMB Circular A- 4 (Sept. 17, 2003), section E, “Identifying and Measuring Benefits and Costs. Available

at: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03-21.html

. Comment [A33]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.

86“social rate of time preference,” which is the rate at which society d iscounts future

consumption flows to their present value.

H. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended standards on consumers,

DOE evaluates the impact on identifiable subgroups of consumers ( e.g. , low-income

households) that may be disproportionately affected by a national standard. DOE

evaluates impacts on particular subgroups of consumers primarily by analyzing the LCC

impacts and PBP for those particular consumers from alternative standard levels. Chapter

11 in the direct final rule TSD describes the consumer subgroup analysis. For this rule,

DOE analyzed the impacts of the considered standard levels on low-income households

and senior-only households.

I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

The following sections address the various steps taken to analyze the impacts of

the amended standards on manufacturers. These steps include conducting a series of

analyses, interviewing manufacturers, and evaluating the information received from

interested parties during this rulemaking.

1. Overview

In determining whether an amended energy conservation standard for residential

dishwashers subject to this rulemaking is economically justified, DOE is required to

consider “the economic impact of the standard on the manufact urers and on the

87consumers of the products subject to such standard.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)) The

statute also calls for an assessment of the impact of any lessening of competition as

determined by the Attorney General that is likely to result from the adoption of a

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) DOE conducted the MIA to estimate the

financial impact of amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers, and to

assess the impacts of such standards on employment and manufacturing capacity.

The MIA is both a quantitative and qualitative analysis. The quantitative part of

the MIA relies on the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), an industry cashflow model customized for the residential dishwashers covered in this rulemaking. See

section IV.I.2 below, for details on the GRIM analysis. The qualitative part of the MIA

addresses factors such as product characteristics, characteristics of particular firms, and

market trends. The complete MIA is discussed in chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.

DOE conducted the MIA in the three phases described below.

a. Phase 1, Industry Profile

In Phase 1 of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of the residential dishwasher

industry based on the market and technology assessment prepared for this rulemaking.

Before initiating the detailed impact studies, DOE collected information on the present

and past market structure and characteristics of the industry, tracking trends in market

share data, product attributes, product shipments, manufacturer markups, and the cost

structure for various manufacturers.

88The profile also included an analysis of manufacturers in the industry using

31 32 Security and Exchange Commission 10

– K filings, Standard & Poor’s stock reports,

and corporate annual reports released by both public and privately held companies. DOE

used this and other publicly available information to derive preliminary financial inputs

for the GRIM including industry revenues, cost of goods sold, and depreciation, as well

as selling, general, and administrative (SG&A), and research and development (R&D)

expenses.

b. Phase 2, Industry Cash Flow Analysis

Phase 2 focused on the financial impacts of potential amended energy

conservation standards on the industry as a whole. Amended energy conservation

standards can affect manufacturer cash flows in three distinct ways: (1) by creating a

need for increased investment, (2) by raising production costs per unit, and (3) by altering

revenue due to higher per-unit prices and/or possible changes in sales volumes. DOE

used the GRIM to model these effects in a cash-flow analysis of the residential

dishwasher industry. In performing this analysis, DOE used the financial values derived

during Phase 1 and the shipment assumptions from the NIA.

c. Phase 3, Sub-Group Impact Analysis

Using average cost assumptions to develop an industry- cash -flow estimate may

not adequately assess differential impacts of amended energy conservation standards

among manufacturer subgroups. For example, small businesses, manufacturers of niche

31 Available online at www.sec.gov

. 32 Available online at www2.standardandpoors.com

.

89products, or companies exhibiting a cost structure that differs significantly from the

in dustry average could be more negatively affected. During the manufacturer interviews,

DOE discussed financial topics specific to each manufacturer and obtained each

manufacturer’s view of the industry as a whole. DOE reports the MIA impacts of

amended energy conservation standards by grouping together the impacts on

manufacturers of certain product classes. While DOE did not identify any other subgroup

of manufacturers of residential dishwashers that would warrant a separate analysis, DOE

specifically investigated impacts on small business manufacturers. See section VI.B for

more information.

The MIA also addresses the direct employment impacts in ma nufacturing of

dishwashers. DOE uses census data and information gained through manufacturer

interviews in conjunction with the GRIM to estimate the domestic labor expenditures and

number of domestic production workers in the base case and at each TSL from 2012 to

2047.

2. GRIM Analysis

DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flow that result in a higher or

lower industry value. The GRIM analysis is a standard, annual cash-flow analysis that

incorporates manufacturer costs, markups, shipments, and industry financial information

as inputs, and models changes in costs, distribution of shipments, investments, and

manufacturer margins that could result from amended energy conservation standards. The

GRIM spreadsheet uses the inputs to arrive at a series of annual cash flows, beginning

90with the base year of the analysis, 2012 (which accounts for the investments needed to

bring products into compliance), and continuing to 2047. DOE uses the industry average

weighted average cost of capital (WACC) of 8.5 percent, as this represents the minimum

rate of return necessary to cover the debt and equity obligations manufacturers use to

finance operations.

DOE used the GRIM to compare INPV in the base case with INPV at various

TSLs (the standards cases). The difference in INPV between the base and standards cases

represents the financial impact of the amended standard on manufacturers. DOE collected

this information from a number of sources, including publicly available data and

interviews with a number of manufacturers. Additional details about the GRIM can be

found in chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.

a. GRIM Key Inputs

Manufacturer Production Costs

Changes in the manufacturer production costs (MPCs) of residential dishwashers

can affect revenues, gross margins, and cash flow of the industry, making these product

cost data key GRIM inputs for DOE’s analysis. DOE created separate cost curves for

standard and compact product classes using data from tear-downs to develop both the

baseline MPCs and the incremental costs that correspond to the proposed design options.

The cost model also disaggregated the MPCs into material, labor, overhead, and

depreciation. Later, in Phase 3 of the MIA, manufacturers validated these estimates and

assumptions during interviews. DOE used the resulting MPCs and cost breakdowns as

91described in section IV.C above, and further detailed in chapter 5 of the direct final rule

TSD, for each efficiency level analyzed in the GRIM analysis.

Base-Case Shipments Forecast

The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total unit shipment

forecasts and the distribution of these values by efficiency level and product class

.

Changes in the efficiency mix at each standard level affect manufacturer finances. For

this analysis, the GRIM uses the NIA shipments forecasts from 2012 to 2047, the end of

the analysis period.

To calculate shipments, DOE developed a single shipment model for all

dishwashers based on an analysis of key market drivers for residential dishwashers. For

greater detail on the shipments analysis, see section IV.G.1 above or chapter 9 of the

direct final rule TSD.

Product and Capital Conversion Costs

Amended energy conservation standards will cause manufacturers to incur

conversion costs to bring their production facilities and product designs into compliance.

For the MIA, DOE classified these costs into two major groups: (1) product conversion

costs and (2) capital conversion costs. Product conversion costs are investments in

research, development, testing, marketing, and other non-capitalized costs focused on

making product designs comply with the amended energy conservation standard. Capital

conversion costs are investments in property, plant, and equipment to adapt or change

92existing production facilities so that new product designs can be fabricated and

assembled.

DOE based its estimates of both the product and capital conversion costs that

would be required to meet each TSL on information obtained from manufacturer

interviews, the design pathways considered in the engineering analysis, and market

information about the number of platform and product families for each manufacturer.

DOE’s estimates of the product and capital conversion costs for the dishwashers

addressed in this rulemaking can be found in section V.B.2 of today’s final rule and in

chapter 12 of the final rule TSD.

b. GRIM Scenarios

Standards-Case Shipment Forecasts

The MIA results presented in section V.B.2 all use shipments from the reference

NIA scenario in the GRIM. To determine efficiency distributions in the standards case for

the reference NIA scenario, DOE analyzed the roll-up scenario. In this scenario, DOE

assumed that base case shipments of products that did not meet the new standard would

roll up to meet the standard in the compliance year. See section IV.G.2 for a description

of the standards case efficiency distribution. DOE also used a relative price elasticity that

considers the possibility of higher first costs lowering total shipments in the standards

case.

93The reference NIA scenario used historical data to derive a price scaling index to

forecast product costs. The MPCs and MSPs in the GRIM use the default price forecast

for all scenarios. See section IV.G.4 for a discussion of DOE’s price forecasting

methodology.

Markup Scenarios

MSP is equal to MPC times a manufacturer markup. The MSP includes direct

manufacturing production costs ( i.e.

, labor, material, and overhead estimated in DOE’s

MPCs) and all non-production costs ( i.e

. , SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with profit.

To calculate the baseline manufacturer markup, DOE evaluated publicly available

financial information for manufacturers of major household appliances whose product

offerings include residential dishwashers. During manufacturer interviews, DOE received

feedback supporting the calculated 1.24 baseline manufacturer markup. DOE used the

baseline manufacturer markup for all products when modeling the base case in the

GRIM.

For the standards-case in the GRIM, DOE modeled two markup scenarios to

represent the uncertainty regarding the potential impacts on prices and profitability for

manufacturers following the implementation of amended energy conservation standards

.

For both GRIM markup scenarios, DOE plac ed no premium on higher efficiency

products. This assumption is informed by a market structure in which over 96 percent of

products currently adhere to ENERGY STAR standards, leaving little to no room for

94differentiation by efficiency level alone, and was further supported by manufacturer

interviews. The two standards case markup scenarios are (1) a flat markup scenario, and

(2) a preservation of operating profit markup scenario. Modifying these markups from the

base case to the standards cases yields different sets of impacts on manufacturers’

changing industry revenue and cash flow.

The flat markup scenario assumes that the baseline markup of 1.24 is maintained

for all products in the standards case. This scenario represents the upper bound of

industry profitability as manufacturers are able to fully pass through additional costs due

to standards to their customers under this scenario.

The preservation of operating profit markup scenario is similar to the flat markup

scenario with the exception that in the standards case, minimally compliant products lose

a fraction of the baseline markup. This scenario is the lower bound profitability scenario

and represents a more substantial impact to the dishwasher industry as manufacturers

attempt to maintain the lowest possible prices for entry level products while securing the

same level of operating profit they saw prior to amended standards.

3. Manufacturer Interviews

DOE interviewed manufacturers representing more than 80 percent of residential

dishwasher sales. These interviews were in addition to those DOE conducted as part of

the engineering analysis. DOE used these interviews to tailor the GRIM to incorporate

unique financial characteristics of the industry. All interviews provided information that

95DOE used to evaluate the impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on

manufacturer cash flows, manufacturing capacities, and employment levels. See appendix

12-A of the direct final rule TSD for additional information on the MIA interviews. The

following sections describe the most significant issues identified by manufacturers.

a. Dishwasher Performance

All manufacturers interviewed expressed concerns about the potential impacts of

amended standards on product performance, citing several adverse and possibly severe

consequences of standards above those a greed upon in the Joint Petition. For higher

efficiency standards, the performance metrics manufacturers expect to be most severely

impacted include wash performance, drying performance, cycle time, and the noise levels

reached in operation. In considering these metrics, manufacturers anticipate negative

reactions ranging from small but meaningful changes in consumer behavior to higher

rates of service calls and returns. For efficiency standards well above those proposed in

the Joint Petition, manufacturers foresee blanket rejection of poorly performing products

in the market. In considering impacts to wash performance, manufacturers cited an

increase in unnecessary rinsing or washing of dishes prior to loading the dishwasher,

switching to a more aggressive cycle, and running multiple cycles when dishes are not

adequately cleaned in a single cycle as the most likely changes in consumer behavior.

Manufacturers went on to suggest that any of these changes would result in an increase in

both energy and water consumption over that used by a dishwasher of satisfactory

performance. To mitigate the impact of future standards on product performance, several

manufacturers recommend ed the adoption of a performance metric into the test procedure

96and standard.

While all manufacturers suggested that the efficiency level specified in the Joint

Petition would not likely have a substantial negative impact on wash performance, some

manufacturers noted that standards above this level would result in a decrease in

performance unless substantially higher-cost technology changes were implemented. The

comments did not indicate the specific technology changes that would be required. Even

without such technology changes, however, several manufacturers already sell products

at efficiency levels above those specified by the Joint Petition, including the max-tech

efficiency level. Accordingly, DOE evaluated these efficiency levels as part of this

rulemaking

.

b. Test Procedures

Manufacturers raised concerns over the current DOE dishwasher test procedure

and the multitude of additional dishwasher test procedures in the field today. Several

manufacturers suggested that the current DOE test procedure does not accurately capture

the energy used by dishwashers in the field. These manufacturers cite the single cycle

specification and lack of performance metrics in the test procedure as providing an easy

avenue for circumvention of the standards. In the scenario described, manufacturers may

optimize a particular cycle to perform well on the DOE test procedure with the implicit

understanding that this cycle will not meet customer expectations and thus will not be

used in the field as customers opt for a different, more energy-intensive cycle.

97In contrast, other manufacturers raised concerns over expanding the test

procedure to cover multiple cycles citing the additional testing burden this would

generate. Similarly, some manufacturers raised concerns over how DOE would

implement a performance test, noting that there already exist numerous performance tests

in the industry including those developed by AHAM, IEC, and Consumer Reports and

that each performance test procedure favors a different machine cycle algorithm.

As discussed in section s II.A and II.B.4 II.B.3

, the DOE test procedure for

residential dishwashers is found at Title 10 of the CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix C

.

DOE is considering amendments to the test procedure to incorporate measures of standby

mode and off mode energy consumption in accordance with statutory requirements

. DOE

will consider concerns regarding active mode testing provisions, including those

discussed above, in the test procedure rulemaking.

c. Increased Competition

Manufacturers of both baseline and high efficiency products anticipate an increase

in competition in industry stemming from amended standards. Manufacturers whose

market share is largely attributed to products currently below amended standards expect

to see either the removal of features from higher efficiency units as a means to cut costs

to maintain a low-cost minimally-compliant product, or the disappearance of entry level

models as they are forced to add other features and cost in line with current higher

efficiency products. If the latter approach prevails, manufacturers of higher efficiency

products expect to see increased competition as manufacturers which previously focused

98on low efficiency products move into their target segment of the market. As noted in

section III.D.1.d, the Attorney General provides DOE with a determination and analysis

of the impact of any lessening of competition that is likely to result from the imposition

of the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii))

d. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

Several manufacturers noted that dishwashers are but one of a suite of appliances

they produce and that the cumulative burden of research and development to meet

standards, capital expenditure and retraining of staff to produce products at the new

standards, and product testing to certify compliance of new products represent a

significant burden when taken in combination across their various product lines.

Manufacturers suggest that the ability to establish standards in a coordinated fashion by

such vehicles as a joint petition and receiving adequate notice of DOE’s plans for

amended standards are both necessary elements in mitigating the cumulative burden and

aligning changes in efficiency regulations with the product development cycle.

Cumulative regulatory burden is discussed further in section V.B.2.e of today’s direct

final rule and chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD.

J. Employment Impact Analysis

DOE considers employment impacts in the domestic economy as one factor in

selecting a proposed standard. Employment impacts consist ofinclude direct and indirect

impacts. Direct employment impacts are any changes in the number of employees of

manufacturers of the appliance products that are the subject of this rulemaking to

99standards , their suppliers, and related service firms. Indirect employment impacts are

changes in national employment that occur due to the shift in expenditures and capital

investment caused by the purchase and operation of more efficient appliances. The MIA

addresses the direct employment impacts in manufacturing of dishwashers. The

employment impact analysis addresses the indirect employment impacts.

those impacts. Indirect employment impacts from standards consist of the net jobs

created or eliminated in the national economy, other than in the manufacturing sector

being regulated, caused by: (1) reduced spending by end users on energy; (2) reduced

spending on new energy supply by the utility industry; (3) increased spending on new

products to which the new standards apply; and (4) the effects of those three factors

throughout the economy. DOE expects the net monetary savings from standards to be Comment [A34]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.
redirected to other forms of economic activity. DOE also expects those shifts in spending

and economic activity to affect the demand for labor in the short term, as explained

below. Comment [A35]: Change recommended by

OIRA.

One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for labor of such shifts in

economic activity is to compare sector employment statistics developed by the Labor

Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 33 The BLS regularly publishes its

estimates of the number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in different

sectors of the economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere in the economy by this

33 Data on industry employment, hours, labor compensation, value of production, and the implicit price deflator for output for these industries are available upon request by calling the Division of Industry Productivity Studies (202- 691 -5618) or by sending a request by e-mail to dipsweb@bls.gov. Available at: www.bls.gov/news.release/prin1.nr0.htm

.

100same economic activity. Data from BLS indicate that expenditures in the utility sector

generally create fewer jobs (both directly and indirectly) than expenditures in other

sec tors of the economy. 34 There are many reasons for these differences, including wage

differences and the fact that the utility sector is more capital-intensive and less laborintensive than other sectors. 35

Energy conservation standards have the effect of reducing consumer utility bills.

Because reduced consumer expenditures for energy likely lead to increased expenditures

in other sectors of the economy, the general effect of efficiency standards is to shift

economic activity from a less labor-intensive sector ( i.e. , the utility sector) to more laborintensive sectors ( e.g. , the retail and service sectors). Thus, based on the BLS data alone,

DOE believes net national employment will increase due to shifts in economic activity

resulting from amended standards for dishwasher s.

For the standard levels considered in today’s direct final rule, DOE estimated

indirect national employment impacts using an input/output model of the U.S. economy Comment [A36]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.

called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies (ImSET). ImSET is a spr eadsheet model of

the U.S. economy that focuses on 187 sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial,

and residential building energy use. version 3.1.1 (ImSET). 36 ImSET is a special-purpose

version of the “U.S. Benchmark National Input

- Output” (I– O) model, which was

34 See Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional InputOutput Modeling System (RIMS II). Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992.

35 See Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional InputOutput Modeling System (RIMS II) . Washington, DC. U. S. Department of Commerce, 1992.

36 J. M. Roop, M. J. Scott, and R. W. Schultz, ImSET 3.1: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies, PNNL18412, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 2009. Available at: www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-18412.pdf

101designed to estimate the national employment and income effects of energy-saving

technologies. The ImSET software includes a computer-based I

– O model having

structural coefficients that characterize economic flows among the 187 sectors

. ImSET’s

national economic I

– O structure is based on a 2002 U.S. benchmark table, specially

aggregated most relevant to the 187 sectors. industrial, commercial, and residential

building energy use

.

DOE estimated changes in expenditures using the NIA spreadsheet. Using notes

that ImSET , DOE estimated the net national, indirect is not a general equilibrium

forecasting model, and understands the uncertainties involved in projecting employment

impacts , especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Because ImSET does not

incorporate price changes, the employment effects predicted by ImSET may overestimate actual job impacts over the long run for this rule. Because ImSET predicts small

job impacts resulting from this rule, regardless of these uncertainties, the actual job

impacts are likely to be negligible in the overall economy. DOE may consider the use of

other modeling approaches for examining long run employment impacts. DOE also notes

that the employment impacts estimated with ImSET for the entire economy differ from

the employment impacts in the dishwasher manufacturing sector of potential amended

efficiency standards for dishwashers estimated using the GRIM in the MIA. The

methodologies used and the sectors analyzed in the ImSET and GRIM models are

different . For more details on the employment impact analysis, see chapter 13 of the

direct final rule TSD. Comment [A37]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.

102K. Utility Impact Analysis

The utility impact analysis estimates several important effects on the utility

industry of the adoption of new or amended standards. For this analysis, DOE used the

NEMS-BT model to generate forecasts of electricity consumption, electricity generation

by plant type, and electric generating capacity by plant type, that would result from each

TSL. DOE obtained the energy savings inputs associated with efficiency improvements

to considered products from the NIA. DOE conducts the utility impact analysis as a

scenario that departs from the latest AEO Reference case. In the analysis for today’s rule,

the estimated impacts of standards are the differences between values forecasted by

NEMS-BT and the values in the AEO2011 Reference case. For more details on the utility

impact analysis, see chapter 14 of the direct final rule TSD.

L. Environmental Assessment

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and the requirements of 42

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI), DOE has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) of the

impacts of the standards for residential dish washers in today’s direct final rule, which it

has included as chapter 15 of the direct final rule TSD. At the conclusion of the 110-day

comment period, DOE will determine whether issuance of a Finding of no Significant

Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. If DOE issues a FONSI, it will be published separately in

the Federal Register

.

103L. Emissions Analysis

In the EA emissions analysis , DOE estimated the reduction in power sector

emissions of CO 2 , NO X , and Hg using from amended energy conservation standards for

distribution transformers. DOE used the NEMS

– BT computer model . In the EA, NEMS

–

BT , which is run similarly to the AEO NEMS, except that dishwasher distribution

transformer energy use is reduced by the amount of energy saved (by fuel type) due to

each TSL. The inputs of national energy savings come from the NIA spreadsheet model,

while the output is the forecasted physical emissions. The net benefit of today’s direct

final rule each TSL is the difference between the forecasted emissions estimated by

NEMS

– BT at each TSL and the AEO Reference Case. NEMS

– BT tracks CO 2 emissions

using a detailed module that provides results with broad coverage of all sectors and

inclusion of interactive effects. For today’s rule, DOE used the AEO2011 and the most

current version of NEMS- BT based on AEO2011, which incorporated projected effects

of all emissions regulations promulgated as of January 31, 2011

.

SO 2 emissions from affected electric generating units (EGUs) are subject to

nationwide and regional emissions cap and trading programs, and DOE has preliminarily

determined that these programs create uncertainty about the standards’ impact on SO 2

emissions. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions cap on SO 2 for affected

EGUs in the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia (D.C.). SO 2 emissions

from 28 eastern States and D.C. are also limited under the Clean Air Interstate Rule

(CAIR, 70 Fed. Reg. 25162 (May 12, 2005)), which created an allowance-based trading

program that would gradually replaced the Title IV program in those States and D.C

.

104Although CAIR has been remanded to EPA by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District

of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit), see North Carolina v. EPA , 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir.

2008), it remain ed in effect temporarily, consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s earl ier opinion

in North Carolina v. EPA , 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 2 July 6 , 2010, EPA

published issued the Transport Rule proposal ( , a replacement for CAIR. 75 FR 45210

(Aug. 2, 2010 ), and ). On July 6, 2011, EPA issued the final Transport Rule, entitled titled

the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (

. 76 FR 48208 ) (Aug. (August 8, 2011). Because (See

http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule /). On December 30, 2011, however, the D.C. Circuit

stayed the new rules while a panel of judges reviews them, and told EPA to continue

enforcing CAIR (see EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, No. 11-1302, Order at *2

(D.C. Cir. Dec. 30, 2011)). The AEO 20102011 NEMS

- BT used for today’s direct final

rule assumes the implementation of CAIR , DOE has not been able to take into account

the effects of the Transport Rule for this rulemaking. 37

.

The attainment of emissions caps typically is flexible among EGUs and is

enforced through the use of emissions allowances and tradable permits. Under existing

EPA regulations, any excess SO 2 emissions allowances resulting from the lower

electricity demand caused by the imposition of an efficiency standard could be used to

permit offsetting increases in SO 2 emissions by any regulated EGU. However, if the

standard resulted in a permanent increase in the quantity of unused emissions allowances,

there would be an overall reduction in SO 2 emissions from the standards. While there

remains some uncertainty about the ultimate effects of efficiency standards on SO 2

37 DOE notes that future iterations of the NEMS-BT model will incorporate any changes necessitated by issuance of the Transport Rule.

105emissions covered by the existing cap- and -trade system, the NEMS-BT modeling system

that DOE uses to forecast emissions reductions currently indicates that no physical

reductions in power sector emissions would occur for SO 2

. DOE acknowledges, however,

that even though there is a cap on SO 2 emissions and uncertainty whether efficiency

standards would reduce SO 2 emissions, it is possible that standards could reduce the

compliance cost by reducing demand for SO 2 allowances.

As discussed above, the AEO 20102011 NEMS used for today’s direct final rule

assumes the implementation of CAIR, which established a cap on NOx emissions in 28

eastern States and the District of Columbia. With CAIR in effect, energy conservation

standards may are expected to have little or no physical effect on these NOx emissions in

the 28 eastern States and the D.C. covered by CAIR, for the same reasons that they may

have little effect on SO 2 emissions. Today’s However, the standards will, however, would

be expected to reduce NO X emissions in the 22 States not affected by the CAIR. For these

22 states, DOE used NEMS

– BT to forecast NOx emission reductions from the standards

that are considered in today’s direct final rule. Comment [A38]: Change recommended by

OIR A.

Similar to emissions of SO 2 and NO X , future emissions of Hg would have been

subject to emissions caps. In May 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule

(CAMR). 70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005). CAMR would have permanently capped

emissions of mercury for new and existing coal-fired power plants in all States by 2010.

However, on February 8, 2008, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in New Jersey v.

Environmental Protection Ag ency , in which it vacated CAMR. 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir.

1062008). EPA has decided to develop emissions standards for power plants under the Clean

Air Act (Section 112), consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s opinion on CAMR. See .

Pending EPA's forthcoming revisions to the rule, DOE is excluding CAMR from its

environmental analysis. In the absence of CAMR, a DOE standard likely would reduce

Hg emissions, and DOE used NEMS-BT to estimate those emission reductions. However,

DOE continues to review the impact of rules that reduce energy consumption on Hg

emissions, and may revise its assessment of Hg emission reductions in future

rulemakings.

On February 16, 2012, EPA issued national emissions standards for hazardous air

pollutants (NESHAPs) for mercury and certain other pollutants emitted from coal and oilfired EGUs. 77 FR 9304. The NESHAPs do not include emissions caps and, as such,

DOE’s energy conservation standards would likely reduce Hg emissions. For the

emissions analysis for this rulemaking, DOE estimated mercury emissions reductions

using NEMS-BT based on AEO2011, which does not incorporate the NESHAPs. DOE

expects that future versions of the NEMS-BT model will reflect the implementation of

the NESHAPs.

M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

As part of the development of this direct final rule, DOE considered the estimated

monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO 2 and NO X that are

expected to result from each of the considered TSLs. In order to make this calculation

similar to the calculation of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE considered the reduced

emissions expected to result over the lifetime of products shipped in the forecast period Comment [A39]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.

107for each TSL. This section summarizes the basis for the monetary values used for each of

these emissions and presents the benefits estimates considered.

For today’s direct final rule, DOE is relying on a set of values for the social cost

of carbon (SCC) that was developed by an interagency process. A summary of the basis

for these values is provided below, and a more detailed description of the methodologi es

used is provided in appendix 15-A of the direct final rule TSD.

1. Social Cost of Carbon

Under Executive Order 12866, agencies must, to the extent permitted by law,

“assess both the costs and the benefits of the intended regulation and, recognizing that

some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon

a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs.” The

purpose of the SCC estimates presented here is to allow agencies to incorporate the

monetized social benefits of reducing CO 2 emissions into cost-benefit analyses of

regulatory actions that have small, or “marginal,” impacts on cumulative global

emissions. The estimates are presented with an acknowledgement of the many

uncertainties involved and with a clear understanding that they should be updated over

time to reflect increasing knowledge of the science and economics of climate impacts.

As part of the interagency process that developed these SCC estimates, technical

exper ts from numerous agencies met on a regular basis to consider public comments,

explore the technical literature in relevant fields, and discuss key model inputs and

108assumptions. The main objective of this process was to develop a range of SCC values

using a defensible set of input assumptions grounded in the existing scientific and

economic literatures. In this way, key uncertainties and model differences transparently

and consistently inform the range of SCC estimates used in the rulemaking process.

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions

The SCC is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an incremental

increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is intended to include (but is not limited

to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from

increased flood risk, and the value of ecosystem services. Estimates of the SCC are

provided in dollars per metric ton of carbon dioxide.

When attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of carbon dioxide

emissions, the analyst faces a number of serious challenges. A recent report from the

National Research Council 38 points out that any assessment will suffer from uncertainty,

speculation, and lack of information about (1) future emissions of greenhouse gases, (2)

the effects of past and future emissions on the climate system, (3) the impact of changes

in climate on the physical and biological environment, and (4) the translation of these

environmental impacts into economic damages. As a result, any effort to quantify and

monetize the harms associated with climate change will raise serious questions of

science, economics, and ethics and should be viewed as provisional.

38 National Research Council. Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and

Use . National Academies Press: Washington, DC. 2009.

109Despite the serious limits of both quantification and monetization, SCC estimates

can be useful in estimating the social benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Consistent with the directive quoted above, the purpose of the SCC estimates presented

here is to make it possible for agencies to incorporate the social benefits from reducing

carbon dioxide emissions into cost-benefit analyses of regulatory actions that have small,

or “marginal,” impacts on cumulative global emissions. Most Federal regulatory actions

can be expected to have marginal impacts on global emissions.

For such policies, the ag ency can estimate the benefits from reduced (or costs

from increased) emissions in any future year by multiplying the change in emissions in

that year by the SCC value appropriate for that year. The net present value of the benefits

can then be calculated by multiplying each of these future benefits by an appropriate

discount factor and summing across all affected years. This approach assumes that the

marginal damages from increased emissions are constant for small departures from the

baseline emissions path, an approximation that is reasonable for policies that have effects

on emissions that are small relative to cumulative global carbon dioxide emissions. For

policies that have a large (non-marginal) impact on global cumulative emissions, there is

a separate question of whether the SCC is an appropriate tool for calculating the benefits

of reduced emissions. This concern is not applicable to this notice, and DOE does not

attempt to answer that question here.

At the time of the preparation of this notice, the most recent interagency estimates

of the potential global benefits resulting from reduced CO 2 emissions in 2010, expressed

110in 2010$, were $4.9, $22.3, $36.5, and $67.6 per metric ton avoided. For emission

reductions that occur in later years, these values grow in real terms over time.

Additionally, the interagency group determined that a range of values from 7 percent to

23 percent should be used to adjust the global SCC to calculate domestic effects, 39

although preference is given to consideration of the global benefits of reducing CO 2

emissions.

It is important to emphasize that the interagency process is committed to updating

these estimates as the science and economic understanding of climate change and its

impacts on society improves over time. Specifically, the interagency group has set a

preliminary goal of revisiting the SCC values within 2 years or at such time as

substantially updated models become available, and to continue to support research in

this area. In the meantime, the interagency group will continue to explore the issues

raised by this analysis and consider public comments as part of the ongoing interagency

process.

b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in Past Regulatory Analyses

To date, economic analyses for Federal regulations have used a wide range of

values to estimate the benefits associated with reducing carbon dioxide emissions. In the

final model year 2011 CAFE rule, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) used

both a “domestic” SCC value of $2 per ton of CO 2 and a “global” SCC value of $33 per

ton of CO 2 for 2007 emission reductions (in 2007$), increasing both values at 2.4 percent

39 It is recognized that this calculation for domestic values is approximate, provisional, and highly speculative. There is no a priori reason why domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of net global damages over time.

111per year. 40 DOT also included a sensitivity analysis at $80 per ton of CO 2 . See Average

Fuel Economy Standards Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Model Year 2011 , 74 FR

14196 (March 30, 2009) (Final Rule); Final Environmental Impact Statement Corporate

Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2011­

2015 at 3-90 (Oct. 2008) (Available at: www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy ). A domestic SCC

value is meant to reflect the value of damages in the United States resulting from a unit

change in carbon dioxide emissions, while a global SCC value is meant to reflect the

value of damages worldwide.

A 2008 regulation proposed by DOT assumed a domestic SCC value of $7 per ton

of CO 2 (in 2006$) for 2011 emission reductions (with a range of $0

 $14 for sensitivity

analysis), also increasing at 2.4 percent per year. See Average Fuel Economy Standards,

Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2011-2015 , 73 FR 24352 (May 2, 2008)

(Proposed Rule); Draft Environmental Impact Statement Corporate Average Fuel

Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2011-2015 at 3-58

(J une 2008) (Available at: www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy ). A regulation for packaged

terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps finalized by DOE in October

of 2008 used a domestic SCC range of $0 to $20 per ton CO 2 for 2007 emission

reductions (in 2007$). 73 FR 58772, 58814 (Oct. 7, 2008) In addition, EPA’s 2008

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gases identified what it

described as “very preliminary” SCC estimates subject to re vision. See Regulating

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act , 73 FR 44354 (July 30, 2008).

40 Throughout this section, references to tons of CO 2 refer to metric tons.

112EPA’s global mean values were $68 and $40 per ton CO 2 for discount rates of

approximately 2 percent and 3 percent, respectively (in 2006$ for 2007 emissions).

In 2009, an interagency process was initiated to offer a preliminary assessment of

how best to quantify the benefits from reducing carbon dioxide emissions. To ensure

consistency in how benefits are evaluated across agencies, the Administration sought to

develop a transparent and defensible method, specifically designed for the rulemaking

process, to quantify avoided climate change damages from reduced CO 2 emissions. The

interagency group did not undertake any original analysis. Instead, it combined SCC

estimates from the existing literature to use as interim values until a more comprehensive

analysis could be conducted. The outcome of the preliminary assessment by the

interagency group was a set of five interim values: global SCC estimates for 2007 (in

2006 dollars) of $55, $33, $19, $10, and $5 per ton of CO 2 . These interim values

represent the first sustained interagency effort within the U.S. government to develop an

SCC for use in regulatory analysis. The results of this preliminary effort were presented

in several proposed and final rules and were offered for public comment in connection

with proposed rules, including the joint EPA-DOT fuel economy and CO 2 tailpipe

emission proposed rules.

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions

Since the release of the interim values, the interagency group reconvened on a

regular basis to generate improved SCC estimates, which were used in this direct final

rule. Specifically, the group considered public comments and further explored the

113technical literature in relevant fields. The interagency group relied on three integrated

assessment models (IAMs) commonly used to estimate the SCC: the FUND, DICE, and

PAGE models. 41 These models are frequently cited in the peer-reviewed literature and

were used in the last assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Each

model was given equal weight in the SCC values that were developed.

Each model takes a slightly different approach to model how changes in

emissions result in changes in economic damages. A key objective of the interagency

process was to enable a consistent exploration of the three models while respecting the

different approaches to quantifying damages taken by the key modelers in the field. An

extensive review of the literature was conducted to select three sets of input parameters

for these models: climate sensitivity, socio-economic and emissions trajectories, and

discount rates. A probability distribution for climate sensitivity was specified as an input

into all three models. In addition, the interagency group used a range of scenarios for the

socio-economic parameters and a range of values for the discount rate. All other model

features were left unchanged, relying on the model developers’ best estimates and

judgments.

The interagency group selected four SCC values for use in regulatory analyses.

Three values are based on the average SCC from three integrated assessment models, at

discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5 percent. The fourth value, which represents the 95 th

percentile SCC estimate across all three models at a 3-percent discount rate, is included

41 The models are described in appendix 15-A of the direct final rule TSD.

114to represent higher-than-expected impacts from temperature change further out in the

tails of the SCC distribution.

Table IV .13 Social Cost of CO 2 , 2010

– 2050 (in 2007 dollars per metric ton)

Discount Rate

5%
Avg 3% 2.5%
Avg Avg 3%

95th

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050 4.7

5.7

6.8

8.2

9.7

11.2

12.7

14.2

15.7 21.4

23.8

26.3

29.6

32.8

36.0

39.2

42.1

44.9 35.1

38.4

41.7

45.9

50.0

54.2

58.4

61.7

65.0 64.9

72.8

80.7

90.4

100.0

109.7

119.3

127.8

136.2

It is important to recognize that a number of key uncertainties remain, and that

current SCC estimates should be treated as provisional and revisable since they will

evolve with improved scientific and economic understanding. The interagency group also

recognizes that the existing models are imperfect and incomplete. The National Research

Council report mentioned above points out that there is tension between the goal of

producing quantified estimates of the economic damages from an incremental ton of

carbon and the limits of existing efforts to model these effects. There are a number of

concerns and problems that should be addressed by the research community, including

research programs housed in many of the agencies participating in the interagency

process to estimate the SCC.

115DOE recognizes the uncertainties embedded in the estimates of the SCC used for

cost -benefit analyses. As such, DOE and others in the U.S. Government intend to

periodically review and reconsider those estimates to reflect increasing knowledge of the

science and economics of climate impacts, as well as improvements in modeling. In this

context, statements recognizing the limitations of the analysis and calling for further

research take on exceptional significance.

In summary, in considering the potential global benefits resulting from reduced

CO 2 emissions, DOE used the most recent values identified by the interagency process,

adjusted to 2010$ using the GDP price deflator. For each of the four cases specified, the

values used for emissions in 2010 were $4.9, $22.3, $36.5, and $67.6 per metric ton

avoided (values expressed in 2010$). 42 To monetize the CO 2 emissions reductions

expected to result from amended standards for dishwashers, DOE used the values

identified in Table A1 of the “Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis

Under Executi ve Order 12866,” which is reprinted in appendix 16 -A of the direct final

rule TSD, appropriately adjusted to 2010$. To calculate a present value of the stream of

monetary values, DOE discounted the values in each of the four cases using the specific

discount rate that had been used to obtain the SCC values in each case.

2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions

DOE investigated the potential monetary benefit of reduced NO X emissions from

the TSLs it considered. As noted above, amended energy conservation standards would

42 Table A1 presents SCC values through 2050. For DOE’s calculation, it derived values after 2050 using the 3-percent per year escalation rate used by the interagency group.

116reduce NO X emissions in those 22 States that are not affected by the CAIR, in addition to

the reduction in site NO X emissions nationwide. DOE estimated the monetized value of

NO X emissions reductions resulting from each of the TSLs considered for today’s direct

final rule based on environmental damage estimates from the literature. Available

estimates suggest a very wide range of monetary values, ranging from $370 per ton to

$3,800 per ton of NO X from stationary sources, measured in 2001$ (equivalent to a range

of $450 to $4,623 per ton in 2010$). 43 In accordance with OMB guidance, DOE

conducted two calculations of the monetary benefits derived using each of the economic

values used for NO X , one using a real discount rate of 3 percent and another using a real

discount rate of 7 percent. 44

DOE is aware of multiple agency efforts to determine the appropriate range of

values used in evaluating the potential economic benefits of reduced Hg emissions. DOE

has decided to await further guidance regarding consistent valuation and reporting of Hg

emissions before it monetizes Hg in its rulemakings.

V. Analytical Results

The following section addresses the results from DOE’s analyses with respect to

potential energy conservation standards for residential dishwashers. It addresses the TSLs

examined by DOE, the projected impacts of each of these levels if adopted as energy

conservation standards for dishwashers, and the standards levels that DOE sets forth in

43 For additional information, refer to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. 2006 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities . 2006. Washington, DC.

44 OMB, Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 17, 2003).

117today’s direct final rule. Additional details regarding DOE’s analyses are contained in the

publicly available direct final rule TSD supporting this notice.

A. Trial Standard Levels

DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of four TSLs for residential dishwashers

.

These TSLs were developed using combinations of efficiency levels for the standard and

compact product classes analyzed by DOE

. DOE presents the results for those TSLs in

today’s final rule

. DOE presents the results for all efficiency levels that it analyzed in the

direct final rule TSD. Table V.1 Table V.1 presents the TSLs and the corresponding

efficiency levels for dishwashers. TSL 4 represents the maximum technologically

feasible (“max

- tech”) improvements in energy efficiency for residential dishwashers.

TSL 3 consists of the next efficiency level below the max-tech level for standard

dishwashers, and the max-tech level for compacts. The efficiency levels in TSL 2

correspond to the recommended levels in the Joint Petition. TSL 1 consists of the first

efficiency levels considered above the baseline.

Table V.1 Trial Standard Levels for Residential Dishwashers

TSL Standard Compact

CSL Annual Energy

Use ( kWh ) CSL Annual Energy

Use ( kWh )

1 1 324 1 222

2 2 307 1 222

3 4 234 2 154

4 5 180 2 154

118B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

Consumers affected by new or amended standards usually experience higher

purchase prices and lower operating costs. Generally, the impacts on individual

consumers are best captured by changes in LCC and by the PBP. Therefore, DOE

calculated the LCC and PBP analyses for the potential standard levels considered in this

rulemaking. DOE’s LCC and PBP analyses provided key outputs for each TSL, which

are reported by dishwasher product class in Table V.2 and Table V.3. Each table

includes The LCC and its components refer to the average total LCC and values at each

efficiency level. The average LCC savings

, (averaged over all sample consumers), as

well as the fraction of product consumers for which the LCC will decrease (net benefit),

increase (net cost), or exhibit no change (no impact ) ), are relative to the base-case

forecastefficiency distribution

. The last column in the tables is the median PBP for the Comment [A40]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.
consumer purchasing a design that complies with the TSL. DOE presents the median PBP

because it is the most statistically robust measure of the PBP. The results for each

potential standard level are relative to the efficiency distribution in the base case (no

amended standards). DOE based the LCC and PBP analyses on the range of energy

consumption under conditions of actual product use.

119Table V.2 LCC and PBP Results for Standard Dishwashers
Payback

Life

- Cycle Cost ( 2010$ ) LCC Savings Period

TSL Efficiency

Level ( kWh /yr ) ( years )

Installed Discounted Average Percent of households that experience Median Cost Operating

Cost LCC Savings ( 2010$ ) Net

Cost No Impact Net

Benefit

1 324 $656 $445 $1,101 $1 2% 96% 2% 5.9

2 307 $674 $411 $1,086 $3 19% 64% 17% 11.8

3 234 $734 $318 $1,052 $41 30% 20% 50% 6.6

4 180 $745 $232 $977 $108 23% 9% 68% 4.5

Table V.3 LCC and PBP Results for Compact Dishwashers
Payback

Life

- Cycle Cost ( 2010$ ) LCC Savings Period

TSL Efficiency

Level ( kWh /yr ) ( years )

Installed Discounted Average Percent of households that experience Median Cost Operating

Cost LCC Savings 2010$ Net

Cost No Impact Net

Benefit
1, 2 222 $623 $297 $920 $12 7% 76% 18% 0.3
3, 4 154 $638 $206 $844 $52 5% 50% 44% 2.1

For standard-sized dishwashers, DOE also considered an alternative base-case

efficiency distribution that uses a different set of historical data. LCC and PBP results

using this distribution are described in appendix 8-F of the direct final rule TSD. Comment [A41]: Change recommended by

OIRA.

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

As described in section IV.H, DOE determined the impact of the considered TSLs

on low-income households and senior-only households. 45 Table V.4 compares the

average LCC savings at each efficiency level for the two consumer subgroups, along with

the average LCC savings for the entire sample for each product class for dishwashers. For

today’s standards , the average LCC savings for low-income households and senior-only

45 DOE did not analyze subgroup impacts for compact dishwashers because the saturation of these products is extremely small.

120households at the considered efficiency levels are not substantially different from the

average for all households. At higher efficiency levels the average LCC savings for these

subgroups are somewhat lower than the average for all households. Chapter 11 of the Comment [A42]: Change recommended by

OIRA.
direct final rule TSD presents the complete LCC and PBP results for the two subgroups.

Table V.4 Standard Dishwashers: Comparison of Average LCC Savings for Consumer Subgroups and All Households

TSL Low

- income

households Senior

- only

households All

Households 2010$

1 $0 $0 $1

2 $3 $2 $3

3 $26 $24 $41

4 $84 $78 $108

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback

As discussed above, EPCA provides a rebuttable presumption that an

energy conservation standard is economically justified if the increased purchase cost for a

product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first-year energy

savings resulting from the standard. In calculating a rebuttable presumption payback

period for the considered standard levels, DOE used discrete values rather than

distributions for input values, and, as required by EPCA, based the energy use calculation

on the DOE test procedures for residential dishwashers. As a result, DOE calculated a

single rebuttable presumption payback value, and not a distribution of payback periods,

for each efficiency level.

Table V.5 presents the average rebuttable presumption payback periods for the

considered TSLs. While DOE examined the rebuttable-presumption criterion, it

121considered whether the standard levels considered for today’s rule are economically

justified through a more detailed analysis of the economic impacts of those levels

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of that analysis serve as the basis for

DOE to evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby

supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic

justification).

Table V.5 Dishwashers: Rebuttable PBPs

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 Standard ( years ) 5.40 5.51 5.57 4.00 Compact ( years ) 0.23 0.23 1.02 1.02

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of amended energy conservation

standards on manufacturers of residential dishwashers. The section below describes the

expected impacts on manufacturers at each TSL. Chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD

explains the analysis in further detail.

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results

DOE modeled two scenarios using different markup assumptions. Each scenario

results in a unique set of cash flows and corresponding industry value at each TSL. These

assumptions correspond to the bounds of a range of market responses that DOE

anticipates could occur in the standards case. The tables below depict the financial

impacts on manufacturers (represented by changes in INPV) and the conversion costs

DOE estimates manufacturers would incur at each TSL. The first table corresponds to the

122flat markup scenario and reflects the lower (less severe) bound of impacts whereas the

second table corresponds to the preservation of operating profit scenario and reflects the

upper bound of impacts.

The INPV results refer to the difference in industry value between the base case

and the standards case, which DOE calculated by summing the discounted industry cash

flows from the base year (2012) through the end of the analysis period. The discussion

also notes the difference in cash flow between the base case and the standards case in the

year before the compliance date of potential amended energy conservation standards.

This figure provides an estimate of the required conversion costs relative to the cash flow

generated by the industry in the base case.

Table V.6 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Residential Dishwashers

– Flat Markup Scenario

Units Base Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4

INPV ( 2010$

millions ) 637.5 593.2 563.6 508.6 491.9

Change in

INPV ( 2010$

millions ) - (44.3) (73.9) (128.9) (145.6)

(%)

- - 7.0%

- 11.6%

- 20.2%

- 22.8%

Product

Conversion

Costs ( 2010$

millions ) - 27.8 34.9 66.5 76.7

Capital

Conversion

Costs ( 2010$

millions ) - 45.5 59.1 195.4 226.3

Total

Conversion

Costs ( 2010$

millions ) - 73.2 94.0 261.9 303.0

123Table V.7 Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Residential Dishwashers

– Tiered Markup Scenario

Units Base Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4

INPV ( 2010$

millions ) 637.5 592.2 552.9 463.1 434.8

Change in

INPV ( 2010$

millions ) - (45.3) (84.6) (174.4) (202.7)

(%)

- - 7.1%

- 13.3%

- 27.4%

- 31.8%

Product

Conversion

Costs ( 2010$

millions ) - 27.8 34.9 66.5 76.7

Capital

Conversion

Costs ( 2010$

millions ) - 45.5 59.1 195.4 226.3

Total

Conversion

Costs ( 2010$

millions ) - 73.2 94.0 261.9 303.0

Because standard dishwashers represent over 99 percent of shipments in the year

leading up to amended standards

, changes to this product class contribute the majority of

impacts to INPV across all TSLs analyzed in this rulemaking.

At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range from -$44. 3 million to

-$45.3 million, or a change in INPV of -7. 0 percent to -7. 1 percent. At this level, industry

free cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 56.5 percent to $21.9 million,

compared to the base-case value of $50.5 million in the year leading up to the amended

energy conservation standards. As TSL 1 corresponds to current ENERGY STAR

standards, and these products represent over 96 percent of shipments in the year leading

up to amended standards, only a very small fraction of the market is affected at this

efficiency level

. In either markup scenario, the impact to INPV at TSL 1 stems from the

conversion costs required to switch production lines from manufacturing baseline units to

those meeting the standards set at EL 1 for both product classes.

124As a large fraction of the energy used in dishwashing is associated with heating

the wash water, the design options proposed to meet this efficiency level relate primarily

to minimizing the amount of wash water through spray-arm optimization and enabling

greater control over the wash water temperature. Both of these practices are in common

use in higher efficiency platforms across the industry and contribute to an MPC of

$209.25 for standard dishwashers. Because the industry already produces a substantial

number of products at this efficiency level, product and capital conversion costs are

limited to 73.2 million, which accounts for switching production lines from baseline

products to existing higher efficiency platforms.

TSL 2 represents the efficiency level set forth in the Joint Petition

, and establishes

a compliance date of 2013 as compared the 2018 compliance date for the other TSLs. At

TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range from -$73.9 million to -$84.6 million,

or a change in INPV of -11.6 percent to -13.3 percent. At this level, industry free cash

flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 192.2 percent to -$39.2 million, compared

to the base-case value of $42.5 million in the year leading up to the amended energy

conservation standards. As with TSL 1, the impact to INPV at TSL 2 stems from the

conversion costs required to switch production lines from manufacturing baseline units to

those meeting the standards set at EL 2 for both product classes. At TSL 2, these impacts

grow as the number of products requiring changes grows from 3.8 percent of shipments

in the year leading up to amended standards to 36.1 percent.

125As a large fraction of the energy used in dishwashing is associated with heating

wash water, the design options proposed to meet this efficiency level relate primarily to

minimizing the amount of wash water through additional optimization of the water lines

as well as upgrades to higher efficiency pumps and electronic controls. Incorporating

these design options leads to an estimated MPC of $222.80 for standard products. While

a significant fraction of dishwashers currently employ these energy and water saving

measures, the product and capital conversion costs rise to $94.0 million (as compared to

$73.2 million for TSL 1), to account for the additional switching of production lines to

higher efficiency platforms.

At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range from -$128.9 million to

-$174.4 million, or a change in INPV of -20.2 percent to -27.4 percent. At this level,

industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately 212.6 percent to -$56.8

million, compared to the base-case value of $50.5 million in the year leading up to the

amended energy conservation standards. While TSL 3 returns the compliance date to

2018 (5 years after the compliance date for TSL 2) the impact to INPV is more severe

than at TSLs 1 and 2 because as less than 20 percent of shipments in the year leading up

to amended standards meet or exceed this efficiency level. As such, the capital and

product conversion costs required to bring these products into compliance rise

significantly to a total of $261.9 million, $167.9 million more than at TSL 2. These

conversion costs stem from both the research programs needed to develop such optimized

products and the capital investment required to change over the majority of production

lines to produce these high efficiency products. Comment [A43]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.

126The design options proposed to meet efficiency standards at TSL 3 include

exchanging a heated drying system for a condensation drying system, further optimizing

the hydraulic system (extending to a redesign of both the sump and water lines)

, and

in corporating a flow meter, temperature control, and a humidity sensor to finely tune

water consumption, temperature, and the drying cycle

. Beyond component exchanges

alone, the design options proposed at TSL 3 extend to include control strategies that

would reduce the wash and rinse water temperatures. The component changes required to

enable these improvements contribute to an MPC of $266.16 for standard dishwashers

,

$43.37 above that at TSL 2.

At TSL 4, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range from -$145.6 million to

-$202.7 million, or a change in INPV of -22.8 percent to -31.8 percent. At this level,

industry free cash flow is estimated to decrease by approximately -246.0 percent to

-$73.7 million, compared to the base-case value of $50.5 million in the year leading up to

the amended energy conservation standards. TSL 4 represents the max-tech efficiency

level for all dishwashers. The effects on INPV result from similar sources as TSL 3

, but

the fraction of products in the market that currently meet this standard is reduced to less

than 9 percent in the year leading up to amended standards. As such, standards at TSL 4

would affect nearly all platforms and will result in substantial capital conversion costs

associated with improvements to nearly all production facilities. Because so few products

exist at this level today, nearly all manufacturers would face complete redesigns for

products to meet this standard. Accordingly, the product conversion costs increase to

127reflect this substantial research effort

. The total conversion cost required to meet

standards at TSL 5 is approximately $303.0 million

— a $41.1 million increase from TSL

4.

The design options proposed to meet the efficiency levels specified at TSL 4 start

with those at TSL 3, but replace the in-line flow-through water heater with one that is

integrated with the pump and eliminate the fan used to circulate air during drying

. Where

these design options have little impact on the product MPC, contributing to only a $7.77

increase over that at TSL 3, they significantly impact INPV because of the large

conversion costs associated with developing and producing these highly optimized

products.

b. Impacts on Employment

DOE used the GRIM to estimate the domestic labor expenditures and number of

domestic production workers in the base case and at each TSL from 2012 to 2047. DOE

used the labor content of each product and the manufacturing production costs from the

engineering analysis to estimate the total annual labor expenditures associated with

residential dishwashers sold in the United States. Using statistical data from the most

recent U.S

. Census Bureau’s 2009 “Annual Survey of Manufactures ,” the results of the

engineering analysis, ” and interviews with manufacturers to determine the inputs

necessary , DOE estimates that 95 percent of residential dishwashers sold in the United

States are manufactured domestically and hence that portion of total labor expenditures is

attributable to calculate industry-wide labor expenditures and domestic employment

128levels labor

. Labor expenditures for the manufacture of a product are a function of the

labor intensity of the product, the sales volume, and an assumption that wages in real

terms remain constant. Comment [A44]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.

In the GRIM, DOE used the labor content of each product and the manufacturing

production costs from the engineering analysis to estimate the annual labor expenditures

in the residential dishwasher industry. DOE used Census data and interviews with

manufacturers to estimate the portion of the total labor expenditures that is attributable to

domestic labor.

Using the GRIM, DOE forecasts the domestic labor expenditure for residential

dishwasher production labor in 2018 will be approximately $248.7 million. Using the

$27.03 hourly wage rate including fringe benefits and 2,003 production hours per year

per employee found in the 2009 ASM , DOE estimates there will be approximately 4,593

domestic production workers involved in manufacturing residential dishwashers in 2018,

the year in which amended standards would go into effect for TSL 1, TSL 3, and TSL 4.

In addition, DOE estimates that 1,120 non-production employees in the United States will

support residential dishwasher production. 46 The employment spreadsheet of the

residential dishwasher GRIM shows the annual domestic employment impacts in further

detail. Comment [A45]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.

129The production worker estimates in this section cover workers only up to the linesupervisor level who are directly involved in fabricating and assembling dishwashers

within an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) facility. Workers performing

services that are closely associated with production operations, such as material handling

with a forklift, are also included as production labor.

The employment impacts shown in represent the potential production

employment that could result following amended energy conservation standards. The

upper end of the results in this table estimates the total potential increase in the number o f

production workers after amended energy conservation standards. To calculate the total

potential increase, DOE assumed that manufacturers continue to produce the same scope

of covered products in domestic production facilities and domestic production is not

shifted to lower-labor-cost countries. Because there is a real risk of manufacturers

evaluating sourcing decisions in response to amended energy conservation standards, the

lower end of the range of employment results in includes the estimated total number of

U.S. production workers in the industry who could lose their jobs if all existing

production were moved outside of the United States. While the results present a range of

employment impacts following the compliance date of amended energy conservation

standards, the discussion below also includes a qualitative discussion of the likelihood of

negative employment impacts at the various TSLs. FinallyAdditionally

, the employment

impacts shown are independent of the employment impacts from the broader U.S.

economy, which are documented in chapter 13 of the direct final rule TSD. Comment [A46]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.

130Table V.8

Using the GRIM, DOE estimates depicts the potential levels of production

employment that in the absence of could result following amended energy conservation

standards , there would be 4,593 as calculated by the GRIM. The employment levels

shown reflect the scenario in which manufacturers continue to produce the same scope of

covered products in domestic production workers involved in manufacturing residential

dishwashers in 2018, the compliance year for TSL 1, TSL 3, facilities and TSL 4

. DOE

estimates that the number of domestic production workers in 2013, the compliance year

for TSL 2, would not change appreciably from this value. Using 2009 Census Bureau

data and interviews with manufacturers, DOE estimates that approximately 95 percent of

residential dishwashers sold in the United States are manufactured domestically. shows

the range of the impacts of potential is not shifted to lower-labor-cost countries. If all

existing production were moved outside of the United States, the expected impact to

domestic manufacturing employment would be a loss of 4,593 jobs, the equivalent of the

total base case employment. Because there is a risk of manufacturers evaluating sourcing

decisions in response to amended energy conservation standards , the expected impact to

domestic production employment falls between the potential increases as shown in Table

V.8 on U.S. production workers in the , and the levels of job loss associated with all

domestic dishwasher indust ry manufacturing moving outside of the United States. The

discussion below includes a qualitative evaluation of the likelihood of negative domestic

production employment impacts at the various TSLs

.

131 Comment [A47]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.Table V.8 Potential Changes in the Total Number of Domestic Residential

Dishwasher Production Workers in 2018*

Trial Standard Level

Base Case 1 2 3 4

Total Number of

Domestic Production

Workers in 2018 (without changes in production locations) 4,593 4,601 4,679 4,658 4,799

Potential Changes in

Domestic Production

Workers in 2018 * * - 8

­ ( 4, 593 ) 86

­ ( 4, 593 ) 6 5

­ ( 4, 593 ) 2 06

­ ( 4, 593 )

*The compliance date for residential dishwashers at TSL 1, TSL 3, and TSL 4 is 2018. At TSL 2, the compliance date is 2013 as specified by the Joint Petition.

** DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative

numbers.

All examined TSLs show relatively minor impacts on domestic employment

levels relative to total industry employment. At all TSLs, most of the design options

analyzed by DOE do not greatly alter the labor content of the final product. For example,

longer or more complex wash cycles or improved sump designs involve one-time

changes to the final product but do not significantly change the number of steps required

for the final assembly of the dishwasher (which would add labor). Because many

manufacturers have recently introduced high efficiency products in the United States that

meet or excee d the standards in today’s final rule, it is unlikely today’s direct final rule

would greatly impact the sourcing decisions of these manufacturers. However, at higher

TSLs, some of the design options analyzed greatly impact the ability of manufacturers to

make product changes within existing platforms. The very large upfront capital costs at

these levels could influence the decision of some manufacturers to relocate some or all of

thethe ir domestic production of these dishwashers to lower labor cost countries. Comment [A48]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.

Comment [A49]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.

132c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity

Nearly 64 percent of shipments of residential dishwashers already comply with

the amended energy conservation standards as agreed upon in the Joint Petition and

established in this rulemaking. Every manufacturer that ships standard dishwashers offers

products that meet the se amended energy conservation standards

. Because manufacturers

would need to make only minor platform changes and/or increase the production of

existing products by the 2013 compliance date, the experience of multiple manufacturers

that already produce standards-compliant dishwashers would allow the industry to meet

the amended energy conservation standards proposed in the Joint Petition without any

significant impact to manufacturing capacity in the interim.

d. Impacts on Sub-Groups of Manufacturers

Using average cost assumptions to develop an industry cash-flow estimate may

not be adequate for assessing differential impacts among manufacturer subgroups. Small

manufacturers, niche equipment manufacturers, and manufacturers exhibiting a cost

structure substantially different from the industry average could be affected

disproportionately. DOE analyzed the impacts to small business, as discussed in section

VI.B. DOE did not identify any other subgroups for residential dishwashers for this

rulemaking.

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

While any one regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers,

the combined effects of several impending regulations may have serious consequences

133for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry. Assessing the

impact of a single regulation may overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition

to energy conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect

manufacturers’ financial operations. Multip le regulations affecting the same

manufacturer can strain profits and can lead companies to abandon product lines or

markets with lower expected future returns than competing products. For these reasons,

DOE conducts an analysis of cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings

pertaining to appliance efficiency.

Manufacturers provided comment on some of these regulations during interviews

.

DOE summarizes and addresses these comments in section IV.I.3. For the cumulative

regulatory burden, DOE attempts to quantify or describe the impacts of other Federal

regulations that have a compliance date within approximately 3 years of the compliance

date of this rulemaking. Most of the major regulations identified by DOE that meet this

criterion are other energy conservation standards for products and equipment made by

manufacturers of residential dishwashers. See chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD for

the results of DOE’s analysis of the cumulative regulatory burden.

3. National Impact Analysis

a. Significance of Energy Savings

To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential standards for dishwashers,

DOE compared the energy consumption of those products under the base case to their

anticipated energy consumption under each TSL. Table V.9 presents DOE’s projections

134of the national energy savings and national water savings for each TSL considered for

dishwashers. 47 The savings were calculated using the approach described in section IV.G.

Chapter 48 For standard-sized dishwashers, DOE also considered an alternative base-case

efficiency trend that was estimated using a different set of historical data. Results

calculated using this trend are described in appendix 10 -D of the direct final rule TSD

presents tables that also show the magnitude of the energy savings if the savings are

discounted at rates of 7 percent and 3 percent. Discounted energy savings represent a

policy perspective in which energy savings realized farther in the future are less

significant than energy savings realized in the nearer term

.

Table V.9 Dishwashers: Cumulative National Energy and Water Savings (2018

- 2047)* Comment [A50]: Footnote recommended by

OIRA.

Comment [A51]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 Energy ( quads ) 0.02 0.07 0.94 1.59 Water ( trillion gallons ) 0.01 0.14 0.56 1.71

* For TSL 2, the impacts are counted for 2013

– 2047.

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV to the nation of the total costs and savings for

consumers that would result from particular standard levels for dishwashers. In

accordance with the OMB’s guidelines on regulatory analysis (OMB Circular A -4,

47 National energy and water savings are cumulative over a 30-year period. Any savings for products entering the housing stock in this 30-year period which occur beyond the 30-year time limit are not reported in the national totals.

48 Chapter 10 of the direct final rule TSD presents tables that also show the magnitude of the energy savings if the savings are discounted at rates of 7 percent and 3 percent. Discounted energy savings represent a policy perspective in which energy savings realized farther in the future are less significant than energy savings realized in the nearer term.

135section E, September 17, 2003), DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3­

percent real discount rate. The 7-percent rate is an estimate of the average before-tax rate

of return to private capital in the U.S. economy, and reflects the returns to real estate and

small business capital as well as corporate capital. DOE used this discount rate to

approximate the opportunity cost of capital in the private sector, since recent OMB

analysis has found the average rate of return to capital to be near this rate. In addition,

DOE used the 3-percent rate to capture the potential effects of standards on private

consumption ( e.g. , through higher prices for products and the purchase of reduced

amounts of energy). This rate represents the rate at which society discounts future

consumption flows to their present value. This rate can be approximated by the real rate

of return on long-term government debt ( i.e.

, yield on Treasury notes minus annual rate

of change in the Consumer Price Index), which has averaged about 3 percent on a pre-tax

basis for the last 30 years.

Table V.10 show s the consumer NPV results for each TSL DOE considered for

dishwashers, using a 3-percent and a 7-percent discount rate. The impacts are counted

over the lifetime of products purchased in 2018

– 2047 for TSLs 1, 3 and 4

, and in 2013

–

2047 for TSL 2.

Table V.10 Dishwashers: Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Products Shipped in 2018

– 2047*

Discount rate Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 Billion 2010$ 3 percent 0.12 0.46 6.51 17.45 7 percent 0.03 0.08 1.96 5.88

* For TSL 2, the impacts are counted over the lifetime of products shipped in 2013

– 2047.

136The NPV results presented in Table V.10 are based on the default product price

trend. As discussed in section IV.G.3, DOE developed several sensitivity cases with

alternative forecasts of future prices of dishwashers. The impact of these alternative

forecasts on the NPV results is presented in appendix 10-C of the direct final rule TSD.

For standard-sized dishwashers, DOE also considered an alternative base-case

efficiency trend that was estimated using a different set of historical data. NPV results

calculated using this trend are described in appendix 10-D of the direct final rule TSD.

Circular A-4 requires agencies to present analytical results, including separate

schedules of the monetized benefits and costs that show the type and timing of benefits

and costs. Circular A-4 also directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements

underlying the estimates of benefits and costs. DOE believes its standard 30-year

analysis is fully compliant with Circular A-4. For this rulemaking, DOE undertook an

additional sensitivity analysis of its standard 30-year analysis, in compliance with

Circular A-4, using a 9-year analytical period. The choice of a 9-year period is a proxy

for the timeline in EPCA for the review of the energy conservation standard established

in this direct final rule and potential revision of and compliance with a new standard for

dishwashers. 49 Th e timeframe established in EPCA may not be statistically relevant with

49 EPCA requires DOE to review its standards at least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain products including dishwashers, a 3 year period after any new standard is promulgated before compliance is required, except that in no case may any new standards be required within 6 years of the compliance date of the standards established in this direct final rule. While adding a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may undertake reviews at any time within the 6 year period and that the 3-year compliance date may yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year analysis period does not

137regard to the product lifetime, product manufacturing cycles or other factors specific to

dishwashers. DOE notes that the review timeframe established in EPCA generally does

not overlap with the product lifetime, product manufacturing cycles or other factors

specific to dishwashers. Thus, this information is presented for informational purposes

only and is not indicative of any change in DOE’s analytical m ethodology.

The sensitivity analysis results based on a 9-year analytical period are presented

below. Table IV .11 Table IV .11 presents DOE’s forecasts of the nat ional energy savings

and national water savings for each TSL for dishwashers. 50 Table IV .12 shows the

consumer NPV results for each TSL DOE considered for dishwashers, using a 3-percent

and a 7-percent discount rate. For determination of the NPV, the impacts are counted

over the lifetime of products purchased in 2018

– 2026 for TSLs 1, 3 and 4, and in 2013

–

2021 for TSL 2 (note that the NPV estimate incorporates all of the operating cost savings

of dishwashers purchased in the 9 year analytical period)

. Comment [A52]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.

Table V

. 11 Dishwashers: Cumulative National Energy and Water Savings, NineYear Analysis Period (2018-2026)*

Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 Energy ( quads ) 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.22 Water ( trillion gallons ) 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.24

* For TSL 2, the impacts are counted for 2013

– 2021.

reflect the variability that may occur in the timing of standards reviews and the fact that for some consumer products, the compliance period is 5 years rather than 3 years.

50 National energy and water savings are cumulative over the 9-year period. Any savings for products entering the housing stock in this 9-year period which occur beyond the 9-year time limit are not reported in the national totals. In contrast, the social benefit and cost estimates include the benefits and costs that are incurred over the lifetime of the dishwashers irrespective of when they are purchased.

138Table V

. 12 Dishwashers: Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Products Shipped in 2018

– 2026, Nine-Year Analysis Period*

Discount rate Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 Billion 2010$ 3 percent 0.04 0.07 2.15 6.01 7 percent 0.02 0.00 0.93 2.89

* For TSL 2, the impacts are counted over the lifetime of products shipped in 2013

– 2021.

c. Impacts on Employment

DOE develops estimates of the indirect employment impacts of potential

standards on the economy in general. As discussed above, DOE expects energy

conservation standards for dishwashers to reduce energy bills for consumers of those

products, and the resulting net savings to be redirected to other forms of economic

activity. These expected shifts in spending and economic activity could affect the demand

for labor. As described in section IV.J , to estimate these effects, DOE used an

input/output model of the U.S. economy

. The model indicates to estimate indirect

employment impacts of the TSLs that the DOE considered TSLs would have a very small

impact on employment in this rulemaking

. DOE understands that there are uncertainties

involved in projecting employment impacts, especially changes in the U.S. Chapter

13 later years of the direct final rue TSD presents detailed analysis. Therefore, DOE

generated results for near-term timeframes, where these uncertainties are reduced

.

The input/output model suggests results suggest that today’s standards are likely to

slightly increase have negligible impact on the net demand for labor in the economy.

However, the projected gains are very The net change in jobs is so small relative to

total that it would be imperceptible in national labor statistics and might be offset by Comment [A53]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.

139other, unanticipated effects on employment (currently approximately 120 million).

Moreover, neither the BLS data nor the input/output model DOE uses includes the quality

or wage level

. Chapter 13 of the jobs direct final rule TSD presents detailed results

.

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products

As presented in section III.D.1.d of this notice, DOE concluded that the TSL

adopted in this direct final rule would not reduce the utility or performance of the

dishwashers under consideration in this rulemaking. Manufacturers of these products

currently offer units that meet or exceed today’s standards. (42 U.S.C.

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV))

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

DOE has also considered any lessening of competition that is likely to result from

amended standards. The Attorney General determines the impact, if any, of any lessening

of competition likely to result from a proposed standard, and transmits such

determination to DOE, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of such impact.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii))

DOE published a NOPR containing energy conservation standards identical to

those set forth in today’s direct final rule and transmitted a copy of today’s direct final

rule and the accompanying TSD to the Attorney General, requesting that the DOJ provide

its determination on this issue. DOE will consider DOJ’s comments on the rule in Comment [A54]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.

140determining whether to proceed with the direct final rule. DOE will also publish and

respond to DOJ’s comments in the Federal Register in a separate notice

.

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy

An improvement in the energy efficiency of the products subject to today’s rule is

likely to improve the security of the nation’s energy system by reducing overall demand

for energy. Reduced electricity demand may also improve the reliability of the electricity

system

. As a measure of this reduced demand, presents the estimated reduction in

electricity generating capacity in 2047 for the TSLs that DOE considered in this

rulemaking.

Table . Reduction in Electric Generating Capacity in 2047 Under Trial Standard

Levels for Dishwashers

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4
Gigawatts
Generation Capacity Reduction 0.011 0.001 0.719 0.8

Energy savings from amended standards for residential dishwashers are expected

to produce environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and

greenhouse gases associated with electricity production. Table V.13 provides DOE’s

estimate of cumulative CO 2 , NO X , and Hg emissions reductions that would be expected

to result from the TSLs considered in this rulemaking. In the environmental assessment

(chapter 15 of the direct final rule TSD), DOE reports annual CO 2 , NO X , and Hg

emissions reductions for each TSL. Comment [A55]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.

141As discussed in section IV.L, DOE has not reported SO 2 emissions reductions

from power plants because the NEMS-BT modeling system that DOE uses to forecast

emissions reductions currently indicates that no physical reductions in power sector

emissions would occur for SO 2

. DOE also did not include NO X emissions reduction from

power plants in States subject to emissions caps because in such a case an energy

conservation standard would likely not affect the overall level of NO X emissions in those

States. 51

Table V.13 Emissions Reduction Estimated for Dishwasher Trial Standard Levels (cumulative in 2018

– 2047)*

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4

CO 2 (million metric tons) 1.15 4.06 65.02 98.62

NO X (thousand tons) 0.96 3.54 54.27 83.31 Hg ( tons) 0.004 0.000 0.274 0.304

* For TSL 2, the impacts are counted for 2013

– 2047.

DOE also estimated monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions

of CO 2 and NO X that DOE estimated for each of the TSLs considered for dish washers.

As discussed in section IV.M, DOE used values for the SCC developed by an interagency

process. The four values for CO 2 emissions reductions in 2010 resulting from that process

(expressed in 2010$) are $4.9/ton (the average value from a distribution that uses a 5­

percent discount rate), $22.3/ton (the average value from a distribution that uses a 3­

percent discount rate), $36.5/ton (the average value from a distribution that uses a 2.5­

percent discount rate), and $67.6/ton (the 95 th -percentile value from a distribution that

51 EPA issued the final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule on July 6, 2011 ( www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/ , last visited July 15, 2011). ). The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will replace CAIR. In the Environmental

Assessment emissions analysis for these today’s amended energy conservation standards, DOE’s discussion and conclusions about NOx emissions assume the implementation of CAIR. In future rulemakings, DOE will adjust its relevant models to assume the implementation of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.

142uses a 3-percent discount rate). The values for later years are higher due to increasing

damages as the magnitude of climate change increases. For each of the four cases, DOE

calculated a present value of the stream of annual values using the same discount rate as

used in the studies upon which the dollar-per-ton values are based. Table V.14 presents

the global values of CO 2 emissions reductions at each TSL. DOE calculated domestic

values as a range from 7 percent to 23 percent of the global values. Those results are

presented in Table V.15.

Table V.14 Estimates of Global Present Value of CO 2 Emissions Reductions Under

Dishwasher Trial Standard Levels

TSL Million 2010$

5% discount
rate, average* 3% discount
rate, average* 2.5% discount rate, average* 3% discount rate, 95 th
percentile*

1 4.88 25.9 44.2 78.9

2 16.1 79.5 133 242

3 278 1484 2534 4515

4 427 2284 3904 6951

* Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or drawn from a different part of the distribution.

Table V.15 Estimates of Domestic Present Value of CO 2 Emissions Reductions

Under Dishwasher Trial Standard Levels

TSL Million 2010$

5% discount rate, average* 3% discount rate, average* 2.5% discount rate, average* 3% discount rate,

95 th percentile*

1 0 to 1 2 to 6 3 to 10 6 to 18

2 1 to 4 6 to 18 9 to 31 17 to 56

3 19 to 64 104 to 341 177 to 583 316 to 1039

4 30 to 98 160 to 525 273 to 898 487 to 1599

* Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or drawn from a different part of the distribution.

143DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the contribution

of CO 2 and other GHG emissions to changes in the future global climate and the potential

resulting damages to the world economy continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any value

placed in this rulemaking on reducing CO 2 emissions is subject to change. DOE, together

with other Federal agencies, will continue to review various methodologies for estimating

the monetarysocial value of reductions in CO 2 and other GHG emissions. This ongoing

review will consider the comments on this subject that are part of the public record for

this and other rulemakings, as well as other methodological assumptions and issues.

However, consistent with DOE’s legal obligations, and taking into account the

uncertainty involved with this particular issue, DOE has included in this final rule the

most recent values and analyses resulting from the ongoing interagency review process.

DOE also estimated a range for the cumulative monetary value of the economic

benefits associated with NO X emissions reductions anticipated to result from amended

standards for re sidential dishwashers. The dollar-per-ton values that DOE used are

discussed in section IV.M. Table V.16 presents the cumulative present values for each

TSL calculated using 3-percent and 7-percent discount rates.

Table V.16 Estimates of Present Value of NO X Emissions Reductions Under

Dishwasher Trial Standard Levels Comment [A56]: Change recommended by

OIRA.

TSL 3% discount rate (million 2010$ ) 7% discount rate (million 2010$ )

1 0 to 3 0 to 1

2 1 to 10 0 to 5

3 14 to 148 6 to 59

4 22 to 230 9 to 91

144The NPV of the monetized benefits associated with emissions reductions can be

viewed as a complement to the NPV of the consumer savings calculated for each TSL

considered in this rulemaking. Table V.17 and Table V.18 present the NPV values that

result from adding the estimates of the potential economic benefits resulting from

reduced CO 2 and NO X emissions in each of four valuation scenarios to the NPV of

consumer savings calculated for each TSL considered in this rulemaking, at both a 7­

percent and a 3-percent discount rate. The CO 2 values used in the columns of each table

correspond to the four scenarios for the valuation of CO 2 emission reductions presented

in section IV.M.

Table V.17 Results of Adding Net Present Value of Consumer Savings (at 7-Percent Discount Rate) to Net Present Value of Monetized Benefits from CO 2 and NO X Emissions Reductions Under Dishwasher Trial Standard Levels

TSL Consumer NPV at 7% Discount Rate added with:

SCC Value of $4.9/metric ton

CO 2 * and Low

Value for

NO X ** ( billion 2010$ ) SCC Value of $22.3/metric ton

CO 2 * and Medium

Value for NO X **

( billion 2010$ ) SCC Value of $36.5/metric ton

CO 2 * and Medium

Value for NO X **

( billion 2010$ ) SCC Value of $67.6/metric ton

CO 2 * and High

Value for NO X **

( billion 2010$ )

1 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.11

2 0.10 0.16 0.21 0.33

3 2.24 3.48 4.53 6.53

4 6.31 8.21 9.83 12.92

* These label values represent the global SCC of CO 2 in 2010, in 2010$. Their present values have been

calculated with scenario-consistent discount rates. ** Low Value corresponds to $450 per ton of NO X emissions. Medium Value corresponds to $2,537 per

ton of NO X emissions. High Value corresponds to $4,623 per ton of NO X emissions.

145Table V.18 Results of Adding Net Present Value of Consumer Savings (at 3-Percent Discount Rate) to Net Present Value of Monetized Benefits from CO 2 and NO X Emissions Reductions Under Dishwasher Trial Standard Levels

TSL Consumer NPV at 3% Discount Rate added with:

SCC Value of $4.9/metric ton

CO 2 * and Low

Value for

NO X ** ( billion 2010$ ) SCC Value of $22.3/metric ton

CO 2 * and Medium

Value for NO X **

( billion 2010$ ) SCC Value of $36.5/metric ton

CO 2 * and Medium

Value for NO X **

( billion 2010$ ) SCC Value of $67.6/metric ton

CO 2 * and High

Value for NO X **

( billion 2010$ )

1 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.20

2 0.48 0.54 0.60 0.71

3 6.80 8.07 9.12 11.17

4 17.90 19.86 21.48 24.63

* These label values represent the global SCC of CO 2 in 2010, in 2010$. Their present values have been

calculated with scenario-consistent discount rates. ** Low Value corresponds to $450 per ton of NO X emissions. Medium Value corresponds to $2,537 per

ton of NO X emissions. High Value corresponds to $4,623 per ton of NO X emissions.

Although adding the value of consumer savings to the values of emission

reductions provides a valuable perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the

national operating cost savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur

as a result of market transactions, while the value of CO 2 reductions is based on a global

value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and CO 2 savings are performed

with different methods that use quite different time frames for analysis. The national

operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of products shipped in 2013

– 2047

.

The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of all future climate-related

impacts resulting from the emission of one ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These

impacts continue well beyond 2100.

1467. Other Factors

The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is economically

justified, may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI))) In developing the direct final rule, DOE has also

considered the Joint Petition submitted to DOE. DOE recognizes the value of consensus

agreements submitted by parties in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) and has

weighed the value of such consensus in establish ing the standards set forth in today’s

final rule. DOE has encouraged the submission of consensus agreements as a way to get

diverse interested parties together, to develop an independent and probative analysis

useful in DOE standard setting, and to expedite the rulemaking process. DOE also

believes that standard levels recommended in the consensus agreement may increase the

likelihood for regulatory compliance, while decreasing the risk of litigation.

C. Conclusion

When considering proposed standards, the new or amended energy conservation

standard that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product shall be designed to

achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is

technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In

determining whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must determine

whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens, considering to the greatest extent

practicable the seven statutory factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i))

The new or amended standard must also “result in significant conservation of energy.”

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))

147The Department considered the impacts of standards at each TSL, beginning with

maximum technologically feasible level, to determine whether that level was

economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not justified, DOE then considered

the next most efficient level and undertook the same evaluation until it reached the

highest efficiency level that is both technologically feasible and economically justified

and saves a significant amount of energy.

To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of each trial

standard level, tables present a summary of the results of DOE’s quantitative analysis for

each TSL. In addition to the quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also

considers other burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. Those include the

impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers, such as low-income households and

seniors, who may be disproportionately affected by a national standard. Section V.B.1

presents the estimated impacts of each TSL for these subgroups.

DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-ranging discussion

of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy savings in the absence of

government intervention. Much of this literature attempts to explain why consumers

appear to undervalue energy efficiency improvements. This undervaluation suggests that

regulation that promotes energy efficiency can produce significant net private gains (as

well as producing social gains by, for example, reducing pollution). There is evidence

that consumers undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of information;

148(2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or aggregate benefits; (3) a lack of

sufficient savings to warrant delaying or altering purchases (for example, an inefficient

ventilation fan in a new building or the delayed replacement of a water pump); (4)

excessive focus on the short term, in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy

cost savings relative to available returns on other investments; (5) computational or other

difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant tradeoffs; and (6) a divergence in

incentives (that is, renter versus owner; builder versus purchaser). Other literature

indicates that with less than perfect foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the

future, consumers may trade off these types of investments at a higher than expected rate

between current consumption and uncertain future energy cost savings.

In DOE’s current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the benefits and costs

of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase decisions are included in two ways:

First, if consumers forego a purchase of a product in the standards case, this decreases

sales for product manufacturers and the cost to manufacturers is included in the MIA.

Second, DOE accounts for energy savings attributable only to products actually used by

consumers in the standards case; if a regulatory option decreases the number of products

used by consumers, this decreases the potential energy savings from an energy

conservation standard. DOE provides detailed estimates of shipments and changes in the

volume of product purchases in chapter 9 of the direct final rule TSD. However, DOE’s

current analysis does not explicitly control for heterogeneity in consumer preferences,

149preferences across subcategories of products or specific features, or consumer price

sensitivity variation according to household income . (Reiss and White, 2005). 52

While DOE is not prepared at present to provide a fuller quantifiable framework

for estimating the benefits and costs of changes in consumer purchase decisions due to an

energy conservation standard, DOE is committed to developing a framework that can

support empirical quantitative tools for improved assessment of the consumer welfare

impacts of appliance standards. DOE has posted a paper that discusses the issue of

consumer welfare impacts of appliance energy efficiency standards, and potential

enhancements to the methodology by which these impacts are defined and estimated in

the regulatory process. 53 DOE is committed to developing a framework that can support

empirical quantitative tools for improved assessment of the consumer welfare impacts of

appliance standards. DOE welcomes comments on how to more fully assess the potential Comment [A57]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.
impact of energy conservation standards on consumer choice and how to quantify this

impact in its regulatory analysis in future rulemakings.

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Residential Dishwashers

52 P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household Electricity Demand, Revisited. Review of Economic Studies (2005) 72, 853

– 883

. 53 Alan Sanstad, Notes on the Economics of Household Energy Consumption and Technology Choice. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 2010. Available online at: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_theory.pdf

150Table V.19 Table V.19 and Table V. 20 summarize the quantitative impacts

estimated for each TSL for residential dishwashers. The efficiency levels contained in

each TSL are described in section V.A.

Table V.19 Summary of Results for Residential Dishwasher Trial Standard Levels: National Impacts
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4
National Energy Savings ( quads ) 0.02 0.07 0.94 1.59
National Water Savings ( trillion gal. ) 0.01 0.14 0.56 1.71

Net Present Value (2010$ billion)

3% discount rate 0.12 0.46 6.51 17.45

7% discount rate 0.03 0.08 1.96 5.88

Cumulative Emissions Reduction

CO 2 ( million metric tons ) 1.15 4.06 65.02 98.62

NO X ( thousand tons ) 0.96 3.54 54.27 83.31
Hg ( tons ) 0.004 0.000 0.274 0.304

Value of Emissions Reduction

CO 2 ( 2010$ million )* 5 to 79 16 to 242 278 to 4515 427 to

6951

NO X – 3% discount rate ( 2010$

million ) 0 to 3 1 to 10 14 to 148 22 to 230

NO X – 7% discount rate ( 2010$

million ) 0 to 1 0 to 5 6 to 59 9 to 91

Generation Capacity Reduction ( GW ) ** 0.011 0.001 0.719 0.8 00

Employment Impacts

Total Potential Change Increase in

Domestic Production Workers in

2018 (thousands ) 0.008 to ( 4. 593 ) 0.086 to ( 4. 593 ) 0.065 to ( 4. 593 ) 0.206 to ( 4. 593 )

Indirect Domestic Jobs ( thousands )** 0.04 0.05 2.72 4.08

Parentheses indicate negative (

- ) values.

* Range of the economic value of CO 2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced

CO 2 emissions.

** Values are for 2047. Comment [A58]: Change recommended by

OIRA.

Comment [A59]: Change recommended by

OIRA.

Comment [A60]: Changes recommended by

OIRA. Comment [A61]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.

151Table V.20 Summary of Results for Residential Dishwasher Trial Standard Levels: Consumer and Manufacturer Impacts
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 Manufacturer Impacts

Impact to Industry NPV ( 2010$ million , 8.5%

discount rate ) ( 44.3 )

– ( 45.3 ) ( 73.9 )

– ( 84.6 ) ( 128.9 )

– ( 174.4 ) ( 145.6 )

– ( 202.7 )

Industry NPV (% change ) ( 7.0 )

– ( 7.1 ) ( 11.6 )

– ( 13.3 ) ( 20.2 )

– ( 27.4 ) ( 22.8 )

– ( 31.8 ) Consumer Mean LCC Savings (2010$)

Standard Dishwasher 1 3 41 108
Compact Dishwasher 13 12 52 52
Consumer Median PBP ( years )

Standard Dishwasher 5.9 11.8 6.6 4.5
Compact Dishwasher 0.3 0.3 2.1 2.1 Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts

Standard Dishwasher

Net Cost ( % ) 1.9 18.7 29.7 22.9
No Impact ( % ) 96.3 64.1 20.0 9.0
Net Benefit ( % ) 1.7 17.2 50.4 68.1
Compact Dishwasher

Net Cost ( % ) 6.4 6.5 5.4 5.4
No Impact ( % ) 75.6 75.6 50.2 50.2
Net Benefit ( % ) 18.0 17.9 44.4 44.4 Comment [A62]: Change recommended by

OIRA.

Parentheses indicate negative (

- ) values.

DOE first considered TSL 4, which represents the max-tech efficiency levels.

TSL 4 would save 1.59 quads of energy and 1.71 trillion gallons of water, amounts DOE

considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $5.88 billion,

using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $17.45 billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 99 Mt of CO 2 , 83 thousand

tons of NO X , and 0.304 tons of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO 2 emissions

reductions at TSL 4 ranges from $427 million to $6,951 million. Total generating

capacity in 2047 is estimated to decrease by 0.800 GW under TSL 4. Comment [A63]: Change recommende d by

OIRA.

152At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is a savings of $108 for standard dishwashers

and a savings of $52 for compact dishwashers. The median payback period is 4.5 years

for standard dishwashers and 2.1 years for compact dishwashers. The fraction of

consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 68.1 percent for standard dishwashers and

44.4 percent for compact dishwashers. However, 22.9 percent of standard dishwasher

consumers and 5.4 percent of compact dishwasher consumers experience an LCC net

cost. In addition, DOE is concerned that reducing energy and water use at TSL 4 without

implementing significantly higher-cost technologies could result in the loss of certain

consumer utility. Specifically, a substantially longer cycle time could be required to

maintain cleaning performance. Because it is uncertain how greatly consumers value

short cycle timesTherefore , DOE is concerned that TSL 4 may result in significanta loss Comment [A64]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.
of consumer utility.

At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $145.6 million

to a decrease of $202.7 million, equivalent to 22.8 percent and 31.8 percent, respectively.

Current Products that meet the efficiency standards specified by this TSL are forecast to

represent less than 9 percent of shipments in the year leading up to amended standards ;

thus . As such , manufacturers would have to redesign nearly all products by the 2018

compliance date to meet demand. Redesigning all units to meet the current max-tech

efficiency levels would require considerable capital and product conversion expenditures.

At TSL 4, the capital conversion costs total $226.3 million, 2. 23 2 times the industry

annual capital expenditure in the year leading up to amended standards. DOE estimates

that complete platform redesigns would cost the industry $76.7 million in product

153conversion costs. These conversion costs largely relate to the research programs required

to develop new products that meet the efficiency standards set forth by TSL 4 , and

represent 164.5 percent of . These costs are equivalent to 1.6 times the industry annual

budget for research and development. As such, the conversion costs associated with the

changes in products and manufacturing facilities required at TSL 4 would require

significant use of manufacturers’ financial reserves (manufacturer capital pools),

impacting other areas of business that compete for these resources and significantly

reducing INPV. In addition, manufacturers could face a substantial impact on

profitability at TSL 4. Because manufacturers earn a premium for ENERGY STAR

products and additional profit for products that exceed the ENERGY STAR level,

collapsing the market to one commodity product makes it unlikely that manufacturers

could maintain their base-case profitability on these products after compliance with the

standards is required

. As a result Because manufacturers are more likely to reduce their

margins to maintain a price-competitive product at higher TSLs

, DOE expects that TSL 4

would yield impacts closer to the high end of the range of INPV impacts. If the high end

of the range of impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 4 could result in a net loss of

31.8 percent in INPV to dishwasher manufacturers.

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 4 for residential dishwashers, the benefits of

energy savings, water savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, generating capacity

reductions, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the CO 2 emissions

reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on some consumers, the

potential burden on all consumers from loss of product utility, and the impacts on

154manufacturers, including the conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result

in a large reduction in INPV

. Consequently, the Secretary has concluded that TSL 4 is

not economically justified.

DOE then considered TSL 3. TSL 3 would save 0.94 quads of energy and 0.56

trillion gallons of water, amounts DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of

consumer benefit would be $1.96 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $6.51

billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 65 Mt of CO 2 , 54 thousand

tons of NO X , and 0.274 ton of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO 2 emissions

reductions at TSL 3 ranges from $278 million to $4,515 million. Total generating

capacity in 2047 is estimated to decrease by 0.719 GW under TSL 3.

At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a savings of $41 for standard dishwashers

and a savings of $52 for compact dishwashers. The median payback period is 6.6 years

for standard dishwashers and 2.1 years for compact dishwashers. The fraction of

consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 50.4 percent for standard dishwashers and

44.4 percent for compact dishwashers. However, 29.7 percent of standard dishwasher

consumers and 5.4 percent of compact dishwasher consumers experience an LCC net

cost. In addition, DOE is concerned that reducing energy and water use at TSL 3 without

implementing significantly higher-cost technologies could result in the loss of certain

consumer utility. Specifically, a substantially longer cycle time could be required to Comment [A65]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.

Comment [A66]: Change recommended by

OIRA.

155maintain cleaning performance

. Because it is uncertain how greatly consumers value this

feature Therefore , DOE is concerned that TSL 3 may result in significant loss of

consumer utility.

At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $128.9 million

to a decrease of $174.4 million, decreases of 20.2 percent and 27.4 percent, respectively

.

Current Products that meet the efficiency standards specified by this TSL represent less

than 20 percent of shipments in the year leading up to amended standards ; thus

. As such

,

manufacturers would have to overhaul a significant fraction of products by the 2018

compliance date to meet demand. Redesigning significant component systems or

developing entirely new platforms entirely to meet the efficiency levels specified by this

TSL would require considerable capital and product conversion expenditures. At TSL 3,

the estimated capital conversion costs total $195.4 million, which is 1. 93 9 times the

industry annual capital expenditure in the year leading up to amended standards

. DOE

estimates that the redesigns necessary to meet these standards would cost the industry

$66.5 million in product conversion costs. These conversion costs largely relate to the

research programs required to develop products that meet the efficiency standards set

forth by TSL 3, and represent 142.6 percent of are 1.4 times the industry annual budget

for research and development in the year leading up to amended standards. As such, the

conversion costs associated with the changes in products and manufacturing facilities

required at TSL 3 would require significant use of manufacturers’ financial reserves

(manufacturer capital pools), impacting other areas of business that compete for these

resources and significantly reducing INPV. In addition, manufacturers could face a

156substantial impact on profitability at TSL 3

. Because manufacturers earn a premium for

ENERGY STAR products and additional profit for products that exceed the ENERGY

STAR level, collapsing the market are more likely to one commodity reduce their margins

to maintain a price-competitive product makes it unlikely that manufacturers could

maintain their base-case profitability on these products after compliance with the

standards is required

. As a result at higher TSLs , DOE expects that TSL 3 would yield

impacts closer to the high end of the range of INPV impacts as indicated by the

preservation of operating profit markup scenario . If the high end of the range of impacts

is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 3 could result in a net loss of 27.4 percent in INPV to

dishwasher manufacturers.

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 3 for residential dishwashers, the benefits of

energy savings, water savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, generating capacity

reductions, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the CO 2 emissions

reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on some consumers, the

potential burden on all consumers from loss of product utility, and the impacts on

manufacturers, including the conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result

in a large reduction in INPV. Consequently, the Secretary has concluded that TSL 3 is

not economically justified.

DOE then considered TSL 2. TSL 2 would save 0.07 quads of energy and 0.14

trillion gallons of wat er , amounts DOE considers significant. Under TSL 2, the NPV of Comment [A67]: Changes recommended by

OIRA.

157consumer benefit would be $0.08 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $0.46

billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 4.06 Mt of CO 2 , 3.54 thousand

tons of NO X , and 0.000 ton of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the CO 2 emissions

reductions at TSL 2 ranges from $16 million to $242 million. Total generating capacity in

2047 is estimated to decrease by 0.001 GW under TSL 2. Comment [A68]: Change recommended by

OIRA.

At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is a savings of $3 for standard dishwashers

and a savings of $12 for compact dishwashers. The median payback period is 11.8 years

for standard dishwashers and 0.3 years for compact dishwashers. While some consumers

experience an LCC increase, this increase is very small in most cases.

At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $73.9 million

to a decrease of $84.6 million, decreases of 11.6 percent and 13.3 percent, respectively.

All dishwasher manufacturers currently produce products that meet the efficiency levels

specified at TSL 2. As such, this level corresponds more to incremental product

conversions rather than the platform redesigns expected for TSL 3 and TSL 4. Products at

or above the efficiency levels of TSL 2 represent over 63 nearly 64 percent of shipments

in the year leading up to amended standards. As such, DOE believes that the scope of the

redesigns necessary to meet TSL 2 by the 2013 compliance date greatly mitigates

concerns over manufactu rers’ ability to redesign products and switch over the bulk of

production in time to meet the amended standards by the compliance date (operational

158risk). DOE estimates that the improvements to manufacturing facilities necessary to meet

these standards would cost the industry $59.1 million in capital conversion costs, over

$130 million less than those incurred at TSL 3, and only 55.7 56 percent of the industry

budget for capital expenditure in the year leading up to amended standards

. TSL 2 will

require an estimated 34.9 million in product conversion costs primarily relating to the

research and development programs needed to improve upon existing platforms to meet

the specified efficiency levels. This represents 71.6 72 percent of the industry budget for

re search and development in the year leading up to amended standards. The substantial

reduction in conversion costs over those incurred at higher TSLs, coupled with the fact

that many products currently meet the efficiency standards set forth by TSL 2, greatly

mitigate the operational risk and impact on INPV.

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 2 for residential dishwashers, the benefits of

energy savings, water savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits , generating capacity

reductions , emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the CO 2 emissions

reductions would outweigh the impacts on manufacturers, including the conversion costs

that could result in a reduction in INPV for manufacturers.

In addition, the efficiency levels in TSL 2 correspond to the recommended levels

in the Joint Petition, which DOE believes sets forth a statement by interested persons that

are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of

manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates) and contains

recommendations with respect to an energy conservation standard that are in accordance Comment [A69]: Change recommended by

OIRA.

159with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Moreover, DOE has encouraged the submission of consensus

agreements as a way for diverse interested parties to develop an independent and

probative analysis useful in DOE standard setting and to expedite the rulemaking process.

DOE also believes that the standard levels recommended in the consensus agreement may

increase the likelihood for regulatory compliance, while decreasing the risk of litigation.

After considering the analysis and the benefits and burdens of TSL 2, the

Secretary concludes that this TSL will offer the maximum improvement in efficiency that

is technologically feasible and economically justified, and will result in the significant

conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE today adopts TSL 2 for residential dishwashers.

The amended energy conservation standards for residential dishwashers, which are a

maximum allowable annual energy use and maximum allowable per-cycle water

consumption, are shown in Table V.21 Table V. 21

.

Table V.21 Amended Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Dishwashers

Product Class Compliance Date: January [INSERT DATE 1

, 2013 YEAR AFTER

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]

Maximum Annual Energy Use * Maximum Per

- Cycle Water Consumption 1. Standard (≥8 place settings plus 6 serving pieces) 307 kWh/year 5.0 gallons/cycle

2. Compact (< 8 place settings plus 6 serving pieces) 222 kWh/year 3.5 gallons/cycle

* A nnual energy use, expressed in kilowatt

- hours (kWh) per year, is calculated as: the sum of the annual standby electrical energy in kWh and the product of (1) the representative average dishwasher use cycles per year and (2) the sum of machine electrical energy consumption per cycle in kWh, the total water energy consumption per cycle in kWh, and, for dishwashers having a truncated normal cycle, the drying energy consumption divid ed by 2 in kWh. A truncated normal cycle is defined as the normal cycle interrupted to eliminate the power

- dry feature after the termination of the last rinse option,

1602. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Standards

The benefits and costs of today’s standards can also be expressed in terms of

annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the annualized

national economic value, expressed in 2010$, of the benefits from operating products that

meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using

less energy and water, minus increases in product purchase costs, which is another way of

representing consumer NPV), and (2) the monetary value of the benefits of emission

reductions, including CO 2 emission reductions. 54 The value of the CO 2 reductions,

otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), is calculated using a range of

values per metric ton of CO 2 developed by a recent interagency process.

Although combining the values of operating savings and CO 2 reductions provides

a useful perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the national operating

savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of market

transactions, while the value of CO 2 reductions is based on a global value. Second, the

assessments of operating cost savings and SCC are performed with different methods that

use quite different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost savings is

54 DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present value in 2011 2012 , the year used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the time-series of costs and benefits using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO 2 reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as shown in Table V. 22 Table V. 20

. From the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in 2013, that yields the same present value. This payment includes benefits to consumers which accrue after 2047 from the dishwashers purchased from 2013 to 2047. Costs incurred by manufacturers, some of which may be incurred prior to 2013 in preparation for the rule, are indirectly included as part of incremental equipment costs. The extent of these costs and benefits depends on the projected price trends of dishwashers because consumer demand of dishwashers is a function of dishwasher prices. The fixed annual payment is the annualized value. Although DOE calculated annualized values, this does not imply that the time-series of cost and benefits from which the annualized values were determined is a steady stream of payments.

161measured for the lifetime of products shipped in 2013

– 2047. The SCC values, on the

other hand, reflect the present value of all future climate-related impacts resulting from

the emission of one ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts continue well

beyond 2100.

Table V.22 shows the annualized values for residential dishwashers under TSL 2,

expressed in 2010$

. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7­

percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than CO 2 reductions, for which DOE

used a 3-percent discount rate along with the SCC series corresponding to a value of

$22.3/ton in 2010 (in 2010$), the cost of the standards for dishwashers in today’s rule is

$46 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the annualized benefits are $53

million per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $3.9 million in CO 2 reductions,

and $0.24 million in reduced NO X emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $11

million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the SCC

series corresponding to a value of $22.3/ton in 2010 (in 2010$), the cost of the standards

for dishwashers in today’s rule is $44 million per year in increased equipme nt costs,

while the benefits are $66 million per year in reduced operating costs, $3.9 million in

CO 2 reductions, and $0.26 million in reduced NO X emissions. In this case, the net benefit

amounts to $27 million per year.

162Table V.22 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Amended Standards (TSL 2) for

Residential Dishwashers Sold in 2013

– 2047

Discount Rate Primary

Estimate* Low Net

Benefits

Estimate* High Net

Benefits

Estimate*

Monetized ( million 2010$/year )

Benefits

Operating Cost Savings 7% 53 48 59

3% 66 59 75

CO 2 Reduction at $4.9/t** 5% 1.1 1.0 1.3

CO 2 Reduction at $22.3/t** 3% 3.9 3.5 4.7

CO 2 Reduction at $36.5/t** 2.5% 6.1 5.4 7.2

CO 2 Reduction at $67.6/t** 3% 12.0 10.8 14.2

NO X Reduction at $2,537/t** 7% 0.24 0.23 0.27

3% 0.26 0.24 0.30

Total† 7% plus CO 2 range 54 to 65 49 to 59 60 to 73

7% 57 52 64

3% plus CO 2 range 68 to 78 60 to 70 76 to 89

3% 70 63 80

Costs

Incremental Product Costs 7% 46 44 43

3% 44 41 40

Total Net Benefits

Total† 7% plus CO 2 range 8 to 19 6 to 16 17 to 30

7% 11 8 20

3% plus CO 2 range 24 to 35 19 to 29 37 to 49

3% 27 22 40

* The results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2047 from the dishwashers purchased from

2013 through 2047. Costs incurred by manufacturers, some of which may be incurred prior to 2013 in preparation for the rule, are not directly included, but are indirectly included as part of incremental equipment costs. The extent of the costs and benefits will depend on the projected price trends of dishwashers, as the consumer demand for dishwashers is a function of dishwasher prices. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the AEO2011 Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental product costs reflect a medium decline rate for projected product price trends in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate for projected product price trends in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate for projected product price trends in the High Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.G.3.

163** The CO 2 values represent global values (in 2010$) of the social cost of CO 2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9, $22.3, and $36.5 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.6 per ton represents the

95 th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The value for NO X (in 2010$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis.

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount rate, which is $22.3/ton in 2010 (in 2010$). In the rows labeled as “7% plus CO 2 range” and “3% plus CO 2 range,” the operating cost a nd NO X benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO 2 values.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58

FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires each agency to identify the problem that it intends to

address, including, where applicable, the failures of private markets or public institutions

that warrant new agency action, as well as to assess the significance of that problem. The

problems that today’s standards address are as follows:

(1) There is a lack of consumer information and/or information processing capability

about energy efficiency opportunities in the home appliance market.

(2) There is asymmetric information (one party to a transaction has more and better

information than the other) and/or high transactions costs (costs of gathering

information and effecting exchanges of goods and services).

(3) There are external benefits resulting from improved energy efficiency of

residential dishwashers that are not captured by the users of such equipment.

These benefits include externalities related to environmental protection and

energy security that are not reflected in energy prices, such as reduced emissions

of greenhouse gases.

164In addition, DOE has determined that today’s regulatory action is an

“economically significant regulatory action” under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order

12866. Accordingly, section 6(a)(3) of the Executive Order requires that DOE prepare a

regulatory impact analysis (RIA) on today’s rule and that the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review this

rule. DOE presented to OIRA for review the draft rule and other documents prepared for

this rulemaking, including the RIA, and included these documents in the rulemaking

record. The assessments prepared pursuant to Executive Order 12866 can be found in the

technical support document for this rulemaking. [ INSERT URL ]

DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued

on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281, Jan. 21, 2011). EO 13563 is supplemental to and

explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review

established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are

required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a

reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits

and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on

society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other

things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in

choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net

benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other

advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify

performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that

165regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct

regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior,

such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can

be made by the public.

DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to use the

best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as

accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance

costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE believes that today’s final rule is consistent

with these principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law,

benefits justify costs and that net benefits are maximized.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires preparation

of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law must be

proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated,

will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As

required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency

Rulemaking, ” 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies

on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are

properly considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its

166procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel’s website

( www.gc.doe.gov ).

DOE reviewed today’s direct final rule and corresponding NOPR pursuant to the

RFA and the policies and procedures discussed above. DOE certifies that the standards

established in today’s final rule and proposed in the NOPR, published elsewhere in

today’s Federal Register , will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of

small entities

. The factual basis for this certification is set forth below

. DOE will consider

any comments on the certification or economic impacts of the rule in determining

whether to proceed with the direct final rule.

For manufacturers of residential dishwashers, the Small Business Administration

(SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified as “small

businesses” for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA’s small business s ize

standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of

the rule. 65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 53544 (Sept.

5, 2000) and codified at 13 CFR part 121.The size standards are listed by North

American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry description and are

available at: www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf . Residential

dishwasher manufacturing is classified under NAICS 335228 , “ Other Major Household

Appliance Manufacturing.” The SBA sets a threshold of 500 employees or less for an

entity to be considered as a small business for this category.

167To estimate the number of small businesses which could be impacted by the

amended energy conservation standards, DOE conducted a market survey using all

available public information to identify potential small manufacturers. DOE’s research

included the AHAM membership directory, product databases (CEE, CEC, and

ENERGY STAR databases) and individual company websites to find potential small

business manufacturers. DOE also asked interested parties and industry representatives if

they were aware of any other small business manufacturers during manufacturer

interviews and at previous DOE public meetings. DOE reviewed all publicly available

data and contacted various companies, as necessary, to determine whether they met the

SBA’s definition of a small business m anufacturer of covered residential dishwashers.

DOE screened out companies that did not offer products covered by this rulemaking, did

not meet the definition of a “small business,” or are foreign owned and operated.

Almost half of residential dishwashers are currently manufactured in the United

States by one corporation that accounts for approximately 49 percent of the total market.

Together, this manufacturer and 3 other manufacturers that do not meet the definition of a

small business manufacturer comprise 99 percent of the residential dishwasher market.

The small portion of the remaining residential dishwasher market (approximately 57,000

shipments) is supplied by a combination of approximately 15 international and domestic

companies, all of which have small market shares. These companies are either foreign

owned and operated or exceed the SBA’s employment threshold for consideration as a

small business under the appropriate NAICS code. Therefore, DOE did not identify any

small business manufacturers of dishwashers.

168Based on the discussion above, DOE certifies that the standards for residential

dishwashers set forth in today’s rule would not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory

flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE will transmit this certification to the SBA as

required by 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

Manufacturers of residential dishwashers must certify to DOE that their products

comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying compliance,

manufacturers must test their products according to the DOE test procedures for

dishwashers, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has

established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all

covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including residential

dishwashers

. (76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The collection- of -information requirement

for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under

the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by OMB

under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is

estimated to average 20 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,

searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and

completing and reviewing the collection of information.

169Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond

to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of

information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information

displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, DOE has

determined that today’s rule fits within the category of actions included in Cat egorical

Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a CX. See

10 CFR Part 1021, App. B, B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and Appendix B, B(1)-(5). The rule fits

within the category of actions because it is a rulemaking that establishes energy

conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment, and for which

none of the exceptions identified in CX B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made a CX

determination for this rulemaking, and DOE does not need to prepare an Environmental

Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for this rule. DOE’s CX determination

for this direct final rule is available at http://cxnepa.energy.gov DOE has prepared a n

environmental assessment (EA) of the impacts of the amended rule pursuant to the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq .), the regulations of

the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500 –1508), and DOE’s regulations

for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (10 CFR part 1021).

This assessment includes an examination of the potential effects of emission reductions

likely to result from the rule in the context of global climate change, as well as other

types of environmental impacts. The EA has been incorporated into the direct final rule

170TS D as chapter 15

. At the conclusion of the 110-day comment period, DOE will

determine whether issuance of a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) is

appropriate. If DOE issues a FONSI, it will be published separately in the Federal

Register

.

.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10 , 1999) imposes

certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or

regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive

Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting

any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully

assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have

an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials

in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March

14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental

consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735.

EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy

conservation for the products that are the subject of today’s direct final rule. States can

petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set

forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

171F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new

regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “ Civil Justice Reform, ” imposes on

Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate

drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3)

provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and

promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Section 3(b) of

Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every

reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect,

if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides

a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden

reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms;

and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under

any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988

requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in

section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to

meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that,

to the extent permitted by law, this direct final rule meets the relevant standards of

Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each

Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and

172Tribal governments and the private sector. Pub. L. 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C.

1531). For an amended regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private

sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section

202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the

resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a),

(b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit

timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a “significant

intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and

opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing

any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On

March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for

intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE’s policy statement is

also available at www.gc.doe.gov

.

DOE has concluded that this direct final rule would likely require expenditures of

$100 million or more on the private sector. Such expenditures may include: (1)

investment in research and development and in capital expenditures by dishwasher

manufacturers in the years between the direct final rule and the compliance date for the

new standards, and (2) incremental additional expenditures by consumers to purchase

higher-efficiency residential dishwashers

, starting at the compliance date for the

applicable standard.

173Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a Federal ag ency to respond to the content

requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that accompanies the final rule.

2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The content requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a

private sector mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that

apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the notice of direct final rulemaking

and the “Regulatory Impact Analysis” section of the TSD for this direct final rule respond

to those requirements.

Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify and consider

a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule for which a

written statement under section 202 is required. (2 U.S.C. 1535(a) ) DOE is required to

select from those alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule unless DOE publishes an explanation for doing

otherwise, or the selection of such an alternative is inconsistent with law. As required by

42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(1) and (10 ), and (o), today’s direct final rule would establish energy

conservation standards for residential dishwashers that are designed to achieve the

maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE has determined to be both

technologically feasible and economically justified. A full discussion of the alternatives

considered by DOE is presented in the “Regulatory Impact Analysis” section of the TSD

for today’s direct final rule.

174H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

(Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment

for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rule would not have any impact on

the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has

concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and

Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (Mar ch 18,

1988), that this regulation would not result in any takings that might require

compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

(44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of

information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 ( Feb. 22,

2002), and DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 6 2446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has

reviewed today’s direct final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded

that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

175K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Conc erning Regulations That Significantly

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001) , requires

Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects

for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action

by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and

that: (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor

order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or

use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy

action. For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of

any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be

implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on

energy supply, distribution, and use.

DOE has concluded that today’s regulatory action, which sets forth energy

conservation standards for residential dishwashers, is not a significant energy action

because the amended standards are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the

supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by the

Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy

Effects on the direct final rule.

176L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and

Technology Policy (OSTP), issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

(the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific

information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by

the Federal Government, including influential scientific information related to agency

regulatory actions. The purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of

the Government’s scientific information. Under the Bulle tin, the energy conservation

standards rulemaking analyses are “influential scientific information,” which the Bulletin

defines as scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does

have, a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector

decisions. 70 FR 2667.

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in -progress peer reviews

of the energy conservation standards development process and analyses and has prepared

a Peer Review Report pertaining to the energy conservation standards rulemaking

analyses. Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented

evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and independent reviewers to make a

judgment as to the technical/scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results,

and the productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. The

“Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review Report” dated February 2007

has been disseminated and is available at the following Web site:

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/peer_review.html

.

177M. Congressional Notification

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of

this rule prior to its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that

the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

The Secretary o f Energy has approved publication of today’s direct final rule.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy

conservation, Household appliances, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 430

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy

conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, and Small

businesses.

Issued in Washington, DC, on

178________________________________

Henry Kelly

Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

179For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 430, of title

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, to read as set forth below:

PART 429 - CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR

CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL

EQUIPMENT

1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291

– 6317

.

2. In § 429.19 revise paragraph (b )( 2 ) to read as follows:

§ 429.19 Dishwashers.

* * * * *

(b ) * * *

(2) Pursuant to §429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall include the following

public product-specific information: The estimated annual energy use in kilowatt hours

per year (kWh/yr) and the water consumption in gallons per cycle.

* * * * *

PART 430 - ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER

PRODUCTS

3. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:

Authority : 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

1804. In §430.32 add paragraph (f)(3) to read as follows:

§430.32 Energy and water conservation standards and their effective dates.

* * * * *

(f

) * * *

* * *

(3) All dishwashers manufactured on or after January [INSERT DATE 1 , 2013, YEAR

AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]

, shall meet the

following standard

—

(i) Standard size dishwashers shall not exceed 307 kwh/year and 5.0 gallons per cycle.

(ii) Compact size dishwashers shall not exceed 222 kwh/year and 3.5 gallons per cycle.

* * * * *

181