1 |EnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergyeere.energy.govEnergyConservationStandards:NoticeofProposedRulemakingforCommercialClothesWashersApril21,2014JohnCymbalskyDepartmentofEnergyBuildingTechnologiesProgramEERE‐2012‐STD‐0020CommClothesWashers‐2012‐STD‐0020@ee.doe.gov2Welcome•Introductions(aroundtheroom)•RoleoftheFacilitator•GroundRules–Speakoneatatime.–Sayyournamefortherecord– therewillbeacompletetranscriptofthismeeting.–Beconcise– sharethe‘air‐time’.–Keepthefocushere– cellphonesonsilent;limitsidebarconversations.–Webinarparticipantsturnphoneonmute;“raiseyourhand”toberecognizedtospeak.•HousekeepingItems•AgendaReview3Agenda9:00– 9:05amWelcome,Introductions,AgendaReview9:05– 9:15amOpeningRemarks9:15– 9:30amRegulatoryHistory,RulemakingProcessOverview9:30– 10:30amMarketandTechnologyAssessment,ScreeningAnalysis,EngineeringAnalysis10:30– 10:45amMarkupsforEquipmentPriceDetermination,Energy&WaterUseAnalysis10:45– 11:00am Break11:00– 11:30amLife‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriodAnalysis11:30– 11:50amShipmentsAnalysis,NationalImpactAnalysis11:50– 12:20pmManufacturerImpactAnalysis4Agenda12:20– 12:35pmConsumerSubgroupAnalysis,EmissionsAnalysis,UtilityImpactAnalysis,EmploymentImpactAnalysis,RegulatoryImpactAnalysis12:35– 12:50pmDiscussionofOtherIssues12:50– 1:00pmNextStepsandClosingRemarks1:00pm Adjourn5ListeningViatheWebcast•TheDepartmentisbroadcastingthismeetingliveovertheInternet.•DOEisprovidingthewebcasttoaccommodatestakeholdersthatareunabletoattendthepublicmeetinginperson.•Thewebbroadcastallowsstakeholderstolisteninandviewtheslides.•Allstakeholdersareencouragedtosubmitwrittencommentsafterthepublicmeeting.6PurposeofthePublicMeeting•Presenttheproceduralandanalyticalapproachestoevaluateenergyconservationstandardsforcommercialclotheswashers(CCW),aspublishedinthenoticeofproposedrulemaking(NOPR):http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE‐2012‐BT‐STD‐0020‐0021.•Inviteparticipantstoprovidesummarycommentsorstatementsandraiseadditionalissuesfordiscussion.•Discussnextstepsintherulemaking.7IssuesforDiscussion•Issue“boxes”correspondtothelistofissuesforwhichtheDepartmentseekscomments.•IssueboxnumbersinthispresentationcorrespondtotheissuenumberspresentedintheNOPR.Issue Box:DOE welcomes comments, data, and informationconcerning its proposed standards for CCWs. Issues thatcorrespond to those raised in DOE’s published material will benumbered in accordance with that material. Whether invited byan issue box or not, comments are welcome on any part ofDOE’s analysis.8HowtoSubmitWrittenCommentsInallcorrespondence,pleaserefertotheCCWrulemakingby:– StandardsforCommercialClothesWashers– DocketNumberEERE‐2012‐STD‐0020– RegulationIdentificationNumber(RIN)1904‐AC77Email:CommClothesWashers‐2012‐STD‐0020@ee.doe.govPostal:CourierMs.BrendaEdwardsMs.BrendaEdwardsU.S.DepartmentofEnergyU.S.DepartmentofEnergyBuildingTechnologiesProgram,BuildingTechnologiesProgram,Suite600MailstopEE‐5B950L’EnfantPlaza,SW1000IndependenceAvenue,SWWashington,DC20024Washington,DC20585‐0121Tel:202586‐2945CommentperiodclosesMay5,2014,11:59PMET9OpeningRemarksMeetingparticipantsareinvitedtoprovideopeningremarksorstatementsatthistime.10PublicMeetingTopics1History|RulemakingProcessOverview2Market&Technology|Screening|Engineering3Markups|Energy&WaterUse4Life‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriodAnalysis5Shipments|NationalImpactAnalysis6ManufacturerImpactAnalysis7Misc.NOPRAnalyses8OtherIssuesandClosingRemarks11RegulatoryHistory•EnergyPolicyandConservationActof1975(EPCA)P.L.94‐163–AmendedbyNationalEnergyConservationPolicyActof1978,P.L.95‐619,toestablishthe“EnergyConservationProgramforCertainIndustrialEquipment.”•EnergyPolicyActof2005(EPACT)P.L.109‐58–FurtheramendedEPCAtoaddcoverageforcommercialclotheswashers.–Establisheddefinitions,testprocedures,andenergyefficiencystandards.–RequiredDOEtocompletetworulemakingcyclestodeterminewhethertofurtheramendCCWstandards:•FirstfinalrulerequiredbyJanuary1,2010;issuedDec.18,2009(75FR1122,Jan.8,2010)•SecondfinalrulerequiredbyJanuary1,2015Currentrulemaking12DefinitionofCoveredProducts•EPACTdefinescommercialclotheswashersasfollows:Theterm“commercialclotheswasher”meansasoft‐mountfront‐loadingorsoft‐mounttop‐loadingclotheswasherthat—(A)hasaclothescontainercompartmentthat—(i)forhorizontal‐axisclotheswashers,isnotmorethan3.5cubicfeet;and(ii)forvertical‐axisclotheswashers,isnotmorethan4.0cubicfeet;and(B)isdesignedforusein—(i)applicationsinwhichtheoccupantsofmorethanonehouseholdwillbeusingtheclotheswasher,suchasmulti‐familyhousingcommonareasandcoinlaundries;or(ii)othercommercialapplications.(42U.S.C.6311(21))13EnergyConservationStandardsHistory•EPACTestablishedthefollowingstandardsforCCWs,effectiveJanuary1,2007:•ThefirstDOErulemakingcycleamendedthesestandardsaccordingtoproductclass,effectiveJanuary8,2013:Metric StandardModifiedEnergyFactor(MEF)[ft3/kwh/cycle] 1.26(minimum)WaterFactor(WF)[gal/cycle/ft3] 9.5(maximum)ProductClass MEF(minimum) WF(maximum)Top‐Loading 1.60 8.5Front‐Loading 2.00 5.514CCWStandardsRulemakingTimeline2012 20152013 2014 201620172018Milestone DateNoticeofProposedRulemaking(NOPR)Publication March4,2014NOPRPublicMeetingApril21,2014CommentPeriodEndsMay5,2014FinalRuleIssuance(projected) January1,201515RulemakingProcessOverview•Neworamendedstandardsmustbedesignedtoachievethemaximumimprovementinenergyorwaterefficiencythatistechnologicallyfeasibleandeconomicallyjustified.•DOEperformsthefollowinganalysestodeterminetechnologicalfeasibility:EPCARequirement Corresponding DOEAnalysesTechnologicalFeasibilityMarketandTechnologyAssessmentScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysis16RulemakingProcessOverview•DOEmustconsidersevenfactorstodeterminewhetherneworamendedstandardsareeconomicallyjustified:EPCAFactor DOEAnalysis1.Economicimpactonconsumersandmanufacturers•Life‐cyclecostanalysis•Manufacturerimpactanalysis2.Lifetimeoperatingcostsavings•Life‐cyclecostanalysis3.Totalprojectedenergysavings•Nationalimpactanalysis4.Impactonutilityorperformance•Engineeringanalysis•Screeninganalysis5.Impactofanylesseningofcompetition•Manufacturerimpactanalysis6.Needfornationalenergyconservation•Nationalimpactanalysis7.OtherfactorstheSecretaryconsidersrelevant•Environmentalassessment•Utilityimpactanalysis•Employmentimpactanalysis17PublicMeetingTopics1History|RulemakingProcessOverview2Market&Technology|Screening|Engineering3Markups|Energy&WaterUse4Life‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriodAnalysis5Shipments|NationalImpactAnalysis6ManufacturerImpactAnalysis7Misc.NOPRAnalyses8OtherIssuesandClosingRemarks18NOPR Rulemaking StageMarket &TechnologyScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy &Water UseCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forEquipmentPriceDeterminationLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisNOPRFrameworkDocumentFinalRuleConsumerSubgroupAnalysisEmissionsAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysis19MarketandTechnologyAssessmentPurpose•Defineproductclasses•CharacterizetheCCWindustryandmarket•Gatherhistoricalshipmentsandotherrelevantdata•Identifytechnologyoptionsforimprovingefficiency20ProductClasses•Theproposedstandardsmaintaintwoproductclasses basedonlocationofaccess:Top‐Loading Front‐Loading21ManufacturersandMarketShare•DOEestimatesthattwomajormanufacturersholdover90%ofthemarketshareofCCWscoveredbyDOEstandards.MajorManufacturers Other ManufacturersAllianceLaundrySystems ABElectroluxWhirlpool ContinentalGirbauGeneralElectricLG90%10%22DistributionChannelsManufacturerRouteOperatorDistributorBuildingManagerLaundromatEndUser•Leaseslaundryroom•Ownsandoperatesmachines•Maintainsfacility•Takesshareofrevenue•Sellsmachinestolaundromats andsomebuildingowners•Leasesspacetorouteoperator•Paysutilitybills•Takesshareofrevenue•Somemaypurchasemachinesdirectlyfromadistributor•Purchasesmachines•Paysutilitybills•Paystousemachines23SalesBreakdown•DOEestimatesthatmulti‐familyhousingrepresents85%oftotalannualsales;theremaining15%aresoldtocoin‐operatedlaundries.85%15%Multi‐FamilyHousingCoin‐OperatedLaundriesImagesources:http://www.mcmakens.com/laundromat/Laundromat.JPGhttp://www.baymontinns.com/common/images/branded/BU/images/19385_b5.jpgAnnualSalesBreakdown24ShipmentsandHousingStarts•Historically,trendsinannualCCWshipmentshavecloselytrackedtrendsinnewmulti‐familyhousingconstruction.*Buildingswith5unitsormore0501001502002503003504000501001502002502000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Multi

‐ Family Housing Starts* (thousands)

Annual Shipments (thousands)YearTotalShipmentsTop‐LoadingFront‐LoadingMulti‐FamilyHousingStarts25RequestforCommentIssue 1: DOE requests information on historical productshipments and market share efficiency data, disaggregated byproduct class, for 2012 and 2013 as those data becomeavailable.26EnergyEfficiencyTrends•Shipment‐weightedefficiencyhasincreasedmodestlyoverthepastdecade.1.01.21.41.61.82.02.22.42.62002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Weighted MEFYearShipment‐WeightedEfficiencyTotalTop‐LoadingFront‐Loading27EfficiencyDistribution•DOEobservesnooverlapinefficiencylevelsbetweentop‐loadingandfront‐loadingCCWs.01234561.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7

Available ModelsMEFEfficiencyDistributionbyMEFTop‐LoadingFront‐Loading28TechnologyAssessment•DOEidentifiedfollowinginitialtechnologyoptionsthatcouldbeusedtoimproveenergyefficiencyinCCWs:InitialTechnologyOptionsforCCWs•Adaptivewaterfill•Ozonated laundering•Advancedagitationconceptsfortop‐loadingmachines•Polymerbeadcleaning•Capacityincrease•Sprayrinseorsimilarwater‐reducingrinsetechnology•Direct‐drivemotor•Temperature‐differentiatedpricingcontrols•Higherspinspeedstoreduceremainingmoisturecontent•Thermostaticallycontrolledmixingvalves•Motorefficiencyimprovements•Waterrecirculationloop29NOPR Rulemaking StageMarket &TechnologyScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy &Water UseCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forEquipmentPriceDeterminationLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisNOPRFrameworkDocumentFinalRuleConsumerSubgroupAnalysisEmissionsAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysis30ScreeningAnalysisPurpose•Identifyanytechnologiestobeeliminatedfromfurtherconsideration31ScreeningAnalysis•DOEscreenedoutozonated launderingandpolymerbeadcleaningonthebasisoftechnologicalfeasibilityandpracticabilitytomanufacture,install,andservice.•DOEalsoscreenedouttemperature‐differentiatedpricingcontrolsbecausethepotentialenergysavingsofsuchcontrolswoulddependonchangestoconsumerbehaviorafterthepointofmanufacture.DOEhasnodataonhowconsumerbehaviorwouldchangeaccordingly.FinalTechnologyOptionsforCCWs•Adaptivewaterfill•Motorefficiencyimprovements•Advancedagitationconceptsfortop‐loadingmachines•Sprayrinseorsimilarwater‐reducingrinsetechnology•Capacityincrease•Thermostaticallycontrolledmixingvalves•Direct‐drivemotor•Waterrecirculationloop•Higherspinspeedstoreduceremainingmoisturecontent32NOPR Rulemaking StageMarket &TechnologyScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy &Water UseCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forEquipmentPriceDeterminationLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisNOPRFrameworkDocumentFinalRuleConsumerSubgroupAnalysisEmissionsAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysis33EngineeringAnalysisPurpose•Evaluatedesignoptionsthatimproveefficiency•Characterizemanufacturerproductioncost(MPC)versusefficiencyforhigher‐efficiencyCCWs.DownstreamAnalysis• Life‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriodAnalysis• NationalImpactAnalysis• ManufacturerImpactAnalysisManufacturerProductionCost–EfficiencyRelationship

Manufacturer Production CostEfficiencyLevel34NewAppendixJ2Metrics•TheproposedstandardsarebasedontheMEFJ2andIWFmetricsinAppendixJ2.•ProductsonthemarketarecurrentlyratedaccordingtotheMEFandWFratingsinAppendixJ1.Note“J2”notationModifiedEnergyFactor(MEFJ2):incorporatesrevisedcapacitymeasurementfortop‐loaders;reviseddryingenergycalculationforallwashers.IntegratedWaterFactor(IWF):incorporateswaterconsumptionfromallwashtemperaturesintheenergytestcycle,ratherthanonlythecoldwash/coldrinsecycle.35EngineeringAnalysisProcess•TheengineeringanalysisprocessforCCWswasconductedasfollows:DevelopAppendixJ1EfficiencyLevelsChooseRepresentativeUnitsforAnalysisConductAppendixJ1andJ2TestingPerformTeardownstoDetermineCost‐EfficiencyRelationshipsTranslateJ1toJ2EfficiencyLevels36TestSampleUnits•DOEselected fiverepresentativeunitsforeachproductclass.•Selected unitsspannedtheentirerangeofefficienciesavailableonthemarket.02468101.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

WFMEFRatedMEFandWFValuesforTestedUnits(J1Ratings)Top‐LoadingFront‐LoadingDevelopAppendixJ1EfficiencyLevelsChooseRepresentativeUnitsforAnalysisConductAppendixJ1andJ2TestingPerformTeardownstoDetermineCost‐EfficiencyRelationshipsTranslateJ1toJ2EfficiencyLevels37AppendixJ1EfficiencyLevels•DOEdefinedthefollowingefficiencylevelsforanalysis,basedinitiallyonAppendixJ1ratings:•Top‐Loading:•Front‐Loading:DevelopAppendixJ1EfficiencyLevelsChooseRepresentativeUnitsforAnalysisConductAppendixJ1andJ2TestingPerformTeardownstoDetermineCost‐EfficiencyRelationshipsTranslateJ1toJ2EfficiencyLevelsEfficiency Level Description MEF WFBaseline DOEStandard 1.60 8.5Level1 GapFill 1.70 8.4Level2 MaximumAvailable 1.85 6.9Efficiency Level Description MEF WFBaseline DOEStandard 2.00 5.5Level1 FormerCEETier2 2.20 4.5Level2 FormerCEETier3 2.40 4.0Level3 MaximumAvailable 2.60 3.738AppendixJ1andJ2TestResults•DOEtestedeachunitusingbothAppendixJ1(MEF/WF)andAppendixJ2(MEFJ2/IWF).•DOEdeterminedequivalentAppendixJ2valuesforeachefficiencylevelbasedontheJ1/J2translations.•Note:ThefollowingslideshighlighttheMEFtranslationsonly.DOEusedthesamemethodologyfortheWF/IWFtranslations,asdescribedinChapter5oftheTechnicalSupportDocument.DevelopAppendixJ1EfficiencyLevelsChooseRepresentativeUnitsforAnalysisConductAppendixJ1andJ2TestingPerformTeardownstoDetermineCost‐EfficiencyRelationshipsTranslateJ1toJ2EfficiencyLevels39•ThefollowingplotshowstheJ1/J2testresultsfortop‐loadingCCWs:AppendixJ1andJ2TestResults:Top‐LoadingDevelopAppendixJ1EfficiencyLevelsChooseRepresentativeUnitsforAnalysisConductAppendixJ1andJ2TestingPerformTeardownstoDetermineCost‐EfficiencyRelationshipsTranslateJ1toJ2EfficiencyLevels1.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0

Equivalent MEF (Appendix J2)RatedMEF(AppendixJ1)Top‐LoadingAppendixJ2vs.AppendixJ1ManualWaterFillAdaptiveWaterFillLevel2:1.55MEFJ2Level1:1.35MEFJ2Baseline:1.15MEFJ240AppendixJ1toJ2Translation:Top‐Loading•DOEdefinedtheAppendixJ2efficiencylevelsfortop‐loadingCCWsasfollows:*Anindividualmodel’sEfficiencyLevelunderAppendixJ1maynotcorrespondtosametheEfficiencyLevelunderAppendixJ2.EfficiencyLevel*Description AppendixJ1 AppendixJ2MEF WF MEFJ2IWFBaseline DOEStandard 1.60 8.51.15 8.9Level1 GapFill 1.70 8.41.35 8.8Level2 Max. Available 1.85 6.91.55 6.9DevelopAppendixJ1EfficiencyLevelsChooseRepresentativeUnitsforAnalysisConductAppendixJ1andJ2TestingPerformTeardownstoDetermineCost‐EfficiencyRelationshipsTranslateJ1toJ2EfficiencyLevels1.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0

Equivalent MEF (Appendix J2)RatedMEF(AppendixJ1)Top‐LoadingAppendixJ2vs.AppendixJ141AppendixJ1andJ2TestResults:Front‐LoadingDevelopAppendixJ1EfficiencyLevelsChooseRepresentativeUnitsforAnalysisConductAppendixJ1andJ2TestingPerformTeardownstoDetermineCost‐EfficiencyRelationshipsTranslateJ1toJ2EfficiencyLevels1.41.61.82.02.22.41.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

Equivalent MEF (Appendix J2)RatedMEF(AppendixJ1)Front‐LoadingAppendixJ2vs.AppendixJ1VirtualModelAdaptiveWaterFillLevel3:2.20MEFJ2Level2:2.00MEFJ2Level1:1.80MEFJ2Baseline:1.65MEFJ2•ThefollowingplotshowstheJ1/J2testresultsforfront‐loadingCCWs:42AppendixJ1toJ2Translation:Front‐Loading•DOEdefinedtheAppendixJ2efficiencylevelsforfront‐loadingCCWsasfollows:EfficiencyLevelDescription AppendixJ1 AppendixJ2MEF WF MEFJ2IWFBaselineDOEStandard 2.00 5.51.65 5.2Level1FormerCEETier2 2.20 4.51.80 4.5Level2FormerCEETier3 2.40 4.02.00 4.1Level3Max.Available 2.60 3.72.20 3.9DevelopAppendixJ1EfficiencyLevelsChooseRepresentativeUnitsforAnalysisConductAppendixJ1andJ2TestingPerformTeardownstoDetermineCost‐EfficiencyRelationshipsTranslateJ1toJ2EfficiencyLevels1.41.61.82.02.22.41.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

Equivalent MEF (Appendix J2)RatedMEF(AppendixJ1)Front‐LoadingAppendixJ2vs.AppendixJ143Cost‐EfficiencyRelationships•DOEcalculatedmanufacturerproductioncosts(MPCs)bydisassemblingCCWsfrommultiplemanufacturersandcreatingbillsofmaterials(BOMs).•BOMsdescribetheproductcomponentsindetailandincludeestimatesofmaterials,labor,capitalequipment,andoverheadcosts.•Chapter5oftheTSDprovidesadditionaldetailsonDOE’steardownandcostmodelmethodology.DevelopAppendixJ1EfficiencyLevelsChooseRepresentativeUnitsforAnalysisConductAppendixJ1andJ2TestingPerformTeardownstoDetermineCost‐EfficiencyRelationshipsTranslateJ1toJ2EfficiencyLevels44Cost‐EfficiencyRelationships•DOEcreatedcost‐efficiencycurvesforeachmajormanufacturer•DOEcombinedmanufacturercurvesbasedonestimatedmarketsharetodevelopaweighted‐averagecost‐efficiencycurveforeachproductclass.DevelopAppendixJ1EfficiencyLevelsChooseRepresentativeUnitsforAnalysisConductAppendixJ1andJ2TestingPerformTeardownstoDetermineCost‐EfficiencyRelationshipsTranslateJ1toJ2EfficiencyLevelsWeightedAverage

$MPCEfficiencyLevelManufacturerCurves

$MPCEfficiencyLevelManuf. #1Manuf. #2Manuf. #345Cost‐EfficiencyRelationships:Top‐Loading•Cost‐efficiencyresultsfortop‐loadingCCWs:DevelopAppendixJ1EfficiencyLevelsChooseRepresentativeUnitsforAnalysisConductAppendixJ1andJ2TestingPerformTeardownstoDetermineCost‐EfficiencyRelationshipsTranslateJ1toJ2EfficiencyLevelsAppendixJ2EfficiencyLevelIncrementalCost(2012$)Cost‐EfficiencyCurveBaseline•1.15MEFJ2•8.9IWF‐‐Level1•1.35MEFJ2•8.8IWF$0.00Level2•1.55MEFJ2•6.9IWF$38.89$0$10$20$30$40$501.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

Incremental Cost (2012$)MEFJ246Cost‐EfficiencyRelationships:Top‐LoadingTop‐LoadingHighlights:•$0incrementalcostatEfficiencyLevel(EL)1.DOEtestingconfirmedthatmanufacturersusesoftware‐relatedcontrolstrategiestoachieveEL1.•Largejumpto$38.89atEL2.Majorplatformoverhaulrequiredtoachievethisefficiencylevel.DevelopAppendixJ1EfficiencyLevelsChooseRepresentativeUnitsforAnalysisConductAppendixJ1andJ2TestingPerformTeardownstoDetermineCost‐EfficiencyRelationshipsTranslateJ1toJ2EfficiencyLevels$0$10$20$30$40$501.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

Incremental Cost (2012$)MEFJ247Cost‐EfficiencyRelationships:Front‐Loading•Cost‐efficiencyresultsforfront‐loadingCCWs:DevelopAppendixJ1EfficiencyLevelsChooseRepresentativeUnitsforAnalysisConductAppendixJ1andJ2TestingPerformTeardownstoDetermineCost‐EfficiencyRelationshipsTranslateJ1toJ2EfficiencyLevelsAppendixJ2EfficiencyLevelIncrementalCost(2012$)Cost‐EfficiencyCurveBaseline•1.65MEFJ2•5.2IWF‐‐Level1•1.80MEFJ2•4.5IWF$0.00Level2•2.00MEFJ2•4.1IWF$0.31Level3•2.20MEFJ2•3.9IWF$19.55$0$5$10$15$20$251.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4

Incremental Cost (2012$)MEFJ248Cost‐EfficiencyRelationships:Front‐LoadingFront‐LoadingHighlights:•$0incrementalcostatEfficiencyLevel(EL)1.NoBaselineLevelmodelsavailableonthemarket;EL1representseffectivebaselineonthemarket.•$0.31costtoachieveEL2.Mostlysoftware‐relatedchanges.•$19.55costforEL3.Moresignificantplatformchangesincludingmotorupgradeandlargertubsize.DevelopAppendixJ1EfficiencyLevelsChooseRepresentativeUnitsforAnalysisConductAppendixJ1andJ2TestingPerformTeardownstoDetermineCost‐EfficiencyRelationshipsTranslateJ1toJ2EfficiencyLevels$0$5$10$15$20$251.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4

Incremental Cost (2012$)MEFJ249RequestforCommentIssue 9: DOE requests comment on the assumptions appliedin the engineering analysis regarding the baseline efficiencylevels and technology cost assessment.Specifically, for the top-loading product class, DOE used thebaseline level on the 1.60 MEF and the 8.5 WF requirementsspecified by current Federal energy conservation standards,which became effective for commercial clothes washersmanufactured on or after January 8, 2013.For the front-loading product class, DOE established thebaseline level based on the 2.00 MEF and 5.5 WFrequirements specified by current Federal energy conservationstandards.50PublicMeetingTopics1History|RulemakingProcessOverview2Market&Technology|Screening|Engineering3Markups|Energy&WaterUse4Life‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriodAnalysis5Shipments|NationalImpactAnalysis6ManufacturerImpactAnalysis7Misc.NOPRAnalyses8OtherIssuesandClosingRemarks51NOPR Rulemaking StageMarket &TechnologyScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy &Water UseCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkupsAnalysisLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisNOPRFrameworkDocumentFinalRuleConsumerSubgroupAnalysisEmissionsAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysis52MarkupsAnalysisDistributionChannels,InputsandResults•AccordingtodatafromtheConsortiumforEnergyEfficiency,theoverwhelmingmajorityofequipmentissoldthroughdistributorsorrouteoperators.−Laundromatsgenerallypurchaseequipmentthroughdistributors.−Multi‐familyhousingandlargeinstitutionsgenerallyleaseequipmentthroughrouteoperators•Basedmarkupcalculationsonlyonthedistributionchannelinvolvingdistributors.−Assumedresultingequipmentpriceswouldberepresentativeofpricespaidbyconsumersacquiringequipmentfromrouteoperators.•DOEusedanationalaveragemarkupforsalestaxof1.07•Overallbaselinemarkup=1.96;overallincrementalmarkup=1.62−Baseline markups relate price to cost prior to a change in efficiency; covers all ofdistributor’s expense plus profit−Incremental markups cover only expensesthat increase due to an increase inequipment efficiency.ManufacturerDistributorLaundromatRouteOperatorMulti‐FamilyHousing53NOPR Rulemaking StageMarket &TechnologyScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy & WaterUseCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forEquipmentPriceDeterminationLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisNOPRFrameworkDocumentFinalRuleRegulatoryImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisConsumerSubgroupAnalysisEmissionsAnalysis54EnergyandWaterUseCharacterizationApproach•DOEdevelopedaverageenergyandwaterusevalues.•Testprocedureutilizessinglevaluebasedonresidentialuse•DOEestablishappropriaterangeofusagespecifictoCCWinthefieldfortwoapplications–Multi‐familybuildings–Laundromats•Basedonper‐cycleenergyandwaterusemultipliedbythecyclesperyear•Numberofcyclesperdaybasedonvariousstudies–Multi‐family:Average=3.0;Range=1.5to4.3–Laundromats:Average=4.1;Range=2.8to6.055EnergyandWaterUseCharacterizationAnnual Usageper Application Type(cycles/year)xMachine,Water Heater& DryerFuel TypesConsumptionPer CycleAnnual Energy Use byEfficiency Level andApplication Type56RequestforCommentIssue 2: DOE requests comments, information and data oncharacterizing CCW usage for establishing the energyconsumption of CCWs. Specifically, whether there are anydata for on-premise laundry usage that could improve theusage characterization.57PublicMeetingTopics1History|RulemakingProcessOverview2Market&Technology|Screening|Engineering3Markups|Energy&WaterUse4Life‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriodAnalysis5Shipments|NationalImpactAnalysis6ManufacturerImpactAnalysis7Misc.NOPRAnalyses8OtherIssuesandClosingRemarks58NOPR Rulemaking StageMarket &TechnologyScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy &Water UseCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forEquipmentPriceDeterminationLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisNOPRFrameworkDocumentFinalRuleConsumerSubgroupAnalysisEmissionsAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysis59Life‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriodAnalyses•Purpose:–Assessthenetlife‐cyclecost(LCC)impactsofdifferingefficiencylevelsontheconsumer.•Method:–LCCequalsconsumerpriceplusthesumofannualoperatingcosts(includingrepairandmaintenancecosts)discountedtoaparticularbaseyear.–Economicevaluationisfromtheconsumerperspective.–AnalysisimplementedisinanExcel®spreadsheet.–ResultsareexpressedasLCCdifference(baselineminusstandardlevel).–PaybackPeriod(PBP)isalsocalculatedandreportedinthisanalysis.–Simplepaybackequalstheincrementalfirstcostdividedbytheoperatingcostsavingsfor1year.ConsumerLife‐CycleCost(BaselineandStandardsCases)LCCImpacts(DifferencebetweenBaselineandStandard)OperatingCost(Sum&DiscounttoPresentValue)FirstCost(Consumerprice&Installation)60Life‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriodAnalysesApproach•MonteCarlosimulationanalysistobeused–Characterizethevariabilityanduncertaintyassociatedwiththeinputsusingprobabilitydistributions.–StudieswereusedtocharacterizethevariabilityinwasherusageinMulti‐familyandLaundromatapplications.–Probabilitydistributionswereusedtocharacterizetheuncertaintyinotheroperatingcostinputs(e.g.,discountrates,equipmentlifetimes)andmanufacturingcosts.•OneLCCandPBPanalysisresultperproductclass–AnalysisconductedforeachproposedproductclasstobeanalyzedindetailintheEngineeringAnalysis.•Developbasecaseefficiencydistributionstoavoidoverstatingthebenefitsfromincreasingproductefficiency.–Marketsharedata(orbasecaseefficiencydistributions)showthepercentageofconsumersalreadypurchasingefficientproducts.–DOEdevelopedefficiencydistributionsbasedonhistoricaldata.61Life‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriodAnalysesEnergyandWaterPrices•ElectricityPrices–BasedontheEnergyInformationAdministration(EIA)Form861Data.–Developedfor27StatesandGroupofStates(consistentwith2009RECS)•NaturalGasPrices–BasedondatafromEIA’sNaturalGasMonthly.–Developedfor27StatesandGroupofStates(consistentwith2009RECS).•WaterandWastewaterPrices–BasedondatafromRaftelis ConsultantsandAmericanWaterWorksAssociation(AWWA).–Developedfor4CensusRegionsduetodatalimitations.•EnergyPriceForecasts–Basedon2013AnnualEnergyOutlook.•WaterandWastewaterPriceForecasts–Projectionsfrom1970‐2012basedonCPInationalwaterpriceindex(U.S.cityaverage).–Priceprojectionsto2047basedonaveragegrowthratefrom1970‐2012.62Life‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriodAnalysesInstallation,RepairandMaintenanceCosts;DiscountRatesandEquipmentLifetime•InstallationCost–Basecost=$223basedonRSMeans•RepairandMaintenanceCost–Annualizedcostafunctionof1⁄2consumerequipmentpricedividedbyequipmentlifetime.•DiscountRates–Basedonthefinancecostofraisingfundstopurchaseappliances.•Financialcostofanydebtincurredtopurchaseequipment.•Opportunitycostofanyequityusedtopurchaseequipment.–Calculatedfromtheweighted‐averagecostofcapitaltothefirm(WACC)toobtainequityanddebtfinancing.–Weighted‐averagerealvalue=5.7%.•EquipmentLifetime–BasedonvarioussourcesincludingAppliancemagazineandpastDOETSDs.•Minimum=7(Multi‐Family),5(Laundromat)•Average=11.3(Multi‐Family),7.1(Laundromat)•Maximum=15.5(Multi‐Family),9.3(Laundromat)–AllequipmentlifetimescharacterizedwithWeibull distribution.63Life‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriodAnalysesEquipmentAssignmentintheBaseCase•Avoidsoverstatingthebenefitsfromincreasingequipmentefficiencybyshowingthepercentageofconsumersalreadypurchasingefficientequipment.Top‐Loading Front‐LoadingLevelMEFJ2IWF MarketShare* LevelMEFJ2IWF MarketShare*Baseline 1.15 8.90 99.5% Baseline 1.65 5.20 28.0%1 1.35 8.80 0.3% 1 1.80 4.50 34.0%2 1.55 6.90 0.3% 2 2.00 4.10 38.0%3 2.20 3.90 0.0%*BasedonAHAMData64LCC‐PBPAnalysis:Results– TL:EL1;FL:EL2(TSL2)LCCandPBPanalysisresultsforeachCCWEquipmentClassEquipmentClassAvg.LCC2012$Avg.LCCSavings2012$NetCost%NoImpact %NetBenefit%MedianPBPYearsMulti‐FamilyTL 5,450259 0 1 99 0.0Multi‐Family FL 4,335 285 4 39 61 0.0Laundromat TL 4,900 145 5 1 99 0.0LaundromatFL 4,030 235 0 39 61 0.065RequestforCommentIssue 3: DOE requests comments, information and data onthe equipment lifetimes developed for multi-family andlaundromat applications for both front-loading and top-loadingCCW.DOE welcomes further input on the multi-family, commercialclothes washer lifetimes of11.25 years on average, a 15.5year maximum, and a 7.0 year minimum.DOE also welcomes further input on the laundromat averagelifetime assumption of 7.125 years on average, a 9.3 yearmaximum, and a 5.0 year minimum.66RequestforCommentIssue 5: DOE requests comments, information, and data onthe repair and maintenance costs for front-loading and toploading CCW equipment classes. Specifically, whether repaircosts for CCW equipment would increase at the efficiencylevels indicated in today’s proposed rule due to any changes inthe design, materials, and components used in order to complywith the new efficiency standards.67PublicMeetingTopics1History|RulemakingProcessOverview2Market&Technology|Screening|Engineering3Markups|Energy&WaterUse4Life‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriodAnalysis5Shipments|NationalImpactAnalysis6ManufacturerImpactAnalysis7Misc.NOPRAnalyses8OtherIssuesandClosingRemarks68NOPR Rulemaking StageMarket &TechnologyScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy &Water UseCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forEquipmentPriceDeterminationLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisNOPRFrameworkDocumentFinalRuleConsumerSubgroupAnalysisEmissionsAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysis69ShipmentsAnalysisPurpose•ShipmentsAnalysis–Toestimatecommercialclotheswashershipmentsovertime.•NationalImpactAnalysis–ToestimatetheNationalEnergySavings(NES)fromcommercialclotheswasherenergyconservationstandardsatdifferentefficiencylevels.–Toestimatethenationaleconomicimpactonthenation(ortheNetPresentValue(NPV))fromcommercialclotheswasherenergyconservationstandardsatdifferentefficiencylevels.70ShipmentsAnalysisApproach•Estimatebase‐caseshipmentsforecasts(2018–2047)–Developashipmentsmodelthataccountsforshipmentsto:•Newconstruction:Newhousingconstructionforecastsmultipliedbyhistoricalratesofequipmentownership.•Replacements:Equipmentretirementfunctions(equipmentlifetimes)appliedtoequipmentstock.•Historicalshipmentsusedtocalibrateshipmentsmodel.–Non‐replacements(retiredunitsnotreplaced).•Estimatestandards‐caseshipmentsforecasts(2018–2047)–Developedwithsamedataasusedtoestimatebase‐caseforecasts.–Examinedpurchasepriceandoperatingcostchangesduetostandardsthrougha‘relative’priceelasticityofdemand.•Noconclusivepriceimpactonpurchases.•Crosspriceelasticitydescribingtheinteractionsbetweentop‐loadingandfront‐loadingwasherpurchasesduetopriceincreaseswereconsidered–Marketshareforecastincludedcross‐priceforecastfashionedafterresidentialwasherdata71ShipmentsAnalysisProductClassMarketShares:ClothesWashers•DOEfitAHAMtop‐loadingandfront‐loadinghistoricalmarketsharewithamodelbasedonshiftsoccurringasaresultofcross‐priceelasticity.•Themodelshowsanincreasingmarketshareforfront‐loadingasthetop‐loadingproductclassdecreasesbytheendoftheanalysisperiod.•MarketShareForecastbyEquipmentClassfor(TL:EL1;&FL:EL2)‐TSL272ShipmentsAnalysisResultsResultsTop-Loading WashersFront-Loading Washers73NationalImpactAnalysisApproach•Nationalenergysavingscalculatedfrom2018‐2047.•NationalNPVcalculatedforequipmentshipmentsenteringthebuildingstockfrom2018‐2047.•Basecaseincorporatesthepenetrationofhigherefficiencyequipment.•Standards“rollup”inefficientequipmentbutdonotaffectefficientequipment.•Onceastandardisinplace,oldequipmentgoesoutoftheinventoryaccordingtothebase‐caseefficiencymix.Newequipmentissoldtoreplaceequipmentaccordingtothenewefficiencymix.•Usenationalaverageequipmentprices,annualenergyuse,energyprices,annualrepairandmaintenanceexpendituresfromLCCanalysis.Streamsofenergyuseandtotalcostscalculatedoveranalysistimeperiodsandcostsdiscountedtothepresent.Front‐LoadingWashersCSL TSLEfficienciesMarketSharesBaseCaseTrialStandardLevelMEFJ2IWF 1 2 3Baseline‐1.65 5.20 28.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%11 1.80 4.48 34.0% 62.0% 0.0% 0.0%22 2.00 4.13 38.0% 38.0% 100.0% 0.0%33 2.20 3.92 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%SWEF(MEFJ2)*1.83 1.88 2.00 2.20SWEF(IWF)4.55 4.35 4.13 3.92* Shipment-weighted efficiency (SWEF) , expressed in terms of MEFJ274RequestforCommentIssue 4: DOE requests comments, information and data onthe base case efficiency distributions of CCWs. Given thatmarket share efficiency data for 2010-2011 were used todevelop estimated base case efficiency distributions in thecompliance year (2018), DOE seeks more historical marketshare efficiency data which would be useful for projecting thebase case and standards case efficiency distributions for theanalysis period.75RequestforCommentIssue 10: DOE welcomes stakeholder input and estimates onthe effect of amended standards on future CCW equipmentshipments. DOE also welcomes input and data on the crosselasticity estimates used in the analysis.Specifically, to estimate theimpact on shipments of the priceincrease for the considered efficiency levels, DOE used across price elasticity approachto measure the change in themarket share of top-loaders caused by a change in the price offront loaders.Issue 7: DOE requests comment on any potential reboundeffect with more efficient CCW equipment.76TrialStandardLevelsSelectionofTrialStandardLevels•Purpose–Todevelopalistofstandardlevelsfromwhichimpactsareweighedandaproposedstandardlevelisselected.–Eachtrialstandardlevelconsistsofasetofpotentialminimumefficiencylevelscoveringallequipmentclasses,andmayvarybetweenequipmentclasses;and–NOPRanalysesassessimpactsfortrialstandardlevels(notequipmentclasses).•Method–TrialstandardlevelsareassembledfromtheequipmentclassesidentifiedintheNOPR.–Eachtrialstandardlevelconsistsofthestandardlevelsfromeachequipmentclassthatmeetsacertainsetofcriteria.•TSL1:Firststandardlevelistakenfromeachequipmentclassrepresentingleastsignificantdesignchange.•TSL2:StandardlevelsforeachequipmentclassisselectedasanintermediatelevelbetweenTSL3andTSL1torepresenttheadditionalefficiencylevelthathasbeenanalyzedforFront‐loadingequipmentclass•TSL3:Standardlevelrepresentsthemaximumtechnologicallyfeasible(“max‐tech”)improvementsinenergyefficiencyforeachequipmentclass.77TrialStandardLevelsTrialStandardLevelsfortheNOPREquipmentTypeEfficiencyLevels(MEFJ2/IWF)Baseline TSL1 TSL2 TSL3FL:EL0TL:EL0FL:EL1TL:EL1FL:EL2TL:EL1FL:EL3TL:EL2FrontLoadingCCWUnits1.65/5.5 1.80/4.5 2.00/4.0 2.20/3.7TopLoadingCCWUnits1.15/8.9 1.35/8.8 1.55/6.978NIAResultsTSL1 TSL2 TSL3NationalFull‐Fuel‐CycleEnergySavings(quads)30‐YearShipments0.10 0.11 0.12NPVofconsumerbenefits(billion2012$)7%DiscountRate(30‐YearShipments)0.31 0.41 0.853%DiscountRate(30‐YearShipments)0.72 0.94 1.99CumulativeShipments(millionunits)FrontLoading(BaseCase=2.8million)2.82.8 2.9TopLoading(BaseCase=3.5million)3.53.5 3.4Total(BaseCase=6.3million)6.3 6.3 6.379PublicMeetingTopics1History|RulemakingProcessOverview2Market&Technology|Screening|Engineering3Markups|Energy&WaterUse4Life‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriodAnalysis5Shipments|NationalImpactAnalysis6ManufacturerImpactAnalysis7Misc.NOPRAnalyses8OtherIssuesandClosingRemarks80NOPR Rulemaking StageMarket &TechnologyScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy &Water UseCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forEquipmentPriceDeterminationLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisNOPRFrameworkDocumentFinalRuleConsumerSubgroupAnalysisEmissionsAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysis81•Purpose–Toassesstheimpactsofstandardsonmanufacturers;–Toidentifyandestimateimpactsonmanufacturersubgroupsthatmaybemoreseverelyaffectedthantheindustryasawhole;and–Toexaminetheimpactsondirectemployment,productcompetition,manufacturingcapacity,andcumulativeregulatoryburdensontheindustry.•Methodology–Analyzeindustrycashflowandindustrynetpresentvalue(INPV)throughuseoftheGovernmentRegulatoryImpactModel(GRIM);and–InterviewmanufacturerstorefineinputstotheGRIM,developsubgroupanalyses,andaddressqualitativeissues.MIA:Overview82•Phase1–DOEcreatesanindustryprofiletocharacterizethemarketandidentifyimportantissuesthatrequirefurtherinvestigation.•Phase2–DOEpreparesanindustrycashflowmodelandaninterviewquestionnairetoguidesubsequentdiscussionswithmanufacturers.•Phase3–DOEinterviewsmanufacturersandassessestheimpactsofstandardsbothquantitatively(usingtheGRIM)andqualitatively(impactsonemployment,competition,manufacturingcapacity,andregulatoryburden).MIA:MethodologyIndustryprofileDeveloppreliminaryGRIMDevelopinterviewguideInterviews& industrysubgroupanalysesAssessemployment,competition,capacity, ®ulatoryburdensPhase 2Phase 3Phase 183•MarketModelChallenges–Manufacturersemphasizedthattheprofitstructureofthecommercialclotheswashermarket,whichemphasizesmaximizingthenumberof“turnsperday,”mayconflictwithincreasedlevelsofproductefficiencyiftheefficiencyincreasesleadtohigher‐capacitytubvolumesorlongercycletimes—bothofwhichwouldreducethetotalnumberofturnsperday.•ConsumerBehavior–Manufacturersexpressedconcernthatenergyefficiencyeffortsareinherentlylesseffectiveinthecommercialclotheswashermarketthaninmarketsforresidentialappliances,includingresidentialclotheswashers.•CustomerSatisfactionImpacts–Manufacturersstressedthatfutureenergyconservationstandardswouldhaveanadverseimpactoncleaningperformanceandreliability,andwouldthuscompromiseconsumerutility.MIA:KeyIssues(1of2)84•TechnologyLimits–SomemanufacturersemphasizedthattechnologyhasnotchangedsincethelastcommercialclotheswashersstandardcameintoeffectinJanuary2013andthatproductscurrentlyatthemaxtecharenottrulycommercialproducts.•CompetitiveImpacts–Manufacturersexpressedconcernsrelatingtothedisproportionatecompetitiveimpactsonmanufacturersubgroupsresultingfromanamendedstandard.MIA:KeyIssues(2of2)85•DOEmodeledtwomarkupscenarios.–PreservationofGrossMarginPercentage–PreservationofOperatingProfitManufacturerImpactAnalysis:MarkupScenariosLowerBoundProfitabilityScenario(MostSevereforManufacturers)UpperBoundProfitabilityScenario(LeastSevereforManufacturers)PreservationofOperatingProfitMarkupScenarioPreservationofGrossMarginScenario86ManufacturerImpactAnalysis:IndustryINPVResultsSummaryofTSL2:•ExpectedINPVchangeof‐4.9%•Productconversioncoststotal$10.2Mfortheindustry•BecausethedesignoptionsassociatedwithTSL2relatetocontrolchangesanddifferentcycleoptions,ratherthanmaterialchangestotheequipmentitself,nearlyalloftheimpactsonINPVatTSL2canbeattributedtothe$10.2millioninproductconversioncosts.SummaryofResultsUnits BaseCaseTrialStandardLevel123INPV2012$Millions 124.2 118.3 118.2 28.8to33.0ChangeinINPV2012$Millions‐(5.9) (6.0) (95.4)to(91.2)(%)‐(4.7) (4.9) (76.8)to(73.4)TotalConversionCosts2012$Millions‐9.9 10.2 125.687ManufacturerImpactAnalysis:IndustryINPVResultsIssue 16: DOE requests comment on the estimatedmagnitude of capital and product conversion costs.88•TheSmallBusinessAdministration(SBA)hassetasizethresholdof1,000employeesorlessforthecategory“OtherCommercialandServiceIndustryMachineryManufacturing.”•DOEsearchedseveralpubliclyavailabledatabasestoidentifyanypotentialdomesticsmallbusinessmanufacturers.–TheseincludedtheSmallBusinessAdministration(SBA),DOE’sComplianceCertificationManagementSystem(CCMS),varioustradeassociationlists,andDun&Bradstreet.•DOEidentifiednosmallbusinessCCWmanufacturers.ManufacturerImpactAnalysis:SmallBusinessImpacts89•AlthoughnotasmallbusinesspertheSBAdefinition,onemanufacturerwasidentifiedashavingsignificantcommercialclotheswashermarketshare,butmuchlowerrevenuesthanitsdiversifiedcompetitors.Thismanufacturer’sbusinessishighlyconcentratedintheproductionofbothcommercialandresidentiallaundryproducts.•DOEassignedthismanufactureritsownsub‐category,the“Low‐VolumeManufacturer”(LVM),toevaluatethedisproportionateimpactsofamendedstandardsforcommercialclotheswashersonthismanufacturer.•TheLVMcouldexperiencedisproportionateimpactsrelativetolargercompetitorsdueto:–Lowertotalproductionvolumes/Relativefocusoncommerciallaundrymarket–Abilitytoaccesscapital–PricingforkeycomponentsManufacturerImpactAnalysis:LVMImpacts90ManufacturerImpactAnalysis:SmallBusinessandLVMImpactsIssue 17:DOE seeks comment on the number of small manufacturers ofcommercial clothes washers; andon the potential impacts of amendedstandards on those small businesses and on the LVM.91DOEanalyzedthepotentialchangeinproductionworkersresultingfromanenergyconservationstandard.–Inthebasecase,DOEestimatestheindustryemploys334productionworkers.–UpperBound:AtTSLs1and2,thevastmajorityofdesignoptionsconsistofcomponentswaps.Thus,DOEdoesnotexpectanychangesinemploymentiftotalindustryshipmentsremainstable.However,upperboundshowsemploymentgrowthatTSL3duetoincreasesinlaborcontentofequipment.–Lowerbound:DOEmodelstheworstcasescenarioofjoblossduetoshiftstoforeignproduction.However,basedoninterviews,thisdoesnotappeartobealikelyscenarioformostmanufacturersatTSL2.ManufacturerImpactAnalysis:DirectEmploymentImpactsIssue18:DOErequestscommentonexpectedchangestodirectemploymentinthecommercialclotheswashersindustryasaresultofamendedstandards.TSL1 TSL2 TSL3ChangeinDirectEmployment0‐(334)0‐(334)30‐(334)92ManufacturerImpactAnalysis:CumulativeRegulatoryBurdenIssue 14:DOE seeks input on the cumulative regulatory burden that maybe imposed on industry either from recently implemented rulemakings forthese products or other rulemakings that affect the same industry.•DOEconductedananalysisofcumulativeregulatoryburdensimpactingcommercialclotheswashermanufacturersinwhichitlooksatothersignificantproduct‐specificregulationsthatwilltakeeffect3yearsbeforeorafterthe2018compliancedateoftheamendedenergyconservationstandardsforcommercialclotheswashers.•DOEalsonotesthatamendedstandardsforCCWsbecameeffectiveonJanuary8,2013.•Chapter12oftheTSDprovidesafulldescriptionofcumulativeregulatoryburdens.93PublicMeetingTopics1History|RulemakingProcessOverview2Market&Technology|Screening|Engineering3Markups|Energy&WaterUse4Life‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriodAnalysis5Shipments|NationalImpactAnalysis6ManufacturerImpactAnalysis7Misc.NOPRAnalyses8OtherIssuesandClosingRemarks94NOPR Rulemaking StageMarket &TechnologyScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy &Water UseCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forEquipmentPriceDeterminationLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisNOPRFrameworkDocumentFinalRuleConsumerSubgroupAnalysisEmissionsAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysis95ConsumerSubgroupAnalysis•Purpose–Toevaluatetheeconomicimpactsofstandardsonconsumersubgroupswhomaybedisproportionatelyimpactedcomparedwiththegeneraluserpopulation.•Method–DOEidentifiedsmallbusinessesthatcouldbedisproportionatelyaffected,andexaminedtheimpactofproposedstandardsonthem.–DOEusedtheLCCspreadsheetmodeltodeterminetheimpactonthesesubgroups.•Output–LCCsavingsandsimplepaybackperiod(inyears)fortheidentifiedcustomersubgroup.–Determinedthatthesubgroupwasnotdisproportionatelyimpactedbythestandard.96NOPR Rulemaking StageMarket &TechnologyScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy &Water UseCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forEquipmentPriceDeterminationLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisNOPRFrameworkDocumentFinalRuleConsumerSubgroupAnalysisEmissionsAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysis97EmissionsAnalysis•DOEestimatesthecumulativeemissionsreductionsresultingfromamendedenergyconservationstandards.DOEconsidersfull‐fuel‐cycleemissions.Thus,bothpowerplantemissionsand“upstream”emissionsareincludedintheanalysis.–Includesfugitivemethaneemissions.Cumulative Emissions Reduction for Potential Standards for CommercialClothes WashersTrialStandardLevel12 3CO2(millionmetrictons)4.94 5.87 8.84SO2(thousandtons)3.99 4.36 8.69NOX(thousandtons)7.26 9.10 11.14Hg(tons)0.00 0.01 0.01N2O(thousandtons)0.07 0.08 0.15CH4(thousandtons)40.77 50.14 66.16Details of the Emissions Analysis can be found in chapter15 of the TSD98EmissionsAnalysis:Monetization•DOEusesthemostcurrentSocialCostofCarbon(SCC)valuesdevelopedbyinteragencyprocess.–SCCisintendedtobeamonetarymeasureoftheincrementaldamageresultingfromgreenhousegas(GHG)emissions,includingbutnotlimitedtoagriculturalproductivityloss,humanhealtheffects,propertydamagefromrisingsealevel,andchangesintheecosystem.•Themostrecent(2013)U.S.governmentinteragencyestimatesoftheSCCforemissionsin2015are$11.8,$39.7,$61.2,and$117.0permetrictonavoided(2012dollars).–TheSCCinconstantdollarsincreasesovertime•DOEalsomonetizestheNOx emissionsreductionsresultingfromamendedstandards.Themediumestimateis$2639pertonofNOx.Details of the EmissionsMonetization Analysiscan be found in chapter16 of the TSD99EmissionsMonetizationResults:PresentValueofCO2Reduction(million2012$)TSLSCC: $11.8permetricton@5%discountrate,AverageSCC:$39.7permetricton@3%discountrate,averageSCC:$61.2permetricton@2.5%discountrate,averageSCC:$117.0permetricton@3%discountrate,average132.7 152 242 469238.7 180 287 556358.8 272 434 841Note:Foreachofthefourcases,thecorrespondingSCCvalueforemissionsin2015is$11.8,$39.7,$61.2and$117.0permetrictonDetails of the EmissionsMonetization Analysis canbe found in chapter 16 ofthe TSD100RequestforCommentIssue 13:DOE seeks comment on the application of the new SCCvalues used to determine the social benefits of CO2emissionsreductions over the rulemaking analysis period.The rulemaking analysis period covers from 2018 to 2047 plus anadditional 50 years to account for the lifetime operation of theequipment purchased in that period.In particular, DOE solicits comment on its derivation of SCC valuesafter 2050, where the agency applied the average annual growthrate of the SCC estimates in 2040−2050 associated with each ofthe four sets of values.101NOPR Rulemaking StageMarket &TechnologyScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy &Water UseCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forEquipmentPriceDeterminationLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisNOPRFrameworkDocumentFinalRuleConsumerSubgroupAnalysisEmissionsAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysis102UtilityImpactAnalysis•Purpose−Toestimatethechangesinelectricinstalledcapacityandgenerationthatresultforeachtrialstandardlevel(TSL).•Method−TheNESisusedtoprovideastreamofenergysavingsovertheanalysisperiod−TheEnergyInformationAdministration’sNationalEnergyModelingSystem(NEMS)ismodifiedtorepresenttheimpactsofDOEsstandardsprogram(modifiedcodeisknownasNEMS‐BT)•Output−Reductionsintotalelectricitygeneration−Reductionsinprimaryfuel(coal,naturalgasetc.)consumption−Changestothemixofelectricitygenerationbyfueltype−ChangestototalinstalledcapacityDetails of the Utility Impact Analysiscan be found in chapter 14 of the TSD103NOPR Rulemaking StageMarket &TechnologyScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy &Water UseCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forEquipmentPriceDeterminationLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisNOPRFrameworkDocumentFinalRuleConsumerSubgroupAnalysisEmissionsAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysis104EmploymentAnalysis•Purpose−Toestimatethenetjobscreatedoreliminatednationallyasaconsequenceofamendedenergyconservationstandards.Thisincludesdirectandindirectemploymentimpacts.•Method−UsestheImSET (ImpactofSectorEnergyTechnologies)modelfortheevaluationofindirectemploymentimpacts.−ThechangesinequipmentandenergyexpendituresaretakenfromtheNationalEnergySavingsAnalysis.−DirectemploymentimpactstotheCCWindustryaredevelopedintheManufacturerImpactAnalysis(chapter12).•Output−ChangetocommercialandenergysectoremploymentasaconsequenceofamendedenergyconservationstandardsDetails of the Employment Impact Analysis can be found inchapter 13 of theTSD105NOPR Rulemaking StageMarket &TechnologyScreeningAnalysisEngineeringAnalysisEnergy &Water UseCharacterizationShipmentsAnalysisNationalImpactAnalysisMarkups forEquipmentPriceDeterminationLife-CycleCost andPaybackPeriod AnalysisManufacturerImpactAnalysisNOPRFrameworkDocumentFinalRuleConsumerSubgroupAnalysisEmissionsAnalysisUtilityImpactAnalysisEmploymentImpactAnalysisRegulatoryImpactAnalysis106RegulatoryImpactAnalysis•Purpose–Toinvestigatethenationalimpactsduetonon‐regulatoryalternativescomparedwithmandatoryenergyconservationstandards.–Thenon‐regulatoryalternativesthatDOEanalyzedinclude:•NoNewRegulatoryAction;•ConsumerRebates;•CommercialCustomerTaxCredits;•VoluntaryEnergy‐EfficiencyTargets—ENERGYSTAR;•ManufacturerTaxCredits;•EarlyReplacement;and•BulkGovernmentPurchases.•Method–ModifyNIAspreadsheetmodeltoconsidertheabovescenariosandassesstheireffectonadoptionofequipmentattheproposedstandardlevels.•Output–NationalEnergySavingsandNetPresentValueofthenon‐regulatoryalternatives.Details of the Regulatory Impact Analysis can be found inchapter 17 of theTSD107PublicMeetingTopics1History|RulemakingProcessOverview2Market&Technology|Screening|Engineering3Markups|Energy&WaterUse4Life‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriodAnalysis5Shipments|NationalImpactAnalysis6ManufacturerImpactAnalysis7Misc.NOPRAnalyses8OtherIssuesandClosingRemarks108ClosingRemarksMeetingparticipantsareinvitedtoprovidecommentsonanyotherissuespertainingtothisrulemaking.109HowtoSubmitWrittenCommentsInallcorrespondence,pleaserefertotheCCWrulemakingby:– StandardsforCommercialClothesWashers– DocketNumberEERE‐2012‐STD‐0020– RegulationIdentificationNumber(RIN)1904‐AC77Email:CommClothesWashers‐2012‐STD‐0020@ee.doe.govPostal:CourierMs.BrendaEdwardsMs.BrendaEdwardsU.S.DepartmentofEnergyU.S.DepartmentofEnergyBuildingTechnologiesProgram,BuildingTechnologiesProgram,Suite600MailstopEE‐5B950L’EnfantPlaza,SW1000IndependenceAvenue,SWWashington,DC20024Washington,DC20585‐0121Tel:202586‐2945CommentperiodclosesMay5,2014,11:59PMET110110BackupSlides111CommercialClothesWashers:AnnualEnergyandWaterUse•AnnualEnergy&WaterUse=Per‐CycleUsexCyclesperyear•Per‐cycleenergyusecomponents–Water‐heating–Drying–Machine•Dryingenergyuse(RMC)andmachineenergyuseareafunctionofMEF–Basedonresidentialclotheswasherdata•Numberofcyclesperday–Multi‐Family:Average=3.0;Range=1.5to4.3–Laundromats:Average=4.1;Range=2.8to6.0•Annualenergyandwateruseofbaselinetop‐loadingclotheswasher(1.15MEFJ2,8.90IWF)–Multi‐Family•Energyuse– Electric=1681kWh/year(143kWhWH;1217kWhdrying;321kWhmachine)•Energyuse– Gas=8.93MMBtu/year(2MMBtuWH;6.98MMBtudrying)•Wateruse=401000‐gallons/year–Laundromats•Energyuse=481kWh/year(0kWhWH;0kWhdrying;481kWhmachine)•Energyuse– Gas=21MMBtu/year(4MMBtuWH;17MMBtudrying)•Wateruse=601000‐gallons/yearEnergy Use and Water Use Characterization112NIAResultsTSL1 TSL2 TSL3NationalFull‐Fuel‐CycleEnergySavings(quads)30‐YearShipments0.097 0.114 0.1759‐YearShipments0.03 0.03 0.05NPVofconsumerbenefits(billion2012$)7%DiscountRate(30‐YearShipments)0.31 0.41 0.853%DiscountRate(30‐YearShipments)0.72 0.94 1.997%DiscountRate(9‐YearShipments)0.15 0.19 0.403%DiscountRate(9‐YearShipments)0.24 0.31 0.67CumulativeShipments(millionunits)FrontLoading(BaseCase=2.8million)2.8132.812 2.900TopLoading(BaseCase=3.5million)3.4653.466 3.379Total(BaseCase=6.3million)6.278 6.278 6.278*For thepreservationofgrossmarginpercentagemarkupscenario113Baseline TSL1TSL2TSL3Multi‐Family ApplicationTotalInstalled Cost(2012$) 18531853 1854 1885Mean LCCSavings(2012$)‐238 298 8MedianPaybackPeriod (years)‐0.0* 0.02 3.7%ConsumerswithNetCost‐0 0 46%Consumers withNoImpact‐73 39 0%ConsumerswithNetBenefit‐27 61 53LaundromatApplicationTotalInstalled Cost(2012$) 18531853 1854 1885Mean LCCSavings(2012$)‐204 245 (19)MedianPaybackPeriod (years)‐0.0* 0.01 7.3%ConsumerswithNetCost‐0 0 72%Consumers withNoImpact‐73 39 0%ConsumerswithNetBenefit‐27 61 28*Themedian paybackperiodsof0.0resultfromchangesinsoftwarecontrolstrategies(waterlevels,watertemperatures,andcyclesettingsavailabletotheenduser)thatdonotaffectproductmanufacturingcost.Manufacturersconfirmedthattheywouldnotmakeanyhardwarechangestoachievetheseefficiencylevels.Life‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriodResults– Front‐Loading114Baseline TSL1 TSL2 TSL3Multi‐Family ApplicationTotalInstalled Cost(2012$)12511251 1251 1313Mean LCCSavings(2012$)‐268 268 845MedianPaybackPeriod (years)‐0.0* 0.0* 0.6%ConsumerswithNetCost‐000%Consumers withNoImpact‐110%ConsumerswithNetBenefit‐99 99 100LaundromatApplicationTotalInstalled Cost(2012$)12511251 1251 1313Mean LCCSavings(2012$)‐158 158 681MedianPaybackPeriod (years)‐0.0* 0.0* 0.6%ConsumerswithNetCost‐000%Consumers withNoImpact‐110%ConsumerswithNetBenefit‐99 99 100*Themedianpaybackperiodsof0.0resultfromchangesinsoftwarecontrolstrategies(waterlevels,watertemperatures,andcyclesettingsavailabletotheenduser)thatdonotaffectproductmanufacturingcost.Manufacturersconfirmedthattheywouldnotmakeanyhardwarechangestoachievetheseefficiencylevels.Life‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriodResults– Top‐Loading115Life‐CycleCostandPaybackPeriod– SummaryResultsBaseline TSL1TSL2TSL3TotalInstalled Cost(2012$)Front‐loadingCCW**$1,853 $1,853 $1,854 $1,885Top‐loadingCCW**$1,251 $1,251 $1,251 $1,313Weighted‐Average$1,492 $1,492 $1,492 $1,542FirstYear’sEnergy Cost(2012$)*Front‐loadingCCW**$151 $139 $127 $129Top‐loadingCCW**$245 $209 $209 $180Weighted‐Average$207 $181 $176 $160Mean LCCSavings(2012$)*Front‐loadingCCW**‐$233 $290 $4Top‐loadingCCW**‐$251 $251 $821Weighted‐Average‐$244 $267 $494MedianPaybackPeriod (years)Front‐LoadingCCW**‐0.000.024.21Top‐loadingCCW**‐0.000.000.60Weighted‐Average‐0.000.012.04%ConsumerswithNetCostFront‐loadingCCW**‐0% 0% 50%Top‐loadingCCW**‐0% 0% 0%Weighted‐Average‐0% 0% 20%%Consumers withNoImpactFront‐loadingCCW**‐73% 39% 0%Top‐loadingCCW**‐1% 1% 0%Weighted‐Average‐30% 16% 0%%ConsumerswithNetBenefitFront‐loadingCCW**‐27% 61% 50%Top‐loadingCCW**‐99% 99% 100%Weighted‐Average‐70% 84% 80%**Resultsforfront‐loadingandtop‐loadingareweightedforthetwoapplications(i.e.multi‐familyandlaundromats)116EmissionsImpactsTSL1 TSL2 TSL3EmissionsReductionthrough2030(TotalFFCEmissions)CO2(millionmetrictons)1.47 1.70 2.72CumulativeEmissionsReduction(TotalFFCEmissions)CO2(millionmetrictons)5.0 5.9 8.8SO2(thousandtons)4.0 4.4 8.7NOx(thousandtons)7.3 9.1 11.1Hg(tons)0.00 0.01 0.01N2O (thousandtons)0.07 0.08 0.15CH4(thousandtons)40.8 50.1 66.2ValueofCumulativeEmissionsReductionCO2(million2012$)*32.9to469.1 38.7to555.8 58.8to841.2NOx‐3%discountrate(million2012$)9.10 11.43 13.71NOx‐7%discountrate(million2012$)3.85 4.86 5.63*RangeoftheeconomicvalueofCO2reductionsisbasedonNovember2013estimatesoftheglobalbenefitofreducedCO2emissions.117*Range of the economic value of CO2reductions is based on November 2013 estimates ofthe global benefit ofreduced CO2emissions.DiscountRate TSL1TSL2TSL3Benefits(2012$million)OperatingCostSavings7%2331713%3546108CO2at12.92012$/t*5%224CO2at40.82012$/t3%8913CO2at62.22012$/t2.5%111320CO2at1172012$/t3%232842NOXat2,6392012$/t7%0.290.370.423%0.450.570.68Total7%plusCO2range26to4733to5875to1137%3140853%plusCO2range38to5949to75112to1503%4356122Costs(2012$million)IncrementalProductCosts7%0.000.027.013%0.000.028.58NetBenefits/Costs(2012$million)Total7%plusCO2range26to4733to5868to1067%3140783%plusCO2range38to5949to75103to1413%4356113AnnualizedBenefits&Costs118EmissionsMonetizationResults:PresentValueofNOxReduction(million2012$)Details of the EmissionsMonetization Analysis canbe found in chapter 16 ofthe TSDTSL3%discountrate7%discountrate1 9.10 3.852 11.4 4.863 13.7 5.63Note:Basedonmediumestimate:$2639perton.119UtilityImpactAnalyses:ResultsYearTSL1 23InstalledCapacityReduction(MW)20202.252.43 4.8420258.799.51 18.9203019.621.3 42.4203530.433.1 66.0204050.755.5 111ElectricityGenerationReduction(GWh)202061.766.6 1332025148161 3202030198215 4292035213232 4632040217237 473Details of the Utility Impact Analysiscan be found in chapter 14 of the TSD